Over history and before communication/language the leader of tribes or groups was the one who was the strongest. Who ever could pick up the biggest rock. They could develop better tools to make them stronger but in the end it was whoever could use the tool most effectively. Once language and communication came about, we were able to talk with one another to out-maneuver or communicate to fulfill needs to overpower the strongest leader. No longer was it who could pick up the biggest rock but who could communicate and cooperate with each other the best. These people use wits over strength to overcome obstacles. These humans didn't see a person anymore of a person to force to benefit themselves rather they could now look at another person and wonder how they could work with each other to benefits the group/relationship. This lead to the idea that each person should own themselves. We naturally feel this, when kids are playing they often don't like to share because they feel they have ownership over what they've worked for. Even if all the work they did was pick up a toy (much like how we use the resources around us). If no one has ownership over a resource then you have the right to use it however you'd like. We naturally feel that we own the fruits of our labors and that we should be able to use them how we see fit as long as we don't use what we have produced to harm others and take from what they have produced.
Given that we naturally own ourselves and that humans are evolving to become more cooperative than forceful with each other why is it that we still let people tell us what to do? Many of us are arbitrarily born to some land and grow up using whats around. Because others have built a system on this land that you have grown up with they demand that you have to pay for it. The problem I see is that is theft because I did not get to choose whether or not the system was built in that way. Just because I was arbitrarily born into government I have to pay for government, if I don't they will send people with weapons to come and take my money or they will throw me into a room and possibly force me to work off my "debt". I understand that people like to have systems that are stable and worthwhile, but just like the original humans emerging out of the evolution of language cooperation was much more effective at gathering food, defending yourself, and having less fear of being forced. Instead of forcing people to pay for a system that provides good benefits to society I believe we can have a stronger and more powerful and less fearful system if we were willing to pay for systems we liked.
You can relate this to slavery. There was great benefit to having slaves and many were fearful about losing that force over the slaves because they feared that they benefit that was provided could not be provided without slavery. When slavery was abolished the market compensated by having the wealthy plantation owners pay for the labor of the now working slaves. This transferred wealth from the rich to the poor, increased everyone's living conditions, and provided much less fear of having your labor forced from you.
It is now time to apply this same concept to government, laws, taxation, and let people start deciding what is best for themselves as long as it doesn't directly hurt another or their property. We should trade and communicate based on ethics and reputation rather than laws and policy. This has been hard to do in the past because it hard to know someones true reputation but with the age of technology holding everyone accountable for their actions and the ability to spread this information widely is what WILL give us the power to implement a non-violent system. Technology is the turning point into being able to reduce force and increase cooperation just like language was the turning point when humans were first evolving language. The more this message is embraced and spread I believe we can reduce violence to a point of near nothingness where it will only be the people who truly don't understand it will be the ones to use violence.
My question to everyone reading this is: Is there anything the government does that cannot be done through cooperation, non-violence, and without coercion? Or do we truly need to force everyone to do the will of the government?
Many of us are taught that democracy is the answer. Taxation with representation. But what I have seen is that it only slows corruption. I see democracy only imposing the will of the 51% on the 49%. Government is the only one who has the excuse to steal, murder because the 51% agreed to it. as Jared Howe said "Costumes, badges, guns and fancy paper don't create moral exceptions for theft and murder."
Tell me if you think we can have a government/ruler free world or tell me why you think that we need government/rulers in our lives?
It's a trick question. Without the government we couldn't have wars, taxation, victimless crimes, shitty roads, forced medical procedures, etc.
Just kidding. We most certainly could have all the things the government "provides" without resorting to violence and coercion. And, we would be better off financially as well.
Well, we might have difficulty producing all the things that you listed there :P
Government simply can't produce anything that it doesn't confiscate from someone. We're slowly moving away from the perception of need for government in many areas, with the advent of decentralized solutions such as crypto currencies, ride sharing, and community assistance apps such as cell 411. Hopefully, this trend will continue.
Because we haven't yet reached that level of awareness collectively. There are many of us who have and humanity is beginning to undergo a sizeable shift in consciousness however we are some way away from a tipping point. In spite of our self reverence and tech, we are very much a still a species in its infancy; poverty, war and inequality abounds. We still consume sentient beings. We favor personal amalgamation over the well being of all. Greed and the pursuit of power is a virus. Im sure you've heard of the Venus Project - it sounds perfect but:
If there is a revolution or sudden ecological disaster that forces us to come together and work as a community again, do you think we could live in a perpetual vaccum of power and collectively abstain from the virus on this level of consciousness? Or would we just slowly start killing each other over resources again?
