Do we need a government?

[Andyee]

What I mean is: you all know that despite almost every country has a government, chaos is still destroying people's lives. Those burocrates are corrupt and no matter what they do, they will always get payed for their mistakes, unlike other people. Is that fair?

Why don't we follow Mihhail Bulgakov's vision (one of his character's) in his book "Master and Margarita" and live in a world without the Presidents, ministers, mayors and other burocrates?

What do you think? What will happen?

[ar81]

There are many forms of government.

If you don't have institutions like the ones we know, we still could have companies, which are like virtual governments, as you need to follow their rules.

So, do we need companies?

Even if there are no companies, we still have a government, and some one would take command of the situation. And that guy or group would be the government.

[chrisrushton]

there will always be leaders and followers. that's a fact of the human existence. i'd rather have a well structured government that is democratically elected than a warlord type of community similar to afghanistan (for example).

people in general just aren't capable of being totally responsible for every aspect of their life. it's sad but true.

if you removed the government then there would be a power vacuum and it'd most likely be filled with self serving despot type leaders. that's not what I want, but I'd probably start trying to make moves to be a "worthy despot" because someone would and it might as well be me.

the great thing about governments and other large institutions is that they can allow those who are motivated to flourish but without exploiting those who don't really care about their life.

[Gabo]

To govern is to control using force. There is no difference to me between a group of bureaucrats imposing their will on peaceful citizens and a mafia imposing its will on peaceful citizens. They are both government (legitimacy aside), because they both govern.

If we could truly rid the world of all government, we would live in a peaceful society. No individual or group would be able to force others to do what they say, and people would be free to live their lives as they see fit. Using my definition of government, I would proudly say that anarchy is the best societal structure, and that we definitely do not need a government.

[JMan]

People naturally form groups for companionship, protection and survival. Clans and Tribes still exist in many nations that consist of low levels of population for this very purpose. Even within families, there is typically a household leader, or group of leaders (parents) governing.

The developed world has larger groups, some based on ethnicity, race, or nationality, but in each case, governance, leadership and direction is needed - that is, if chaos is to be avoided, and even then, the fractioned and fettered groups of unruliness will eventually succomb to leadership and governance at smaller levels. Rules and laws are needed. Group identity, a knowing of belonging is needed.

The question is, how large of a group do you want to identify, and what style of governance will carry the day. There are dictatorships, monarchies, democratic republics, etc. But there are also heads of households, tribal chiefs, apartment managers, coaches, teachers, CEO's, clergy - all of which have established and maintained governance.

Even in your example, that world will start forming groups, if even for survival. Groups are also more efficient, as delegation of specific tasks can be assigned to reach a common objective. No one person has to 'do it all'. But to maintain the group, it needs governance.

The cold hard fact about 'chaos' is, it will always be around. So will bad people with bad thoughts and the ability to carry out bad behavior. Man's governance will never achieve utopia, or the total non-existence of vice or crime. I submit to you that those who stir up chaos have belief systems in conflict with those who are governing them. Sometimes it's 'good', sometimes it's 'bad'. Depends on the motivation of the chaos.

There are some who say that there is no vice or crime, it is something 'labelled' by society with its 'laws' and decrees, and therefore is ficticious and debased. What is wrong for you is not 'wrong' for them, based on their own beliefs of 'right and wrong', vs. the common ruled-upon laws establishing a society's 'right and wrong' within that society.

In the book you referenced, I can imagine a world where any person can do what is 'right' or 'wrong' for that matter, in their own mind, irregardless of the consideration of any other person. When his 'right' is my 'wrong', then I am in the right, and he is wrong. But not to him. So, inevidibly, conflict insues, fueled at the basest level of personal belief systems and raw will power - people latch their very identity on belief, so what you believe is really who you are.

But belief can be changed. What I thought was right yesterday can be reasoned out to be wrong tomorrow, given enough logical prostelization, physical evidence (or for some emotional persuasion).

So, what do we do? Question. Question everything. Test everything. Keep your guard up. We are all constantly shaping, changing, or affirming our belief systems and our own understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Our leadership is doing the same thing. We all live in the hope that they are guided in the 'right' direction.

