Can freedom and the State coexist?

When those things happened, there were no anarchists. Anarchism is a relatively recent political ideology: It pretty much started on the mid 1800s.

For your example to work, the government would have to crumble somewhere with an active anarchist movement. Not happened so far, AFAIK.

edited 15th Jun '11 1:53:35 PM by SavageHeathen

Thread Hop

Plenty of those things have darn good reasons behind them. I get the feeling you really don't understand the whole point of government is to protect people.

Permits/licences - An unsafe driver is a danger to anyone who is on or near the road. Most other permits and licences are for ensuring that people only engage in a risky activity if they know how to do it safely. Hunting permits are for ensuring that we don't overhunt and wipe out the local wildlife, which is also a net good.

Gun control - Guns are lethal weapons, and some people are willing to use them to shoot others.

Freedom is a good thing, but no government control wouldn't make you free either. You'd have to live in fear for your life, with anyone who has any more power than you being free to do whatever they like to you. Government controls limit the degree to which others can harm you, and you can harm others.

If you think that's so bad, go live in Somalia.

The point of government is to secure and perpetuate its own power,monopoly and influence, using "protection" only as a means to that end.

Ultimately it "protects" in a manner akin to a Mafia protection racket; in fact, it's the Mafia protection racket.

That's the cynical interpretation.

Not cynical; just realistic.

Most cynics do purport to be realists.

Last I checked, there's rules and regulations in most governments to keep them from specifically dicking people over. Granted, these regulations aren't perfect, but it'd only be a mafia protection racket if there were no regulations on the government. And a realistic way of looking at things for you might not be so for another person, so don't try to pull the "Cynical views are more realistic" bullshit.

Whatever pleases you.

Mafias have their codes.

And "bullshit"? Sure, if militant Pollyannaism gets you through the day...

Also i never said "cynical views are realistic"; I said "this cynical view is not realistic''. Get it right.

edited 15th Jun '11 4:42:37 PM by MRDA1981

The causation between 'people aren't nice' and 'government fell' goes the other way from what people are suggesting. It's not the government falling that leads to people not being nice; it's the kind of endemic culture of not-niceness in places like Somalia leading to governments that tend to fall, largely because the government was, itself, very much not nice. Anywhere where the culture is stable enough to provide for itself without a government, as a side effect of that stability the current existing government is unlikely to fall.

alethiophile> However, by the standards of the Founding Fathers we are quite the horrible authoritarian system—they would turn in their graves at

These don't seem to be the sort of folk content to merely generate clean (?) energy. What's with Mr. "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing" Jefferson and some others. If these guys would ever start moving, it would get more like this -

Love Happiness> Really historically speaking anarchism has always been socialist and this capitalist anarchist thing is very recent and is completely unrelated.

I don't understand how anarchism is compatible with all-encompassing bureaucracy... Then again - either way it's going to end up as "altruistic policemen, an un-brainwashed cyborg and a teenage Apple fan protects the people from evil punks who work for Omni Consumer Products" by the time it reaches TV.

alethiophile> The causation between 'people aren't nice' and 'government fell' goes the other way from what people are suggesting. It's not the government falling that leads to people not being nice; it's the kind of endemic culture of not-niceness in places like Somalia leading to governments that tend to fall, largely because the government was, itself

If those were two different things, there won't be half of such problems.

I think The problem is the amount of Idealism on average tends to degrade over time. by now, most people see idealism as being Naive, and many people simple want money and power.

"The older you get, the more conservative you get." - Frank Sinatra

I seem to be avoiding that: I'm a social liberal, and see no problem with the juggle between rights, freedoms... and big government to enforce the ones society comes up with.

That I'm European helps, as I don't view government as Evil Incarnate, but, at worst, an incompetent machine that can... in its own sweet time... be changed, improved and adapted to the wishes of the people (even if said people have a right to squabble about that ). <shrugs>

Viva constitutional monarchies with both internal and external checks and balances and no, single, easily twisted written constitution, I say. And, before you ask... I consider monarchies such as the British one necessary escape valves should the democratic bodies of governance really screw up. It's part of their role. That most people don't realise it is... a bit of a problem. And, Harry certainly doesn't help.

edited 22nd Sep '12 9:33:45 PM by Euodiachloris

Thread Hop:

The State is an apolitical body. So, therefore, freedom and the state can exist. It does exist.

What the question should be is, "can freedom and government exist"?

And that depends on freedom. Government is political. Political means that certain biases and prejudices are going to be written into law. Ergo, no. However, can reasonable freedom and government exist? Yes.