My opinion is that anarchists view of human nature is too optimistic. We need police to try and solve murders and deter lawbreaking. I'm not making the claim they are 100% successful, I'm making the claim that police reduce crime, despite making mistakes.
When a natural disaster hits texas, help is sent from Washington. We don't vote on that first, its something 'we' expect the government to do.
Your thing about the 49% V the 51% isn't the way at least a majority look at it. If my party loses the election, I don't suddenly believe I'm being governed against my will, I think the opinions I voted for lost.
I'd say if anarchism had a shot it'd be in tiny hippy communes, but even then I think if there was no democrassy a strongman would take over.
I don't think the United States has the best possible government, in theory there are better systems, however I think it should be recognized that governing systems change, our government was a reaction to what came before, as was England going from an absolutist monarchy to the constitutional republic it is today.
It seems like what you folks want to do is tear down society while not admitting the possibility this distruction could go horribly wrong.
I think it is significant you would not be allowed to have this conversation in NorthKorea.
Furthermore, just for the sake of argument, grant me that 95% of United States citizens are satisfied with this form of government. Maybe not these current polititions, but the system in general is something they are happy with. If this was true, how would you justify changing the way we are governed?.
Couldn't we have people who go out and find murderer's and rapists without the police? Private investigators for example. They would be paid for when someone or a group of people demand that a crime be investigated without forcing everyone to pay for that investigation.
If a natural disater hits texas can't we "expect" that communities and individuals come together to help? not because government is "forcing" them but because it's the right thing?
What's wrong with tiny hippie communes? and who says those communes can't develop into better and stronger communities?
what if you're opinion is a right? if the 51% say we need to give up a right for our saftey, then the 49% are forced to have their rights stripped from them. And this happens in all democracie's that have taxes.
If there is a group of people 3 people, and 2 of them vote that all 3 need to pay for a service, but the 3 doesn't want to pay for it, because the 3rd person is part of an arbitrary group they are forced by the other 2 to pay for it. This is taxes. If the service is war, which is murder but for government, and the 3rd person believes that it is murder and is morally wrong. They are still forced to pay for it. If you still don't think taxes are theft then ask yourself how taxes are collected when someone doesn't want to pay and tries to defend themselves from paying?
"England going from an absolutist monarchy to the constitutional republic it is today" , If you believe that is a constitutional republic is the system of government England, (and America) have today it is very wrong. A constitutional republic is far from democracy that rules both countries today.
The reason we wouldn't be able to have this conversation in North Korea is because of government.
"if this was true, how would you justify changing the way we are governed?.." I'm not wanting to change the way we are governed, I want to abolish government. We should base our interactions based off of morals and ethics and from anyway we can describe government it is morally wrong. We can say this because everything it funds is funded by theft of the people who were arbitrarily born/live there. Theft is violence and none of us should support violence. That's how I justify it.
I don't think an "anarchists view of human nature is too optimistic", I don't believe humans naturally want to harm and take advantage over one another. I don't believe that without government Humans wouldn't be able to come together for their own good. I'm not saying there would be absolutely no fighting between humans, In an age before technology there would be plenty of fighting and much of "he said she said" where no true justice could be found. But now we live in an age where people can be held accountable for their actions and be held responsible when those actions harm another. I don't think we would have been able to survive nearly as well without government before the age of technology, but I think now that we can communicate information farther and faster than ever before it is time to move towards a state of self government where people fix their mistakes because they feel guilt from the social pressures of defying a common moral sense of good, reputation will be what governs people. And when another comes to harm you over a matter where you did not harm anyone, you have the right to defend yourself and ask for help, but not force, from the community to defend yourself.
Do you believe that government is the only way people can behave appropriately? Do you trust the government to tell you what it is to behave appropriately?
I find this conversation interesting because clearly we're coming at this question from different angles. We could have private investigators to investigate crimes, and we could rely on the community after natural disasters. My read on government is that it was created organicly to solve the exact problems we both mention. Right after the French revolution, in England, a strain of conservatism developed in reaction to the bloodbath that resulted from that revolution, the basic idea was "shiiit, that was a mess, let's make sure that doesn't happen here."
I believe that government and socie are two intertwined forces, influencing one another. In the United States, for example, I think our government would be better the more people seriously engage with the system. I think the system was intended to be engaged with, not ignored.
I think society generally tells us how to behave, and government is the mechanism of enforcement.
I think, as an example of a governmental responsibility, that the government should investigate all murder
. Because murder is wrong and justice should be done when murder happens domesticly.
When I say I love
my country, I mean both the idea of America and the society that surrounds me. Ihave not agreed with every war we've fought, but your grandfather being adamantly against World War II in my mind is not a good enough reason for us to have not fought that one.
I'd enjoy talking about this more, but I'm a little drunk and extremely tired.