Each group governed in any fashion has rules and laws and code of conduct. They are adhered to only to the extent of their followers motivation to agree to and follow those guidelines for their group. When the group senses no purpose, or a purpose that is 'wrong' in their hearts and minds proposed by their leadership, or a rule or law that is contrary to their belief, this is the point of decision - does the group follow, or do they decent, fraction, organize, and form their own group?

The challenge of leadership it to maintain assimilation and provide direction that instills the sense of togetherness the group needs in order to remain a group. When too many differences and special interests begin pulling in too many directions, the group is transformed into splinter groups each with their own focused direction. The phrase, 'Together we stand, divided we fall' comes to mind.

To destroy a group, fractionalize its interests to the point that the groups within the group have more power fueled by base belief than that of the larger group. Individualize and empower these smaller groups, tie them to base belief systems, and focus them on their own missions and agendas, and the fractionalization will solidify further.

Constantly attack the group's core belief system, it's mottos, it's foundations, it's history, it's identity. Propogandize the group with misinformation.

Introduce new waves of new groups into the larger group from outside to increase the polarities within the larger group. The more differences and diversity is acknowleged, encouraged, and promoted within the larger group, the harder it will be for the larger group to survive. Create laws and guidelines specifically for these new groups and their identity is maintained as it's own, further fractionalizing and empowering the smaller groups, pulling away from the overall group.

Unless identity of the overall group is maintained, with clear direction for common interest and preservation; unless it's focus is to encourage togetherness, assimilation, and group association; unless it governs fairly and justly; it will fail - either gradually or radically. But at every level of these group orgainizations, there is governance.

[Aleksander Krstic]

My intuition tells me goverments=very bad. But I don't really see it from the logical perspective. But like Einstein has said, imagination is more important than knowledge.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Gabo

To govern is to control using force. There is no difference to me between a group of bureaucrats imposing their will on peaceful citizens and a mafia imposing its will on peaceful citizens. They are both government (legitimacy aside), because they both govern.

If we could truly rid the world of all government, we would live in a peaceful society. No individual or group would be able to force others to do what they say, and people would be free to live their lives as they see fit. Using my definition of government, I would proudly say that anarchy is the best societal structure, and that we definitely do not need a government.

In your world of anarchy and peace with no one person forcing another to do what they say, one day there is a conflict.

Bobo likes watching grasshoppers. He sits in the field by the banks of a bubbling brook all day and watches them skip and jump from grass blade to grass blade, smiling ear to ear. The grasshoppers are his friends and he'd do anything to keep them safe.

Alli likes skipping. She skips everywhere - to the park, by the lake, down the street, and even in the fields. By the bubbly brook.

One day, Bobo was watching the grasshoppers jump around, so happy to be there with them watching them coil and spring and flutter their wings before latching on to thier new favorite blade of grass.

Suddenly, Bobo heard a whistle and a giggle and looked up to see Alli skipping across the field toward him. At first, Bobo was happy to see her coming and then she could sit and watch the grasshoppers with him. But then he thought, 'Oh no! What if she squashes one?'

Bobo sprang up from his patch of grass and shouted at Alli to 'Stop!' but she just kept skipping, and sure enough, 'Squish!' 'Squish!' 'Squish' - Bobo's favorite grasshoppers were laid out in flat crunchy brown and green gooey blobs in the grass, unable to avoid Alli's rampage.

Bobo was pissed - he chased after Alli, tackled her, and proceeded to channel his rage and anger into Alli's face and neck and shoulders and ribs as Alli screamed for her dear life.

Alli's older brother Arri raced to the scene from the nearby orchard where he was gathering fruit for himself and only himself and saw the scene exploding in front of him. Arri never really cared much for Alli and always saw her as a pest and a neusance, with all her skipping and singing. Arri couldn't understand how Alli survived because he never saw her gathering any of her own food. She always seemed so happy too, and that especially made Arri jealous. Nonetheless, at the sight of his young skipping singing sister taking helping after helping of Bobo's knuckle sandwiches, something in Arri snapped.

'Get away from my sister!!!' Arri yelled as he ran toward Bobo, pulse pounding. Bobo didn't have a chance, as Arri slammed into the smaller boy, sending them both tumbling down the hillside, over the bank, and into the bubbling brook. Bobo's neck snapped on impact. The boy was dead. Killed by Arri.

What happened in the days and weeks to come was a gathering of family members and friends on both sides of the incedent, each sorting out the best way to proceed. Lines were crossed, bloodlines. Something had to be done. Opinions were expressed. Beliefs were discussed. Groups formed. And governance, at the smallest levels of family organization, developed.

