What is Government? can we live without it?

[Legendary Apophis]

Why?

Is it that difficult to figure out why? It seems logical enough as to why it would go this way and not yours (too much like doom-movies rebuild positive scenario)

[[KMA]Avenger]

Well, yes because you fail to take into account that people want stability. you also fail to look at history where such civilisation...numerous civilisations, even to this day...have existed without any form of Govt. so again i ask, why would there be anarchy if all Govt vanished from the face of the earth?


Ps, i've always loved this quote:

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
- Autobiography of Mark Twain

[Legendary Apophis]

numerous civilisations, even to this day...have existed without any form of Govt. so again i ask, why would there be anarchy if all Govt vanished from the face of the earth?

Such as? (take into account the number of people and their urban-concentrations in our countries, in case you would be thinking about some Amazonian/New Guinean tribes or something like this)

[[KMA]Avenger]

What do you mean "such as"? you have named a few perfect examples above. what difference does the size of the community matter? those you named above work perfectly regardless of community size....

But i'll play...not counting tyrants and empires, name ANY ruling body from history from any period and from any civilisation which has had Govt in it's present size and form? you cannot, but you can name any number of civilisations from history to the present day which function better and are more peaceful without any kind of centralised leadership.


The problem here is that unlike many of you i am intolerant of ANY corruption ( i don't care how small it is) and centralisation of power, because it welcomes abuse and corruption. you on the other hand say "well, some corruption is to be expected because it's for the greater good" and you tolerate it. this POV is TOTALLY unacceptable on ANY level. no rational and sane human would accept that.

[MEZZANINE]

I hate to admit this but LA is right, numbers matter. The reason, basic human nature and human limits.

In small groups communes can survive without governance or leadership, I believe the magic number is 150, from various studies it has been proven that the average human can keep track of and to a degree trust 150 people, when you rise above 150 people in a group, dont matter if that group is a village, commune, company, school or whatever, people become strangers to each other, the higher the number the less interaction, the less interaction, the less trust or more distrust, more competitiveness, more envy & greed directed at those around them. Basically over 150 people and you need someone in charge to enforce order and rules to prevent a group tearing itself apart.

Many people in the 60s tried to form communes with varied success, I believe some still exist today ( but only the ones with out side funding ). The reason most eventually disbanded was because small groups that can survive self sufficiently have many limits on what they can achieve in the way of modern comforts & health care, and because the gene pool is so small they need other similar groups to trade people with for breeding the way old medevil towns would marry off their young to people in a neighbouring towns.





Bottom line

There are too many people for us the break up in the groups of 150 or less, not enough viable locations with arable land and access to water, and loss of mass produced food would mean mass starvation.

Even if we could break up in groups of 150 or less, most people wouldnt want to. They would not want to lose the modern comforts, health care, security etc

Being in these small groups would mean the stagnation of medical and technological advancement, no more advanced research, mostly subsistence living, certainly not the paradise some imagine. We would be in a more natural state by some peoples definition, balanced with nature, sustainable population etc but those are what most refer to as hippy concepts lol They are certainly not what most people want.


WITH THE CURRENT POPULATION WE NEED GOVERNMENT / LEADERSHIP OR WE WOULD DESTROY OURSELVES

And as we discussed and decided before, when it comes to types of government Democracy is the lesser of several evils lol

[Juliette]

I am in favour of 'small government', but 'no government' is absolutely ludicrous.
You argued that Jack's prediction (power vacuum -> strong people moving in to rule) only comes true if 'the power' is focused in 'an office'. Nonsense. 'Evil' people (i.e. non-conscientious people) will always have an advantage over 'decent' people (i.e. conscientious people). Why? Because if you are constrained by morality and decency, I can take your food, and you cannot simply go out to kill me. Think that is absurd? Yes, yes, it is. But it is also the logical extreme of 'no government'. 'The People' are not powerful enough to stop me and my buddies from taking your food, your women, your houses, and anything that 'belongs' to 'you'.

Government disappeared in Russia in 1989 when the accursed traitor Gorbachev destroyed the last vestiges of actual government in the Soviet Union and turned it into an even more corrupt mess than it already was. In 1988, it was a functioning albeit corrupt mess; in 1990, it was a non-functioning corrupt vacuum. Certain 'strong people' took it upon themselves to 'redeem the people'. They purchased land that -when the Soviet Union broke up- was assigned to people, they purchased the tractors that 100 people shared, and 'resolved' the issues that came with the division and distribution of previously state-owned goods. They threw down petty cash and purchased oil refineries, oil fields, harbours, electricity infrastructure, and so on, and so on. Their megalomaniac acquisitions were done with the full consent of the people. Why? Because people are morons. Offer people 50 bucks and they will sell you their immortal soul. (While the site is a hoax, the data gathered in the social experiment is invaluable. www.wewantyoursoul.com)
So having established that people are stupid, strong people (i.e. the aforementioned 'evil' people who are able to fulfill an unspecified 'need' in the population by specious offers) are always able to act against the common interest of the people; e.g. by purchasing 'all the water in the country', and then 'leasing' the water to farms, drinking water plants etcetera. Think that is a crazy idea? It is happening right now, and right now, we have a government!
Good. So while the majority of these 'strong people' are kept in check by the government, the government is elected by the morons who make up the population. Not only that, but the government is also made up of the same morons who make up the population. So yes, while a 'big government' is an interesting concept, the smaller the government, the less idiots to limit the expanse of strong people. The best defence against 'strong people' are the 'strong people' themselves. To illustrate, a man who buys up the water supply will be contested by other men who want to buy the water supply, creating a new balance.

