Government:

[Col. Tartleton]

If I accept I can't trust myself to know whats best for myself, society, etc. in order to warrant government by others, why should I trust some morally bankrupt and corrupt ideologue over me? Or worse 2 groups of ideologues who spend their time running for office and getting into fights. I (the citizen) am probably smarter then they are and i don't spend my time running for office. Why can't I rule my own life?

Who the heck thought a democratic republic was a good idea?

[Boyar Son]

Without government you get chaos, the early people of Mesopotamia acknowledged this. But their form was by a strong king of course, seemed to work well enough.

So long as the people are smart, a democratic republic could work. If the people aren't, well then drive the country into the ground in the name of democracy.

[Denny Crane!]

Welcome to anarchism Statism might potentially not be the only way to organise society though god knows you get trolled to hell for suggesting so.

[Poach]

Personally, I have nothing against Anarchism in principle, but I don't see the human race as being sensible enough to enact it on a large scale. It would simply end up as feudalism or warlordism pretty quickly as stronger communities or groups dominate weaker ones.

[Denny Crane!]

Personally, I have nothing against Anarchism in principle, but I don't see the human race as being sensible enough to enact it on a large scale. It would simply end up as feudalism or warlordism pretty quickly as stronger communities or groups dominate weaker ones.

Well of course the idea would be not to rely on peoples integrity to make it work, I suspect that would be a foolish idea and I don't know anyone advocating that we just trust people to make it work. Don't ask me for all the answers though, I'm not that smart.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

For decades now, oily politicians have manipulated the voters by promises of welfare, education, pensions, healthcare. "Just give us your money and we will build Utopia" they said.

Yet, once a contract was in place with the electorate, the politicians failed to deliver yet still demanded our money with menaces, imprisoning those who refused to pay for what was delivered. My council still sends a tax demand in April for services a full year in advance and jails those who will not pay up front to have their bins emptied in January of next year whether they like it or not.

I can hear the self-righteous screaming. Where is the state that was built to look after your every need and cater to your every whim? Where are the armies of civil servants and social workers, hired at great expense to wipe the arses of the electorate? Where is the welfare state safety hammock that 7 million are now snoozing gently in?

Well, Now there is no money left. It's going to vanish. A good thing.

But what about all that money you're paying? Still happy for the State to charge an extra 20% on everything you buy, well just because it can? Still happy for the State to hand you back only half of what you are paid every month? Still happy for the state to tax your house move, your insurance, your car, your energy usage, your trip on an aeroplane, your private pension, your petrol, your TV? Still happy to know that when you die, what the State couldn't grab from you whilst alive, it now owns by default?

[chilon]

For decades now, oily politicians have manipulated the voters by promises of welfare, education, pensions, healthcare. "Just give us your money and we will build Utopia" they said.

I don't recall any politicians ever talking about "building utopia" when the New Deal spearheaded Social Security, medicare and pensions.

It was more like we need an "insurer of last resort" in many cases to prevent the country from collapse. An unregulated state of nature is generally best to be avoided, although there are some countries in the world that lack a strong central government. If that is your thing you could move there.

[Copperknickers II]

People don't know what's good for them, that's an objective fact. Noone is saying democracy is perfect, but it is the middle ground between Totalitarianism and Anarchy. You have only to take a look at North Korea and Somalia to see why those two extremes are terrible ideas.

[Denny Crane!]

People don't know what's good for them, that's an objective fact. Noone is saying democracy is perfect, but it is the middle ground between Totalitarianism and Anarchy. You have only to take a look at North Korea and Somalia to see why those two extremes are terrible ideas.

I get tired of this misconception every single time a thread comes up. Somalia is not anarchistic, it is a failed state and a product of a couple of centuries of being screwed over by the west and the resulting wars.

I've got a few threads where I can pull out all the responses I need for this as it has been done so many times before so I guess it isn't so bad.

[Dr. Croccer]

I get tired of this misconception every single time a thread comes up. Somalia is not anarchistic, it is a failed state and a product of a couple of centuries of being screwed over by the west and the resulting wars.

I've got a few threads where I can pull out all the responses I need for this as it has been done so many times before so I guess it isn't so bad.

Somalia isn't Anarchy, it's what Anarchy will end up like.

[Denny Crane!]

Somalia isn't Anarchy, it's what Anarchy will end up like.

I disagree (of course ha) it is the worst of statism, whereas perhaps somewhere like the netherlands could be considered the best examples of statism? Limited knowledge but I'd suggest it based off what I know.

But we've been down this road before in other threads I believe. I have an extremely negative view on Europe and Americas past in Africa and how our influence has built many of the most recent problems.

[Dr. Croccer]

I disagree (of course ha) it is the worst of statism

Something that doesn't have a state is ''the worst of Statism''? By that logic laissez-faire capitalism is the worst of Marxism.

