How is government morally feasible?

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Random thought.

I was watching a few videos on Youtube about anarchism, and I realised how immoral the concept of government is. Think about it, the minority ultimately rule over the vast majority, whether it be a autocracy or an oligarchy or whatever. I know that, in a way, it is for the benefit of the masses, but I'm not talking about whether it's economically viable.

What's your opinion?

[Stalins Ghost]

Depends what form government takes.

But thus far, we've yet to find a form that is solidly sound on a philosophical level.

[Taiji]

What would be a better option?

[Monarchist]

Well, human beings have to surrender a few "rights" in order to live peacefully. Without a central authority to stop murderers from having fun in the streets, we wouldn't go very far as a species. I tend to agree with your sentiment for the most part, but without a government system (anarchy), oligarchs would simply sprout up in the form of warlords and local "bosses" anyway. At least in the Western sense of government, the majority people can accept its reality and usefulness. An anarchy would simply lead to a huge government taking power in the vacuum. Ironically, that makes anarchy a totalitarian concept, in terms of its future consequences.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

delete

[Claudius Gothicus]

Well, human beings have to surrender a few "rights" in order to live peacefully. Without a central authority to stop murderers from having fun in the streets, we wouldn't go very far as a species. I tend to agree with your sentiment for the most part, but without a government system (anarchy), oligarchs would simply sprout up in the form of warlords and local "bosses" anyway. At least in the Western sense of government, the majority people can accept its reality and usefulness. An anarchy would simply lead to a huge government taking power in the vacuum. Ironically, that makes anarchy a totalitarian concept, in terms of its future consequences.

May I call you Thomas Hobbes from now on?

Now I don't want to get too Utopian but the truth is we don't really need the government to stop murderers, we could have private initiative regarding security issues(like mercs) or armed unions to defend their workers rights and lives. Oligarchs, why? Oligarchies and Aristocracies raise in places where there's uneducated masses, anarchism aims to have an equally educated population in order to get to a democratic system where every citizen has a conscience regarding self-government.

Practical Anarchism would have to work as small directly democratic City-States surrounded by it's agrarian land without a major population growth that came from a conscious decision by each city's population to avoid overpopulation.
Otherwise it would end up in large hegemonies.

Your point is a valid one the State and the Government are necessary evils.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I feel like I've took a step back and realised how ridiculous is it. How can a group of people decide how the rest of us should live? Why can't we have sex at age fifteen? Why can't we take drugs wantonly? Why can't homosexuals get married?

Obviously it isn't a simple case of allowing people to do whatever they want, nothing is ever that simple. It's a difficult subject, because government supporters commonly make the argument: "Then why wouldn't we be able to murder and steal at will?".

Well, human beings have to surrender a few "rights" in order to live peacefully. Without a central authority to stop murderers from having fun in the streets, we wouldn't go very far as a species. I tend to agree with your sentiment for the most part, but without a government system (anarchy), oligarchs would simply sprout up in the form of warlords and local "bosses" anyway. At least in the Western sense of government, the majority people can accept its reality and usefulness. An anarchy would simply lead to a huge government taking power in the vacuum. Ironically, that makes anarchy a totalitarian concept, in terms of its future consequences.

Some sort of private law enforcement? It's not natural for people to run around murdering each other. Yeah I realise that there will always be megalomaniacs, but that's still government. I'm not an anarchist, I'm just intrigued and stumped.

[Monarchist]

Some sort of private law enforcement? It's not natural for people to run around murdering each other. Yeah I realise that there will always be megalomaniacs, but that's still government. I'm not an anarchist, I'm just intrigued and stumped.

The problem for most modern people (who believe in "Democracy") is that private law enforcement would be unaccountable to the people. Technically, national and federal governments across the world are their own private corporations. They're just private corporations which have been given legitimacy by the populations who voted them in. Of course, that isn't the case in dictatorships, where it's basically a private company that has taken over a nation. There is no such thing as a public company, but only private companies which are sometimes accountable and sometimes not.

A public company (i.e. the modern concept of a "government") would only exist in a world where everyone was psychic and could read each others' thoughts.

[Enemy of the State]

Government has always been bound to a different moral code than us common folk. It's despicable. For several millenia, they've have murdered us, they've stolen from us, they tell use how to live our lives. Government is nothing but a group of people calling themselves the government. And we've bought into their lies.

Abolish government.

[Time Commander Bob]

A government is necessary in order to maintain order and create a fair and just society. Without a government, those who are powerful either through either wealth or strength would inevitably take advantage of others. Sure, many people would voluntarily work together, but when dealing with crime and enforcing a justice system a government is necessary as private institutions would most likely be biased (not saying that the state is completely unbiased, but at least it must adhere to certain rules and regulations). How would a stateless society provide universal education or healthcare to the poor?

A society without government would probably create one to fill the vacuum due to the sheer instability created. In addition, a society with a democratic government arguably provides people with more power than one with no government, where the weak would be at the mercy of the powerful.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Government has always been bound to a different moral code than us common folk. It's despicable. For several millenia, they've have murdered us, they've stolen from us, they tell use how to live our lives. Government is nothing but a group of people calling themselves the government. And we've bought into their lies.

Abolish government.

Exactly. When people speak of anarchism they picture lawlessness. I've realised that it doesn't have to work like that.

[TWoxy]

Exactly. When people speak of anarchism they picture lawlessness. I've realised that it doesn't have to work like that.

How come?

[Brain_in_a_vat]

How come?

Law and government don't have to be inderdependent. If you disregard what Monarchist said about government essentially being a corporation, some kind of private company could fill the role. I haven't studied anarchism very much to be honest .

[Taiji]

The expression "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" springs to mind.

[Taiji]

I think of the justice system as the protection racket of choice for the discerning

[cfmonkey45]

Random thought.

I was watching a few videos on Youtube about anarchism, and I realised how immoral the concept of government is. Think about it, the minority ultimately rule over the vast majority, whether it be a autocracy or an oligarchy or whatever. I know that, in a way, it is for the benefit of the masses, but I'm not talking about whether it's economically viable.

What's your opinion?

Well, so far, the government hasn't infringed on any of my rights, those to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They also protect me in return for tax dollars, which also go to the upkeep of infrastructure, free schools, and subsidies for a college or university. They also have police and firefighters that protect me, as well as a military that ensure the safety of the entire nation along with dozens of agencies.

I'd say that aside from the abstract awkwardness of nationalism and statehood, it's a very moral--if inefficient--entity.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

The rights which you have been socialised into believing are the only rights you should have .

[cfmonkey45]

The rights which you have been socialised into believing are the only rights you should have .

What other rights?


Should I have the right to rob banks or shoot anyone I see on sight?

[Brain_in_a_vat]

What other rights?


Should I have the right to rob banks or shoot anyone I see on sight?

Rights, or non-rights.

[cfmonkey45]

Rights, or non-rights.

I should have the right to run down the street naked,

Why? Practically, you get a slap on the wrist unless there are children around, then you are treated as a paedophile.

drink myself to death,

You can. No law against it. One less idiot in the world.

and in places where it is still deemed unnacceptable by a few fatcats, have sex with my male friend.

Yeah, the only place where that's illegal is where accusing someone of rape gets you thrown in jail, and where women get beaten if they show skin.

Once again, I have not studied anarchism in depth.

Anarchism is a paradox. They expect Law and Order without Law existing. It seriously begs the question of what more rights could you possibly want within reason that you don't already have in a liberal democracy? That, and who's going to pay for your medical bills, fire and safety, as well as health inspection, sanitation, etc. All government mandated/subsidized.

Anarchist society does not = lawlessness.

Somalia begs to differ.