Ideal? Perhaps. But the vacuum left by the removal of institutions that keep the balance, will lead to 'strong people' filling in, and these 'strong people' will have even less regard for the people they lord over. So yes, rather have a small group of morons run the country (i.e. us by proxy), and have 'strong people' skirting the edges of the law, instead of having these 'strong people' developing a first lawless, then totalitarian balance.



Small government, yea! And away with suffrage for people who have achieved nothing in their life. Morons should not be allowed to vote. Only then can a government become a true representation of the people.

[Legendary Apophis]

And away with suffrage for people who have achieved nothing in their life. Morons should not be allowed to vote. Only then can a government become a true representation of the people.

Explain this bit? (what is "achieving something in their life"? What defines a "moron" in general?...)


Also if I understood well, "strong people"="evil people" and "non evil"="morons"?

[Juliette]

And away with suffrage for people who have achieved nothing in their life. Morons should not be allowed to vote. Only then can a government become a true representation of the people.

Explain this bit?

Up until recently, I felt that a line should be drawn by intelligence, but I am being flexible and appreciate that certain intellectuals are just that.. lazy beans who sit in their own **Filtered** doing nothing. Those people should not be allowed to vote, and neither should the rest of the population. Only a shepherd needs to vote, not the sheep.

Also if I understood well, "strong people"="evil people" and "non evil"="morons"?

Yeah, no, not exactly. Strong people are natural charismatics etcetera, they have a quality which makes them 'strong'. If these 'strong people' are non-conscientious, they are technically 'evil'. No, the 'population' is basically a load of morons. See the above.

[Legendary Apophis]

And away with suffrage for people who have achieved nothing in their life. Morons should not be allowed to vote. Only then can a government become a true representation of the people.

Explain this bit?

Up until recently, I felt that a line should be drawn by intelligence, but I am being flexible and appreciate that certain intellectuals are just that.. lazy beans who sit in their own **Filtered** doing nothing. Those people should not be allowed to vote, and neither should the rest of the population. Only a shepherd needs to vote, not the sheep.

Voting would be removed, then. Lol that would remove one of my point of interests in life, so you would understand why I would oppose that.

I suppose you would be among the ones "decent" enough to have the right to "vote", while the rest of us here, wouldn't, amirite?

[Juliette]

Come now, there is no need to get practical. This is, after all, a hypothetical scenario. Do not try that leftist trickery on me, Jimbo.

[MEZZANINE]

Problem with voting is not people intelligence ( or lack thereof ), it the media culture. I would be in favor of limiting advertising by political parties and forcing them to publish a summary manifesto in the run up to elections with 'Promised', intentions, and simple For/Against positions on key points.

Restricting voting to an intellectual elite would not work as even intelligent people are selfish & greedy, it would just create a new class divide alongside the financial one we already have.


BTW Gorbi is a hero, it wasnt his fault he got ousted, he never wanted the power mongers and money grabbers to take over, he just didnt have enough support to stop them. That doesnt taint his many great achievements IMO


@ LA, as a pro-EU what do you think of convicted prisoners getting a vote while still server their sentences ? They are NOT decent people by any definition and this is exactly the kind of thing that makes people hate the EU

[Legendary Apophis]

@ LA, as a pro-EU what do you think of convicted prisoners getting a vote while still server their sentences ? They are NOT decent people by any definition and this is exactly the kind of thing that makes people hate the EU

Just because I am pro-EU doesn't mean I "worship" every bit of it. This would be among the things I oppose myself to (the Political Correctness BS within European scale I dislike as much as on National/Regional/Local scale), but on the other hand, it wouldn't make me "hate" it. Because things aren't necessarily either black or white in this world...If I was to "hate" anything in which I would find something wrong, I would be hating almost everything.

[Jack]

@ LA, as a pro-EU what do you think of convicted prisoners getting a vote while still server their sentences ? They are NOT decent people by any definition and this is exactly the kind of thing that makes people hate the EU

They are still people, and unless they're in prison for treason, I do not see why they should be disallowed voting rights.

[MEZZANINE]

@ LA, as a pro-EU what do you think of convicted prisoners getting a vote while still server their sentences ? They are NOT decent people by any definition and this is exactly the kind of thing that makes people hate the EU

They are still people, and unless they're in prison for treason, I do not see why they should be disallowed voting rights.

If you ignore the rights of others, the right not to be robbed, beaten, raped, killed, then you lose your own rights. Thats British law, it's common sense since you dont want prisoners voting for whoever is most lenient on crime & punishment, and if the EU want to interfere and think democracy so important they should step up and have their own leadership elected, and let the people of every EU country vote on joining or leaving them. EU leaders are hypocrites.

[Jack]

common sense

There is no such thing as common sense, not as it is commonly understood anyway.

If you ignore the rights of others, the right not to be robbed, beaten, raped, killed, then you lose your own rights. Thats British law, it's common sense since you dont want prisoners voting for whoever is most lenient on crime & punishment, and if the EU want to interfere and think democracy so important they should step up and have their own leadership elected, and let the people of every EU country vote on joining or leaving them. EU leaders are hypocrites.

They still have rights, by and large, the only rights they typically lose are those which present a clear and present danger to their correctional facility. Such as the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to bear arms (in the US). Voting does not compromise the security of the correctional facilities, therefore there is no reason to deny voting rights. Not all inmates are created equal though, it could very well compromise the security of supermax or even maxsec prisons.