Is government necessary?

Is government necessary? Could we not live without government?

I never completely bought the idea that government is necessary because humans are too selfish. If humans are too selfish then government is also going to be selfish, the difference is that government has authority and can abuse people. What i don't like about capitalist governments is that they protect the rich from the poor, giving them services, security and privileges and enforce the system of unjust wealth distribution. It's like a plutocracy, government run by the rich or for the rich.

Governments are necessary. I wouldn't want to live in a place without government, the government protects the people more than some think. If the government was to disappear and leave everything the way it was, cooperations would have full reign, I never want to see that happen. So basically all you would be changing is government for cooperate government.

I know I'd rather live under North Korea's government than what a lot of Libertarians in the states want us to live under.

Governments are necessary. I wouldn't want to live in a place without government, the government protects the people more than some think. If the government was to disappear and leave everything the way it was, cooperations would have full reign, I never want to see that happen. So basically all you would be changing is government for cooperate government.

I know I'd rather live under North Korea's government than what a lot of Libertarians in the states want us to live under.

ElectronicMagic

But what's so bad about cooperation? Or did you mean corporations? In the case of corporations, corporations cannot really exist without government because they are part of government or at least legal persons. Legal entities cannot exist without government to incorporate them.

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

Governments are necessary. I wouldn't want to live in a place without government, the government protects the people more than some think. If the government was to disappear and leave everything the way it was, cooperations would have full reign, I never want to see that happen. So basically all you would be changing is government for cooperate government.

I know I'd rather live under North Korea's government than what a lot of Libertarians in the states want us to live under.

X4D

But what's so bad about cooperation? Or did you mean corporations?

Yeah, I meant corporations. I have been typing quite awful this morning. :lol:

Its still better than anarchy...DJ_Novakain

Thats because anarchy essentially doesn't work.

Thats because anarchy essentially doesn't work. TheOddQuantum

It can work. People just havn't given it any chance. Anarchism can work but it takes time and humans aren't ready for it yet. What i like about anarchism is that it's optimistic about human nature. It sees humans as inherently good and can get along without government control. Statist theories like conservatism see humans as inherently violent and anti-social and need to be controlled by government. A stateless society is a long-term desirability, which is also the long-term goal of communism.

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"]Its still better than anarchy...TheOddQuantum

Thats because anarchy essentially doesn't work.

[QUOTE="TheOddQuantum"]Thats because anarchy essentially doesn't work. X4D

It can work. People just havn't given it any chance. Anarchism can work but it takes time and humans aren't ready for it yet. What i like about anarchism is that it's optimistic about human nature. It sees humans as inherently good and can get along without government control. Statist theories like conservatism see humans as inherently violent and anti-social and need to be controlled by government. A stateless society is a long-term desirability, which is also the long-term goal of communism.

[QUOTE="TheOddQuantum"]Thats because anarchy essentially doesn't work. X4D

It can work. People just havn't given it any chance. Anarchism can work but it takes time and humans aren't ready for it yet. What i like about anarchism is that it's optimistic about human nature. It sees humans as inherently good and can get along without government control. Statist theories like conservatism see humans as inherently violent and anti-social and need to be controlled by government. A stateless society is a long-term desirability, which is also the long-term goal of communism.

Wrong. Conservatism isn't an ideology in itself, it's just a philosophy that prioritizes tradition and traditional values. You can have communist-conservatism and you can have anarchist-conservatism...it all depends on what the traditional values are.

Is government necessary? Could we not live without government?

I never completely bought the idea that government is necessary because humans are too selfish. If humans are too selfish then government is also going to be selfish, the difference is that government has authority and can abuse people. What i don't like about capitalist governments is that they protect the rich from the poor, giving them services, security and privileges and enforce the system of unjust wealth distribution. It's like a plutocracy, government run by the rich or for the rich.

X4D

we could live without one. there is the chance it might be ugly.

we can also live like cavemen. they didnt have a government.

but to advance the species it seems a little more secure this way

some people are just plain evil

some people are just plain dumb

we need governemnt to control those people

Anarchy would actually casue more exploitation then capitalism, so would a night watchman society even.

until the technology to allow Communism occurs, yes. and it will be a long way yet.Hewkii

It's not technology. Technology helps but it's humans which will need to change from being greedy and anti-social to more altruistic, kind and less violent. All the technology in the world will not change anything unless humans will change.

I know I'd rather live under North Korea's government than what a lot of Libertarians in the states want us to live under.

ElectronicMagic

Do you know what Libertarianism even is?

until the technology to allow Communism occurs, yes. and it will be a long way yet.Hewkii

What technology would we need to implement Communism?