Differences and the feel of the need to protect those differences dictate governance. As long as there are differences, there will be governance.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Governance isn't the same as Anarchy. Anarchy is essentially governance without the State. There's a distinction between those two-the State governs by force whereas a government is merely a system whereby rules are established and processes are streamlined. The difference is that within an Anarchy 51% of the population cannot elect a representative to force the other 49% to comply with their rules. Everything is broken down into small systems and subsystems within which participation is entirely voluntary.

Anarchists will not argue for a conflict-free world. Such would be a utopian notion unfitting of a philosophy espousing the virtues of self-reliance. Of course there's going to be conflict. However, in a world where people are largely expected to manage their own affairs, violence and childishness are far less likely to win the day. The problem with the State is that it becomes a proverbial parent figure which ultimately serves to stunt the growth of adults into strong, independent people.

Would unemployment be a problem in a world where people did not think of themselves merely as employees but as producers of value? I don't think so. Nor would people sue a company when they spill hot coffee on themselves if life were something they took an active part in as opposed to merely consuming. The real problems of our age are like a virus in the mind. The State, or rather the state of the State, is merely a symptom of our collective disease. I think that either Minarchism or Anarchism could work well if put into practice, but nothing will work if the populous is not willing and able to mature. (And I think they are-I look at current events from the standpoint that that's what's happening.)

[Andyee]

Emm... guys... what I meant was: could there be a state where all people are equal? No government, no anarchy... just people, for the people.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

Governance isn't the same as Anarchy. Anarchy is essentially governance without the State. There's a distinction between those two-the State governs by force whereas a government is merely a system whereby rules are established

Would it also remove prisons ? Or at least let each community decide the amount of punishment and brute "force" to be used for each punishment?

[Gabo]

JMan, you give quite a detailed explanation of how government could begin in a society without any. However, this evolution of government only happens because all parties in your story act in a specific way: They do not care about other people or their personal space, and want to force others to acquiesce to their desires. Alli skipping through Bobo's play area, Bobo tackling her, Arri tackling Bobo, and both families trying to impose their beliefs on the other are examples of government.

I admit that absence of government can never be complete, because there will always be some people that try to impose their will on others. For example, children might not know how to behave, and do something wrong. What characterizes a society based on a lack of government is that the majority of people (in this case, the families of both children) do not support violence and coercion. Rather than continue the foolish fighting between the children, intelligent parents and family would sort out the problem by correcting as best as possible any damage done.

JMan, your example illustrates one very important point in my eyes: no system or form of government (or lack thereof) is permanent or uncompromisable. It is up to individual members of society to uphold the type of structure they support, and if they fail to do so that structure will be lost. I would argue, for one, that such a failure has happened over the past 100 years in the United States, as our ignorance and apathy has allowed the government to grow far past its legal boundaries.

I understand that a society without government is a literal impossibility due to some people ignoring societal customs, but I would argue the best society is the one with the least amount of governing as possible.

Originally Posted by Andyee

Emm... guys... what I meant was: could there be a state where all people are equal? No government, no anarchy... just people, for the people.

What you describe is anarchy, as far as political systems go.
The word "anarchy" has a very dirty connotation, synonymous with "chaos" to many.
However, an anarchy (greek for "without ruler") simply means a society without government.

[Andyee]

Ok, let us stick with anarchy then. If it is the right term - why not?))

[Brutha]

Ok, let us stick with anarchy then. If it is the right term - why not?))

Because that means that you have a free market for violence in which organisations like the mafia blossom.

In a free market prices get lower through competition. The price that you have to pay to commit violence should on the other hand be as high as possible.

Would it also remove prisons ? Or at least let each community decide the amount of punishment and brute "force" to be used for each punishment?

That happens the way it works in the US. You get a jury of normal people and they make that decision.
That results in sharper verdicts than those which are made in European countries.

If you get an crowd to decide which punishment the child rapist in there town should receive they are probably much more emotional about it than a impartial judge and don't want that the person ever sees the light of day again.

I understand that a society without government is a literal impossibility due to some people ignoring societal customs, but I would argue the best society is the one with the least amount of governing as possible.

If you get every person to behave the way you want them to behave you don't need government anymore but people don't simply behave the way you want them to behave in our world.

