Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLong  Government has a few more features than what you've described. The big one is that a government will not let anyone compete with it or withdraw from it, at least in the geographical area it has claimed for itself. It's based on force and coercion, and if we think such things are bad, how can we think government can be good? |
I don't think that's true. You're assuming, first of all, that a government is always over a nation, and furthermore, that it's a nation with a geographical presence. This is not always true. From micronations to virtual world governance to more well-known things like student clubs and organizations, businesses, municipalities, counties, states, and so forth. These are all forms of government: small groups of people charged with the stability of their own societies.
Nations achieve sovereignity by Weber's definition: A sovereign state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. Ergo, the national military. The military, or "force and coercion" as you call it, is the final arbiter of mediation a government may use to enforce reached agreement. You may or may not disagree with Abraham Lincoln's refusal to acknowledge the South's secession; we might wonder, today: wouldn't it be easier if that entire swath wasn't the responsibility of the U.S. and didn't vote? Or would we have problems similar to Israel, sitting right on our borders? Who can be sure about that "what-if"?
The usage of force and coercion is not a necessary feature of government; it is merely a typical one. If we consider force and coercion to be a bad thing, then we may state that governments that use it are bad governments, but it does not, by itself, invalidate the concept of government at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLong Ultimately, as there would be more and more of us, we would be forming in essence our own court system. |
That's just the thing. A court system is a system of governance. You are charging a subset of your society (in this case, Steve) with the stability of the society (threatened by our disagreements). A meritocracy (government by the deserving, as I understand it) is still a government. You are, in fact, describing the pre-Saul government of Israel, typified in the Book of Judges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith I actually envision that some of the issues of a successful Anarchy cannot be solved at our current level of thinking. |
Hrm... that's a great thought, but I wonder whether or not you're giving too much credit to conscious individuals. It's not terribly arguable, either way, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinG And if the United States isn't the greatest country on Earth why is everyone trying to get in? We have the largest rate of applied citizenship in the world, and the least amount of people trying to leave. |
Ehm. It isn't because we have the highest GDP growth in the world? I guess if you define the greatness of a country by how many people are trying to get in, sure the United States is the greatest.