Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

Just for reference, I'd say the best form of "government" is market anarchy, so there's that.

Anarchy in society is inherently unstable. If you get rid of the existing order, people will soon make a new one.

[Nadaka]

The best form of government would be my benevolent guidance backed by hordes of minions, henchmen and the nigh unlimited power of mad science.

[10ebbor10]

The same problem can be seen in the EU. Almost 50% of the EU's expenditures are agricultural subsidation. Another 30% goes to structural support policies. While not really detrimental, as some regions actually need these policies, problems arise when budget cuts have to be made.

Just for reference, I'd say the best form of "government" is market anarchy, so there's that.

Anarchy in society is inherently unstable. If you get rid of the existing order, people will soon make a new one.

Anarchy doesn't equal disorder. At least, the political idea doesn't do it. It's some sort of bottom to top structure rather than the other way around.

[Nadaka]

Anarchy only works if everyone is rather highly ethical. Unfortunately the psychopaths know this.

[GreatJustice]

I don't mean anarchy as in "no order", I mean anarchy as in "no government". The functions of government would be replaced by private defense agencies, communes, individuals and voluntarily formed communities.

[MonkeyHead]

Ah, so you want groups to form to govern people in the absence of a government?

Anarchy gives way to organized governance one way or the other as it is more organized.

[GreatJustice]

The problem with government isn't that it's too organized, it's that government is inherently involuntary and coercive.

[Nadaka]

I don't mean anarchy as in "no order", I mean anarchy as in "no government". The functions of government would be replaced by private defense agencies, communes, individuals and voluntarily formed communities.

Yes. And then a psychopath comes to power, manipulates the voluntarily formed communities, and wields those private defense agencies against those who are not quite so voluntary. The emergence of despotism is the natural on unavoidable consequence of attempted anarchy. It has happened every single time throughout mankind's history.

You need a government with a structure in place to prevent the rise of despots, who are for more involuntary and coercive than being forced to not be a despot.

[Culise]

The problem with government isn't that it's too organized, it's that government is inherently involuntary and coercive.

And the solution is to force governments to use processes that mitigate these involuntary and coercive tendencies; this was one of the notions behind democracy, after all.  The solution, it seems to me, isn't really to simply eliminate government and replace it with private entities without checks (since what would enforce these checks?), in the hope that the root cause of those involuntary and coercive tendencies (the people who comprise the government) simply will set them aside; in the absence of government, people would simply create their own.  If you give a private corporation the necessary powers of government in order to safeguard itself against external threats, it necessarily becomes a government in effect, even if not in name.

[Eagleon]

The problem with government isn't that it's too organized, it's that government is inherently involuntary and coercive.

I think the problem is that it's too organized for what we know (or don't know). Basing an entire government's structure on assumptions made at one point in time ignores improvements in sociology, psychology, etc. that may yet come. Being more flexible about knowing when we've failed, and taking steps to rework bad programs more often could help with this a lot.

Excuse my ignorance, has there ever been a country without election terms, and much freer removal by vote? Where a Senate position would just be a regular job, which you could be fired from for pretty much anything? As it is, it's very difficult for us to remove someone from office for behavior that any sane person would fire someone for on the spot. I realize that part of the problem is getting a majority, but it's also limited pretty severely by needing to be started months in advance.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The problem, really, is size. The larger a government becomes the harder it is to keep it relatively uncorrupt and efficient. Also, yes "inherently involuntary and coercive", government will always be hated by someone for some reason. The fact of the matter is no government can cater to more than a few people at a time.

All countries should be split up into smaller countries via population with the only common defense and heritage uniting them. But then the problem is keeping them apart, thats also pretty much impossible without stepping on peoples rights.

An ideal government is impossible, there are too many different dispositions to make everyone happy.

[Eagleon]

An ideal government is impossible, there are too many different dispositions to make everyone happy.

No one sane looks for ideals or Utopias. That doesn't preclude looking for something better. There have been successful governments, within varying criteria for 'success'. Similar to designing an engine - you can't get ideal parts, but you can use the best parts and fit the parameters to the job at hand, so that it does its work as efficiently as you can make it.

[Nadaka]

The problem, really, is size. The larger a government becomes the harder it is to keep it relatively uncorrupt and efficient. Also, yes "inherently involuntary and coercive", government will always be hated by someone for some reason. The fact of the matter is no government can cater to more than a few people at a time.