But more seriously, I wouldn't say that Somalia is Anarchy, but that it is what Anarchy will probably end up in. In a system without a concrete establishment of checks and balances with various diametrically opposed factions it's likely that it'll descend gradually from stability into increasingly unstable forms. Anarchism just really seems like decentralizing statism to me, not removing it's flaws. Conflicts between ideologically opposed states will just shrink into conflict between factions or ''cooperative governments'' or whatever you want to call it. The notion that all of man's woes are due to the state is horribly naive. The same things that cause annoyance and disgruntlement with the state now will continue to exist in Anarchism.

But we've been down this road before in other threads I believe. I have an extremely negative view on Europe and Americas past in Africa and how our influence has built many of the most recent problems.

And I have a very positive one. Africa would be worse off had there not been colonization.

[SinerAthin]

Mankind will always need a sheperd.

Without one, the flock will fall apart. Its safety reduced. Its prosperity raped. And its future; torn asunder.

[Azog 150]

Anarchism is good in theory- but it has many flaws and is completely unrealistic. Maybe if theres ever a nuclear apocolypse or something then Anarchism may be a possibility.

[Enemy of the State]

Since we are not smart enough to rule ourselves, we should be given a say in the lives of others? Real liberty is not mob rule, but self rule.

[dogukan]

If I accept I can't trust myself to know whats best for myself, society, etc. in order to warrant government by others, why should I trust some morally bankrupt and corrupt ideologue over me? Or worse 2 groups of ideologues who spend their time running for office and getting into fights. I (the citizen) am probably smarter then they are and i don't spend my time running for office. Why can't I rule my own life?

Who the heck thought a democratic republic was a good idea?

Start here
Social Contract Theory

One theory about how political authority can arise is social contract theory. According to social contract theory, consent is the basis of government. It is because people have agreed to be ruled that governments are entitled to rule.
Social contract theorists envisage a transation from a state of nature to a state of government. Individuals come together and form contracts which serve their interests, and these contracts establish rule. Social contract theory has recently been restored to the fore of political philosophy by John Rawls, whose version of the state of nature is the original position.
"http://www.politicalphilosophy.info/socialcontracttheory.html"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Anarchism is good in theory- but it has many flaws and is completely unrealistic. Maybe if theres ever a nuclear apocolypse or something then Anarchism may be a possibility.

What is unrealistic about the state of nature, the way humans lived for most of their existance?
Think about a village in feudal era. What is unrealistic about that village living on without paying tax to anyone?

[Snoopy]

Start here
Social Contract Theory

One theory about how political authority can arise is social contract theory. According to social contract theory, consent is the basis of government. It is because people have agreed to be ruled that governments are entitled to rule.
Social contract theorists envisage a transation from a state of nature to a state of government. Individuals come together and form contracts which serve their interests, and these contracts establish rule. Social contract theory has recently been restored to the fore of political philosophy by John Rawls, whose version of the state of nature is the original position.
"http://www.politicalphilosophy.info/socialcontracttheory.html"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

So it is contract that I was put into upon birth without my consent and I cannot leave without armed thugs coming to beat, kidnap, or murder me? If any private entity attempted to force such a contract on people, they would face a public outcry and accusations of slavery.

[dogukan]

So it is contract that I was put into upon birth without my consent and I cannot leave without armed thugs coming to beat, kidnap, or murder me? If any private entity attempted to force such a contract on people, they would face a public outcry and accusations of slavery.

It is an ABSTRACT concept. Not something on paper. People live as if they have agreed a social contract in certain rules. You born into a society and suddenly you get a concept of rights and wrongs in every area. These are like centuries of cultural, ethical, economic values adding up.

Different political philosophers had different approaches to as why this happened.
Thomas Hobbes said it is because people are kind of bad by nature and not logical and therefore they need to be ruled.
John Locke said people are okay it's just that their private property and trade relations has to be protected by a state.
Kind of like that.

[Snoopy]

It is an ABSTRACT concept. Not something on paper. People live as if they have agreed a social contract in certain rules. You born into a society and suddenly you get a concept of rights and wrongs in every area. These are like centuries of cultural, ethical, economic values adding up.

Different political philosophers had different approaches to as why this happened.
Thomas Hobbes said it is because people are kind of bad by nature and not logical and therefore they need to be ruled.
John Locke said people are okay it's just that their private property and trade relations has to be protected by a state.
Kind of like that.

Okay, I need protection of some kind against criminals. Why does it have to be the Government, the monopoly on coercion? There are any number of solutions that don't require the government.

Centuries of Cultural, Ethical, and Economic values adding up? I don't think so. If you did that, we would be left with Feudal Europe. What we have are coercive nation states that maintain authority with force and refuse competition. I could make a similar argument condoning the Khmer Rouge, Communist China, or the Taliban.

...What?

Can I opt out of my country?

[Dr. Croccer]

So it is contract that I was put into upon birth without my consent and I cannot leave without armed thugs coming to beat, kidnap, or murder me?.

...What?