Down with Every government earth!

Post Reply New Topic

In fact I think that the very things for which they are so often criticised are actually why they are "good" things.

Their function is to be clunky, cumbersome, lumbering and unwieldy.
.

And just how do you propose to keep peace and order in the society? With armed vigilante gangs? If you want to see anarchy in action, visit Somalia.

Some limited form of government as troublesome and imperfect as it is is better than no government at all.

ruveyn

I am wondering that one name has not been mentioned in this thread: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) - before our anarchist argue further they have a look into Hobbes's Leviathan: A world with an institution, which monopolizes power will end in a constant war of all against all; not because humans are so evil, but because with an absolute monopole of power the only way to survive is via war against each other.

This certainly not a world I want to live in.

---

When look into the European states prior the development of an all-powerful central government we see an endless line of smaller and bigger wars. I really do not see a future by going back behind 1648.

Or look into history books (England prior the Tudors, France prior the Bourbons, Scotland prior 1603, etc.). The big two exception where Germany which developed a highly complex power-sharing model (not that far from today' EU) and Italy.

HAHAHAHAHA ... HAHAHAHAHA .... HAHAHAHA

Interestingly enough, I have a book on political anthropology by a prominent member of the field that states that the idea of human nature put forward by Thomas Hobbes is not taken very seriously in the field, but rather has since been long rejected.

Thus, it would really seem that appealing to Thomas Hobbes would then be rather pointless, particularly given that the modern Hobbesians often make pessimistic assumptions about human nature, but do not extend them so much to governmental actions. As, after all, a "war against all" would demand a rather negative view of human nature, given that the notion of government that I think Hobbes would be promoting would actually be a later invention.

Umm, to be honest, the wars in Europe really seemed to stop after WW2, and a large reason for that really seems to be more related to the atom bomb. In any case, I do not see much reason to claim that the past was flawed solely due to a lack of "all-powerful central government" as after all, during the time past that point, the wars could be bigger, as seen in the 2 world wars, and the napoleanic wars, but also, "all-powerful central government" really sounds more like the flaws that undermined Nazi Germany, the USSR, and fascist Italy. Not only that, but the US government has often been weaker than the European governments, but there was only one civil war and it was related to concerns in changes in the legal structure of the nation.

By whom? Thomas Hobbes is still, besides Hugo Grotius und Samuel von Pufendorf, one of the corner stones of state law and philosophy.



Even a tyrannous government is in the most cases better than no one.



Just a realistic view of the human nature. It better to see humans as foolish and evil than as wise and begin. It is better to play on the save side.



I do not underestimate the horrors of the wars after 1648, the date when modern idea of state finally won, but knowing the history prior it was a progress by controlling the power in one institution. The establishment of rules of international law, of ways to to make pace wasn't possible without the establishment of institutions able to force their will upon every subject.

Even democracy, as we know it, wouldn't be possible without the absolute monarch, because this monarch was able to break all particular powers within his realm.

Anarchy may or may not be good in theory, but it could never be achieved or maintained.

I hate government but I must admit it makes us more free than we could ever be in nature. Man is more free in his natural state but he can't defend it so it is useless.

Anarchy can't work because it can't enforce itself. When it does, it ceases to be anarchy. What is to stop people from just forming a gang, a hierarchy, and eventually a government?

We're talking about different fields. My guy is Morton Fried, an anthropologist. Your guys are political philosophers. In any case, where I come from, I see a much greater influence by Locke and Hobbes.


Nope, not really. As much as people harp on Somalia, there is a study claiming that the anarchy there is significantly better than tyrannical governments.


Not really realistic. I mean, a "war against all" almost depends upon irrational psychosis, and such of the nature that no society would *ever* form. Homo economicus is probably more realistic, or any other approach promoted by a social science, but Hobbes' view? Not that good. Not only that, but I am not certain that there is much of a theoretical safe-side, so much as there are different views, and supporting facts and theories.


Well, honestly, I am not a fan of democracy as we know it. The original foundation of the American government was a distrust of people and a distrust of government particularly of the central government, and I do not find those principles ill-suited. I think that bigger and more centralized governments really are more problematic in what they can do, and the problems inherent in those actions.

This war of everyone against everyone is not that irrational in the absence of a government. In a situation without an effective state monopole of power, how protects me against my neighbour? The only real protection would be, besides faith in his good will, when I would arm myself. My neighbour would be in the same position. In such a situation it be even rational to attract my neighbour, because when I would destroy him I am save in respect of his attract.