All countries should be split up into smaller countries via population with the only common defense and heritage uniting them. But then the problem is keeping them apart, thats also pretty much impossible without stepping on peoples rights.

An ideal government is impossible, there are too many different dispositions to make everyone happy.

Factually incorrect. The smaller the government, the easier it is to corrupt.

And splitting a country based on common uniting heritage is inherently impossible in a blended community or one that allows immigration of any kind. There will always be people of different heritage living together, the "final solution" is not getting rid of them in a futile attempt at forming a homogenous society.

[GreatJustice]

I don't mean anarchy as in "no order", I mean anarchy as in "no government". The functions of government would be replaced by private defense agencies, communes, individuals and voluntarily formed communities.

Yes. And then a psychopath comes to power, manipulates the voluntarily formed communities, and wields those private defense agencies against those who are not quite so voluntary. The emergence of despotism is the natural on unavoidable consequence of attempted anarchy. It has happened every single time throughout mankind's history.

You need a government with a structure in place to prevent the rise of despots, who are for more involuntary and coercive than being forced to not be a despot.

Most people aren't psychopaths, though. Anyhow, for a despot to gain power in an anarchistic society, he would have to work his way through competing PDAs -with more being founded if any are subverted, since membership would be voluntary-, communes -many of which would have specific utopian/ideological goals that don't mesh with despotism-, individuals that subscribe to none of the above and avoid centralized defense agencies altogether, and so on. If a despot wants to conquer a country, he needs only get himself elected through promises of legal plunder, or he can seize power militarily by forcing the state to surrender, thereby giving him control of the entire country. If a despot tries that on an anarchistic or semi-anarchistic society, he has to practically "conquer" each individual one by one and erect his own systems of control from the ground up, as he has no preexisting institutions to turn to his benefit. That's part of why Ireland was able to resist English rule for so long, as each "kingdom" could range from a castle and small army to a farmer, his cousin and his dog.

The problem with government isn't that it's too organized, it's that government is inherently involuntary and coercive.

And the solution is to force governments to use processes that mitigate these involuntary and coercive tendencies; this was one of the notions behind democracy, after all.  The solution, it seems to me, isn't really to simply eliminate government and replace it with private entities without checks (since what would enforce these checks?), in the hope that the root cause of those involuntary and coercive tendencies (the people who comprise the government) simply will set them aside; in the absence of government, people would simply create their own.  If you give a private corporation the necessary powers of government in order to safeguard itself against external threats, it necessarily becomes a government in effect, even if not in name.

But the problem with the government is that it doesn't allow for actual checks on itself in the form of competition and non-participation. It claims a geographic area as it's own not through legitimate homesteading or productive use of the land, but through arbitrary declarations made to other governments, and you get no counterclaim even if you were there before the government was. If people are dissatisfied with the government and decide to form a competing government, armed goons will come to throw them in a cage.

The solution isn't to give a single private corporation the powers of the government; if the US Government renamed itself "America Incorporated", it would functionally be a government with all the problems that entails. The solution is to remove the government's monopoly entirely. If you don't think the US government is really helping you, you switch over to someone else that you think will do a better job. The "checks" are the customers themselves, who are unlikely to want to pay high premiums for their defense company to try to take over the world or enslave them. Quite a bit more powerful than having your 1/360,000,000's sway over the entire nation heard, really.

The problem, really, is size. The larger a government becomes the harder it is to keep it relatively uncorrupt and efficient. Also, yes "inherently involuntary and coercive", government will always be hated by someone for some reason. The fact of the matter is no government can cater to more than a few people at a time.

All countries should be split up into smaller countries via population with the only common defense and heritage uniting them. But then the problem is keeping them apart, thats also pretty much impossible without stepping on peoples rights.

An ideal government is impossible, there are too many different dispositions to make everyone happy.

Factually incorrect. The smaller the government, the easier it is to corrupt.

A government without strong powers isn't capable of causing serious problems, though. If the government is unable to seriously "regulate" or "control" anything, corrupting them is a waste of time, whereas a huge, powerful government might be harder to take over, but it is far more valuable.

[MonkeyHead]

Yet look what did actually happen to Ireland - inherantly too weak to fight off outside invasion and influence. Power blocs providing a unified goal will always win against a disorganised decentralized system where everyone is looking out for themselves.