Is government necessary? Could we not live without government?

I never completely bought the idea that government is necessary because humans are too selfish. If humans are too selfish then government is also going to be selfish, the difference is that government has authority and can abuse people. What i don't like about capitalist governments is that they protect the rich from the poor, giving them services, security and privileges and enforce the system of unjust wealth distribution. It's like a plutocracy, government run by the rich or for the rich.

X4D

Why do you always create topics about the same subject? It's either about "communism is a good thing" or "anarchy is a good thing". Why not try something different for a change?

And I swear that you've copy pasted that from one of your previous topics.

Is government necessary? Could we not live without government?

I never completely bought the idea that government is necessary because humans are too selfish. If humans are too selfish then government is also going to be selfish, the difference is that government has authority and can abuse people. What i don't like about capitalist governments is that they protect the rich from the poor, giving them services, security and privileges and enforce the system of unjust wealth distribution. It's like a plutocracy, government run by the rich or for the rich.

X4D

If you want a good example of a country with essentially no real government, you can take a look at Somalia.

Needless to say, I think I'll take a country with a stable government.

Even in hunter/gatherer societies there was some form of hierarchy; a primative government if you will.MattUD1

Is government necessary? Could we not live without government?

I never completely bought the idea that government is necessary because humans are too selfish. If humans are too selfish then government is also going to be selfish, the difference is that government has authority and can abuse people. What i don't like about capitalist governments is that they protect the rich from the poor, giving them services, security and privileges and enforce the system of unjust wealth distribution. It's like a plutocracy, government run by the rich or for the rich.

X4D

I don't agree or disagree with what you said, but I want to point out some flaws in your argument.

Animals are not all inherently selfish - some are, some aren't, but humans, because of our consciousness, can go against our genetic programming, which is occasionally to act selfishly, although of course a lot of humans are selfish in some specific circumstances.

Because humans are selfish does not necessarily mean governments are selfish - governments may consist of humans, but that does not mean in any way that they will be selfish at all.

The government has authority not so it can abuse people, but so that it can impose some semblance of order - occasionally a situation may arise where a government is corrupt, or makes a decision which, with hindsight, seems wrong, but for the most part they are a good thing.

I don't think your criticism of a capitalism government is particularly just. Please justify and clarity what you mean by "protect the rich from the poor [...] unjust wealth distribution".

Is government necessary? Could we not live without government?

I never completely bought the idea that government is necessary because humans are too selfish. If humans are too selfish then government is also going to be selfish, the difference is that government has authority and can abuse people. What i don't like about capitalist governments is that they protect the rich from the poor, giving them services, security and privileges and enforce the system of unjust wealth distribution. It's like a plutocracy, government run by the rich or for the rich.

X4D

[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

I know I'd rather live under North Korea's government than what a lot of Libertarians in the states want us to live under.

-Austin-

Do you know what Libertarianism even is?

thats not even the most uninformed thing hes said....

I don't agree or disagree with what you said, but I want to point out some flaws in your argument.

Animals are not all inherently selfish - some are, some aren't, but humans, because of our consciousness, can go against our genetic programming, which is occasionally to act selfishly, although of course a lot of humans are selfish in some specific circumstances.

Because humans are selfish does not necessarily mean governments are selfish - governments may consist of humans, but that does not mean in any way that they will be selfish at all.

The government has authority not so it can abuse people, but so that it can impose some semblance of order - occasionally a situation may arise where a government is corrupt, or makes a decision which, with hindsight, seems wrong, but for the most part they are a good thing.

I don't think your criticism of a capitalism government is particularly just. Please justify and clarity what you mean by "protect the rich from the poor [...] unjust wealth distribution".

JJ4545

There's another thing about government, as well, which is that it can offer a solution to a number of problems in economics.

One of these is the Prisoner's Dilemma, a situation where two people can reach the best outcome if both cooperate, but where one person who doesn't cooperate will get a bigger reward if the other person does cooperate. Acting alone, the logical thing for both to do (whether or not the other guy is selfish) is not to cooperate, despite the fact that both people following this path will lead to a worse outcome. With an overseeing authority, however, the problem can be resolved quite easily.

Another is the problem of the Tragedy of the Commons, where a resource (such as fish, for example) is not owned by any one single person, so no person feels that it's their responsibility to maintain the resource, resulting in the resource being overused to obliteration, a clearly undesirable result. Here, again, an overseeing authority can make sure that this doesn't happen by restricting what the people can do.

I've always found the idea to be more than a little naive that humans can naturally do on their own what government requires them to do.

What technology would we need to implement Communism?

