Government, or the lack thereof

Seeing as there's been a certain amount of discussion about this around and about, I figured it warranted its own topic. So... how much government do you prefer to see in a country? Lots? Very little? None at all? Why so?

Discuss.

Zero. I'm an anarchist.

I'm not an anarchist because I think Rousseau Was Right. Nope, I'm fully aware that Humans Are Bastards. That's why I think trusting any of them with authority over anyone else is a very bad idea.

edited 28th Feb '11 1:41:34 PM by SavageHeathen

Somewhere in the middle. Enough to fund a welfare state, healthcare and public transportation, not enough to infringe on privacy and liberty.

Yeah... no... the anarchy you are talking about is heroic culture. It can be observed by going to gangland states.

@Pagad: That doesn't work.

Surveillance and control are higher priority for governments than giving services.

Only as far as the powers demarcated in the US Constitution and no further no matter how noble or well-intentioned an idea may be.

Want a new power? Amend the Constitution if you can drum up the support. There's a reason why it was originally written with the ability to be amended.

You're promoting anarchy, how can you say that won't work?

edited 28th Feb '11 1:45:17 PM by pagad

@SH: Anarchy doesn't work either. You wind up with tons of gangs and little dictatorships.

Yeah, no... that requires a level of competence that doesn't exist. Police states eat themselves....

edited 28th Feb '11 1:45:26 PM by Shrimpus

@Heathen: Wouldn't the logical course of action, then, be to establish some sort of framework to limit the power of individuals?

Without government of any sort, there is, by definition, nothing to prevent someone from accruing their own power.

edited 28th Feb '11 1:46:21 PM by Iaculus

^^ Or themselves get eaten by bigger fish.

edited 28th Feb '11 1:46:05 PM by MajorTom

@#2 what's to keep it from becoming whoever has the biggest stick has the power?

I like enough for the government to take care of its people (I believe that a country should be judged on how it treats its least well off), but should generally stay out of social affairs that don't let people harm others around them (marriage, nudity (seriously), etc.)

edited 28th Feb '11 1:47:11 PM by Acebrock

I have yet to see a convincing argument to suggest that anarchy would allow a technologically advanced civilisation to function.

I prefer a moderate amount of government. It's still the people who should decide how they live, but you still need a group of people to count the votes, manage crime, and deal with the externalities that the economic system fails to clean out.

That was my point, yes. The advantage of systems like democracy is that they offer the governed some theoretical measure of control over the government.

Anarchy, by definition, offers nothing.

Edited. Ye gods, this thread moves fast.

edited 28th Feb '11 1:49:20 PM by Iaculus

You are assuming anarchy=chaos, which isn't exactly the case.

Without government, the workers could seize the means of production without fear of State retaliation: After all, government-backed money would become useless, and there would be no way for the burgeoisie to retain control of their property. A commodity-backed currency would have to ensue, but the current Big Money elites would become NOTHING.

Technology WOULD stagnate for lack of capital (even that could be probably temporary), but it wouldn't lose ground either. Lots of technical workers have valuable skills, that any co-operative or commune would value. Odds are they could get a job related to maintaining technology. Techies will be techies. If at all possible, most will stay techie.

The vast majority of people are petty and selfish, but they're not all-out predators going after everything everyone else has. Without authority, there is no potential for abuse of authority, if you'll excuse the tautology.

Would we be less safe? Not exactly. We'd be responsible for our own safety, which is something the Thugs In Blue don't protect effectively anyway.

Would we be less prosperous? Not likely. 15% of people own 80% of the wealth. After thoroughly looting those guys and their enforcers, we'd all be richer (except them, but the fat cats don't matter).

Would we be freer? Without a shadow of a doubt. You wouldn't have Internal Revenue thugs trying to loot a third of your income. Even if thugs DO try to loot you, they wouldn't have endless backup , and you wouldn't be jailed for shooting them. You wouldn't have Narcotics, Vice or Gun Control thugs persecuting your hobbies and lifestyle, whichever it might be. You wouldn't have to request permission from authorities to do anything. Your speech would not be subject to Homeland Security monitoring. Et cetera.

Overall, it looks like a good tradeoff.

edited 28th Feb '11 2:13:07 PM by SavageHeathen

Damn straight.

edited 28th Feb '11 2:10:48 PM by Nimitz

... you're still not explaining how we would go about maintaining such an extreme diffusion of power. How do you think governments arose in the first place?

You also have to consider economies of scale here. Larger, more complex organisations tend to function better thanks to being better able to specialise their members and concentrate their capital, and some of those specialists need to be in management in order to better coordinate the whole thing. That's why small, decentralised collectives tend to be at a disadvantage unless they start becoming a whole lot bigger.

edited 28th Feb '11 2:18:20 PM by Iaculus

^^^ even if anarchy =/= chaos, you've not explained what would keep someone from getting a very big stick and taking over. Given a choice between death and being subservient to someone who has the means to kill you (which doesn't even require chaos to happen), I'm positive that people would choose subserivience.

edited 28th Feb '11 2:19:29 PM by Acebrock

Easy. You kill whoever attempts to assert authority at all, until authoritarianism is simply culled out of the gene pool.

The vast majority of people are petty and selfish, but they're not all-out predators going after everything everyone else has. Without authority, there is no potential for abuse of authority, if you'll excuse the tautology.

Someone will make that authority using the Bigger Stick. I've got a gang of dudes, all armed with shotguns. Give me your property before I shoot you.

And my gang is bigger than yours.

edited 28th Feb '11 2:21:51 PM by Usht

I've got myself a rifle and cover. I'll pass. And my gang is playing ball on its home turf, which we've made convenient to defend.

It's a common truth about warfare that defense is easier than assault. Have fun tryin' to storm the castle!

edited 28th Feb '11 2:24:19 PM by SavageHeathen

^^^ That only works if you have bigger sticks (guns/tanks/insert weapon here) than whoever is trying to assert their authority, or a hell of a defensible position that can provide you with everything you would need to survive. Otherwise you're fucked.

edited 28th Feb '11 2:25:14 PM by Acebrock

And, under anarchy and total power decentralization, who could amass such firepower on the first place?

The Remnant, perhaps. That's why either the slide into anarchy must be gradual/peaceful, or The Remnant has to be wiped out to the last man beforehand.

edited 28th Feb '11 2:26:37 PM by SavageHeathen

A eugenics programme? How are you going to go about that without some sort of major organisation, assuming that culling the will to power from the gene pool is even a remotely viable option?

edited 28th Feb '11 2:26:38 PM by Iaculus