Also: A society which passed a certain stage of civilisation needs a central system of laws, of institutions for the interpretation of laws and the execution of laws. This is especially true for any form of commerce. It is not a coincident that the strongest supporter of the Tudor-Dynasty, the real creator of the modern English state, were the merchants. Neither it is a coincident that of the very few areas in which imperial law was absolute supreme in the Holy Roman Empire after the Reform under Emperor Maximilian I were the laws regarding trade and the protection of merchants.

This even much more the case today: How do organize a megalopolis like London with its public services. we could not survive in this city without sewage-systems (the cholera cases in the 19th century were a deadly prove), public transport, a police force which keeps the crime low, hospitals, etc. pp. Only a strong government is in the position to provide such elementary services.



But practical reasons lead to an erosion of the principles - principles which may suited a country when a journey of 1000km was an expensive, dangerous action, which needed preparation and took weeks, if not months. Today is easier and cheaper to travel from New York to London than 1786 from New York to Boston. The same is true for trade.

I see the days of the national governments as the central institution of power counted, but not for the smaller units, but for larger units; the EU is here just a very first step. We will need strong institutions on a global level to handle global problems.

To Dussel.

Without some TIT-FOR-TAT we fall into the Prisoner's Dilemma. In the best instance Governments apply TIT-FOR-TAT on our behalf. Sometimes they don't.

ruveyn

No, it is pretty irrational just in general, I mean, you are literally assuming that the human race is completely psychopathic. Not only that, but it isn't as if a Hobbesian protection agency would be that good, because you would also have cops going around and doing terrible things. Not only that, but I dunno about most people, but I don't get the idea that my neighbor is a psychopath in disguise, and I think that the psychopaths are minority enough not to even be concerned to have to buy weaponry because of. As well, if there are enough people around, then destroying your neighbor becomes a terrible option because then you reveal to your other paranoid neighbors that you are willing to kill people, thus you would be the next person killed. Finally, the assumption of psychotic individuality is just rather extreme in general given that human beings are social animals and cooperated before central governments emerged.


Well, societies benefit from more uniform laws, but this is not a social thing so much as it is a market thing. There are variations in laws between countries, and to some extent within countries as well. As such, I do not see how this argument is exceptionally strong.


Public transport? Charge for it, a lot of cities charge for public transport already, so just get a mechanism for that and improve upon it to make sure that people pay. A police force? Have people pay for the kind of protection they want, the rich already buy security guards, and usually police are not known for arriving quickly so much as providing disincentives by increasing the probability of being caught, they also already serve the wealthy disproportionately if you are going to push that angle. Hospitals? Those are already private in the US, so to pretend that those would need someone to organize them is problematic. Sewage systems though? That sounds difficult, but it does not sound impossible for some form of non-profit, or beneficial agreement between some relevant organizations to take care of.


Umm.... if I agree with those principles then I would likely disagree with your statement. I do not see how the modern age presupposes an activist government, nor do I see many global problems that both exist and that seem as if they are being intelligibly solved. And I also see national governments as possibly having too much authority over heterogeneous areas, and would rather have local powers be more dominant.

I do think we need some government, but its role should be as minimal as possible. The private sector can provide just about any service more efficiently than government.

No, centuries of experience - You wondered why wide parts of Europe are plastered with ruins of castles? Not so much for suppressing the peasants, more for a defence against the next feudal lord. You have all over in Europe prior the indruction of the nation state an sheer less bloodstain of small wars. When the Knight of Elz strengthen his castle the Archbishop of Trier build a new one directly in front the knight's castle. When the Counts of Sponheim build their castle Liebenstein, the Archbishop of Mains must build his castle Sterrenberg, and-so-ond-and-so-on.

The Greek Polis was most of the time in war with any other Polis. It was the big hammer of Romes power, the Pax Romana with a strong central government which provided Europe with its longest period of peace.

When the power of the Emperor declined at the 13th century in Germany, Walter von Vogelweide wrote his famous lines: "untriuwe ist in der sâze, gewalt vert ûf der strâze, fride unde reht sint sêre wunt." and finally appealed to Phillip von Schwaben to restore the peace within the realm as king: Philippe setze den weisen ûf, und heiz si treten hinder sich!

We made this experiment of living without a central government - It failed!



It is, because there is something like an international civil law, which is able to be executed anywhere in civilized world. A set of rules in which is valid and defines very exactly which law has to been used under which jurisdiction. But: judgement is without any executive power a piece of paper.

Any law need the power to execute it, otherwise it is worthless.



Of-cause there is charge: But you need, even if it is privately run, a power which protects the investments, which guaranties that the fairs are really paid, etc. - You need a stable framework and such a frame work can be only established with a strong government - and this is true for any service.

Not police or military. How many police forces or armies do you want running about? Keep in mind the so-call Frei Korps in Germany just before the Nazis came to power.

ruveyn