[Andyee]

Well, what can be an alternative to a government? No matter what you say, I won't believe that it is the best way of ruling a country.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Gabo

JMan, your example illustrates one very important point in my eyes: no system or form of government (or lack thereof) is permanent or uncompromisable. It is up to individual members of society to uphold the type of structure they support, and if they fail to do so that structure will be lost. I would argue, for one, that such a failure has happened over the past 100 years in the United States, as our ignorance and apathy has allowed the government to grow far past its legal boundaries.

I understand that a society without government is a literal impossibility due to some people ignoring societal customs, but I would argue the best society is the one with the least amount of governing as possible.

Writing and thinking through the dynamics of government also made me think that maybe there is an ideal size - size of government (or maybe power, control, influence of government), and size/diversity of culture and beliefs it is governing - a size where all things are sustainable and internal tensions and divisions are minimal. Not sure what that is though. I do know this though, fragmentation and empowerment of distinct internal elements will result in collapse or radical reformation of the whole, given enough time and momentum.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Andyee

Well, what can be an alternative to a government? No matter what you say, I won't believe that it is the best way of ruling a country.

What is the best way of ruling a country? Any answer you give is some form of governance, no?

[Andyee]

Maybe you're right... but still. As we see this system doesn't work... but what does?

[WelfarestateChild]

I think the best way is democracy. It gives x population the freedom do improve their own lives and thus their leaders, which makes the leaders infinitately wealthier than their predeseccors who ruled through monarchy for example. People in power under a democracy still have the option to extend their leechness by forming public opinions and getting votes votes.

So, democracy with a relatively free market is so far the best way to rule a country.







But having a ruler is not neccesary to maintain peace and order. It can happen through peoples own interest. If there were no rulers per definition, no state power, people would still be interested in living peaceful and secure lives or what?
I think it is quite clear that we do not need to be ruled. You and i. No 3rd person needs to tell us how to act, in order to act civilized between one another.

[Brutha]

Maybe you're right... but still. As we see this system doesn't work... but what does?

Most people have enough to eat and very few people die a violent death. Historically that means that the system works.

[Aleksander Krstic]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Most people have enough to eat and very few people die a violent death. Historically that means that the system works.

But is that really all we can achieve?

[WelfarestateChild]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Most people have enough to eat and very few people die a violent death. Historically that means that the system works.

Just because government exists does not mean that it is responsible for the safety and well-being of its citizens. People kill and steal if they really want to.

[Andyee]

Most people have enough to eat and very few people die a violent death. Historically that means that the system works.

Oh come on... what kind of system is that? Historically speaking Hitler was a great leader and his system worked perfectly, but that doesn't mean that it was good.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Andyee

Oh come on... what kind of system is that? Historically speaking Hitler was a great leader and his system worked perfectly, but that doesn't mean that it was good.

Um...no it wasn't. A fascist militaristic dictatorship hell-bent on impirialism death and destruction and the very specific annihilation of an entire ethnicity within its own population is not the best option.

[blossom]

I think that is what Andyee was saying Jman!

As for Brutha stating that most people have enough food to eat...is that a joke? Maybe in the developed countries, alot of people have enough to eat, but not most people, in the third world anyway. There are also loads of violent deaths on the road and the rate of crime and murder is on the rise, so I don't know where you are coming from there?

It would be great if we could take all the parts of each ideology that do work and meld them together to make one super system...and I do think that if people were WILLING to take responsability for themselves, then self-respect would be the norm and it would all work naturally! But that's never going to happen...people are lazy and they like others to think for them. Everyone is so used to being controlled that most like it that way...sadly!

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Andyee

Oh come on... what kind of system is that? Historically speaking Hitler was a great leader and his system worked perfectly, but that doesn't mean that it was good.

On the contrary. He was just like a priest, who used propaganda techniques, unknown to many, to cheat people into a doctrine. Except for the brain washing, nothing else worked in a sustainable manner.

His economy required jewish to be raw material for manufacturing, and slave labour. Albert Speer recommended to have slaves in better conditions because lack of training and starvation lowered productivity. Of course, the concern was not about humans, but about productivity.

Hitler also made poor decisions. Not only he decided to go for the oil in Ukraine instead of conquering Moscow, but also he did not listen Rommel when he advised the place where D day would occur, and also he did not support the development of a jet fighter.