-Austin-

basically, Robot overlords and droids to do the manual labor.

in that way, all of Humanity would be the middle class.

[QUOTE="JJ4545"]

I don't agree or disagree with what you said, but I want to point out some flaws in your argument.

Animals are not all inherently selfish - some are, some aren't, but humans, because of our consciousness, can go against our genetic programming, which is occasionally to act selfishly, although of course a lot of humans are selfish in some specific circumstances.

Because humans are selfish does not necessarily mean governments are selfish - governments may consist of humans, but that does not mean in any way that they will be selfish at all.

The government has authority not so it can abuse people, but so that it can impose some semblance of order - occasionally a situation may arise where a government is corrupt, or makes a decision which, with hindsight, seems wrong, but for the most part they are a good thing.

I don't think your criticism of a capitalism government is particularly just. Please justify and clarity what you mean by "protect the rich from the poor [...] unjust wealth distribution".

GabuEx

There's another thing about government, as well, which is that it can offer a solution to a number of problems in economics.

One of these is the Prisoner's Dilemma, a situation where two people can reach the best outcome if both cooperate, but where one person who doesn't cooperate will get a bigger reward if the other person does cooperate. Acting alone, the logical thing for both to do (whether or not the other guy is selfish) is not to cooperate, despite the fact that both people following this path will lead to a worse outcome. With an overseeing authority, however, the problem can be resolved quite easily.

Another is the problem of the Tragedy of the Commons, where a resource (such as fish, for example) is not owned by any one single person, so no person feels that it's their responsibility to maintain the resource, resulting in the resource being overused to obliteration, a clearly undesirable result. Here, again, an overseeing authority can make sure that this doesn't happen by restricting what the people can do.

I've always found the idea to be more than a little naive that humans can naturally do on their own what government requires them to do.

Interesting use of game theory, I didn't realise it could be applied to these sorts of situations - I'd always used it in a biological context previously.

Yes, Government is neccessary and it will always be around, even animals have some form of government, going as low as Ants to as high as Lions. I couldn't imagine a place without some form of government. :?michaelP4

Ants are more of a natural progression of beings made out of multiple forms of a lower complexity (like multicellular organisms).

Interesting use of game theory, I didn't realise it could be applied to these sorts of situations - I'd always used it in a biological context previously.

JJ4545

It actually has quite a wide variety of applications that many don't think about, really. The Cold War is perhaps the largest example of the Prisoner's Dilemma in human history - it was in both the US's and the USSR's interest not to be pointing thousands of nukes at each other, but if one country disarmed and the other country didn't, the disarmed country would be screwed, thus forcing both countries to continually be scared out of their wits at the other country's nukes.

It is necessary, but not to the extent we have now. Governments are proficient at exerting force and little else. This is necessary to prevent the violation of an individuals rights. But defense of a nation's sovereignty and the security of its individuals rights are all a government should be responsible for. Frattracide

This is exactly the problem. The belief in natural human rights. But the fact is that nature doesn't give us any rights. Does a human have any more right to live, than say a dog or a cat?

Individual rights are a fiction invented by greedy human beings to further their own interests. I contend that all "rights" are an invention of the human mind. To the extent that they exist at all, it is as a social/political agreement between people concerning establishment of a baseline of mutual respect and deference. Once we'll except that there is no such thing as natural individual rights, we'll be more altruistic and less defensive with each other.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]It is necessary, but not to the extent we have now. Governments are proficient at exerting force and little else. This is necessary to prevent the violation of an individuals rights. But defense of a nation's sovereignty and the security of its individuals rights are all a government should be responsible for. X4D

This is exactly the problem. The belief in natural human rights. But the fact is that nature doesn't give us any rights. Individual rights are a fiction invented by greedy leaders to further their own interests. I contend that all "rights" are an invention of the human mind. To the extent that they exist at all, it is as a social/political agreement between people concerning establishment of a baseline of mutual respect and deference. Once we'll except that there is no such thing as natural individual rights, we'll be more altruistic and less defensive with each other.

I don't think anybody's behavior improves just because they accept a concept that people came up with is just a concept.

Why do you always create topics about the same subject? It's either about "communism is a good thing" or "anarchy is a good thing". Why not try something different for a change?

And I swear that you've copy pasted that from one of your previous topics.

BlackAlpha666

I didn't copy paste it and if you've actually seen how many religion threads there are in this forum, you wouldn't be so quickly to complain about the second similar subject i opened.

Wrong. Conservatism isn't an ideology in itself, it's just a philosophy that prioritizes tradition and traditional values. You can have communist-conservatism and you can have anarchist-conservatism...it all depends on what the traditional values are.jointed

There still needs to be control and structure.