[Andyee]

Well yes, there were a lot of slaves and Hitler made a lot of mistakes. But if we go back, before the war has even started: who made Germany a powerful country, were everyone had a job and the patriotism has rose? (man, I should stop... people might start thinking that I support this jerk)

[Brutha]

But is that really all we can achieve?

That a different discussion.
If you don't have perspective you never know what you have till you lost it.

Historically speaking Hitler was a great leader and his system worked perfectly, but that doesn't mean that it was good.

His state didn't even survive 12 years and at the end a lot of people died a violent death and hadn't enough food to eat.

If a system isn't self sustaining is a bad system.

As for Brutha stating that most people have enough food to eat...is that a joke? Maybe in the developed countries, alot of people have enough to eat, but not most people, in the third world anyway.

We were talking about countries with a functioning government that holds the monopol of violence, democracy, the rule of law and a free press.

In most countries in which there are people who starve the government doesn't hold the monopol of violence.
I wouldn't say that the system which developed countries have is the same as that of developing countires.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Because that [anarchy] means that you have a free market for violence in which organisations like the mafia blossom.

This is not true.

Government by a mafia or gang is still government. It is not anarchy.
True anarchy is the total absence of government, by society as a whole.

Originally Posted by JMan

Writing and thinking through the dynamics of government also made me think that maybe there is an ideal size - size of government (or maybe power, control, influence of government), and size/diversity of culture and beliefs it is governing - a size where all things are sustainable and internal tensions and divisions are minimal. Not sure what that is though. I do know this though, fragmentation and empowerment of distinct internal elements will result in collapse or radical reformation of the whole, given enough time and momentum.

Organization and control in a society can certainly exist without government. I would argue the best system is one in which small communities voluntarily agree on rules and customs among themselves. This involves no government, but can create the type of organization necessary for a society to live together. Furthermore, a voluntary organization can also provide means for defending against acts of government made by rogue individuals trying to coerce other members of the community.

The problem with having a government - on any scale - is that once you allow the concept of government, which is control by coercion and violence, the governing party will always grow in power compared to the governed. I would argue that the best government would be small and on a local scale, which is largely what we had during the founding of the United States, but that type of government tends to coalesce into larger and more expansive forms, and can result in a monstrous central government like the one we have today.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Andyee

Well yes, there were a lot of slaves and Hitler made a lot of mistakes. But if we go back, before the war has even started: who made Germany a powerful country, were everyone had a job and the patriotism has rose? (man, I should stop... people might start thinking that I support this jerk)

Hitler got support from bankers and rich people who feared a rise of socialism. So he got lots of money he used to created jobs by improving infrastructure that was used to invade Europe, and then the "investment" was paid with political favors.

Jewish money and properties were confiscated, and jewish themselves were slaves or raw material. Plus, Europe was looted. His economic model was not sustainable, the apparent prosperity is based on slavery and robbery, not based on good management and growth through value added.

Everyone had a job, because of a bubble. And in 1945 germans had to wake up before a painful reality. Germans learned lessons that the rest of the world refuse to learn the easy way. Truth is that a Hitler may show up anywhere, anytime.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Gabo

This is not true.

Organization and control in a society can certainly exist without government. I would argue the best system is one in which small communities voluntarily agree on rules and customs among themselves. This involves no government, but can create the type of organization necessary for a society to live together. Furthermore, a voluntary organization can also provide means for defending against acts of government made by rogue individuals trying to coerce other members of the community.

The problem with having a government - on any scale - is that once you allow the concept of government, which is control by coercion and violence, the governing party will always grow in power compared to the governed.

I recall a theory that suggested that there is a maximum number of people who can get along together. When that number is exceeded, the excess should move elsewhere. The theory was based on the way of a sect in US, which has a very interesting system.

Government does not have the right to control. You are a shareholder of a counmpany called country, and president is a CEO, an employee who is paid by your taxes. Like any shareholder, you expect dividends in your pocket.

Unfortunately, many politicians on the planet feel government was a structure designed for their personal amusement. They have so much spare time that they play games of power, and chess wars using expensive military toys, and spend their time with entertaining arcade war videos, instead of using the money and their time to develop the country and make it grow.

Politicians need to be accountable. An employee who does not do his job is usually fired. Democracy needs a way to fire those who use government for personal amusement.