Disproving the need for the state apparatus

[OGEvilgenius]

It was ever-escalating war that led to social systems like the Greek poleis and the feudal systems worldwide. A resource that becomes very important as a war society matures is the willing subscription to the idea of joining the local potentate's army in order to protect homeland and culture. Most systems of government evolved to find the best compromise between defensibility and long-term prosperity. Only the latter will grow enough healthy and motivated participants in the defense force to hold off reasonably extrapolable future threats by either enemy armies or bandits.

Such a system has its instabilities. The expansionist intervals under e.g. Alexander and Genghis were the showy exceptions, and they didn't outlast their architects.

People need something to believe in on some level. Everyone does. It's partly why governments can exist, but also because of external threats (which is the primary reason). Any government needs to be almost non existent in terms of power. With no ability to write new law beyond the constitution and limited actual uses. Basically it exists but doesn't do anything. It's more a principle than a functional thing. And the politicians with any kind of power should face serious penalties for even minor infractions.

At some point humanity has to evolve. Governments have a terrible history and no current system is a good one. Anarchy would be superior if not perfect. But it's not what I envision.

 

[NLXSK1]

From anyone who doesn't like them. You can't actually be this dense can you? Of course I'd describe myself as more of a minarchist than an anarchist, but the government shouldn't be the ones doing the policing. Society should be doing it.

Yeah, that would have worked out well for Zimmerman... Oh wait.

Society does do it through government. Or are you saying that government employees are not also citizens?

Could you explain how a society is supposed to just miraculously do the policing? Is this all going to be by ESP? What laws are supposed to be followed? Those of the policers? All of them??

Your entire concept falls apart at a few simple questions and you call me dense. In your society I would just kill you for that because I consider it a violent crime to insult me... And of course, since I am society and it is my responsibility to do the policing I would be perfectly within my rights. Oh and thanks for all your stuff.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The government exists to protect itself. It is not society. Maybe it's a reflection on society, but it's not society.

You wouldn't just kill me because you think insults are worthy of death. Your weak attempt at an argument is duly noted.

The only law worth following is the Golden Rule. And that's a concept, not a law.

Nothing has fallen apart. You just don't like it. You have inserted your own biased beliefs into the question.

I have no doubt there would be murders like you describe, but they wouldn't be that common. And guess what? They still happen today.

 

[NLXSK1]

The government exists to protect itself. It is not society. Maybe it's a reflection on society, but it's not society.

You wouldn't just kill me because you think insults are worthy of death. Your weak attempt at an argument is duly noted.

The only law worth following is the Golden Rule. And that's a concept, not a law.

Nothing has fallen apart. You just don't like it. You have inserted your own biased beliefs into the question.

I have no doubt there would be murders like you describe, but they wouldn't be that common. And guess what? They still happen today.

So I just have to take my chances then eh?? LOL!!!

You are the one who has to sell the concept. It doesnt seem like any one is buying though..

 

[tokeprep]

The government exists to protect itself. It is not society. Maybe it's a reflection on society, but it's not society.

You wouldn't just kill me because you think insults are worthy of death. Your weak attempt at an argument is duly noted.

The only law worth following is the Golden Rule. And that's a concept, not a law.

Nothing has fallen apart. You just don't like it. You have inserted your own biased beliefs into the question.

I have no doubt there would be murders like you describe, but they wouldn't be that common. And guess what? They still happen today.

You think police departments exist to protect themselves? You think courts exist to protect themselves? The state is not Leviathan; it is made up of many distinct parts with differing goals and motivations.

Past bouts of lawlessness tell us all we need to know about lawlessness. Humans have not evolved. We are as petty, stupid, greedy, and impulsive as we ever were. When you turn everyone into a judge with the power to dispense justice, there is no justice, because justice becomes far more subjective and questionable than it should ever be. That is incredibly disruptive to society. The state's process of justice is not perfect but it is certain, predictable, respected, and effective, to degrees far greater than otherwise possible in the absence of a state process of justice.

 

[cannabineer]

People need something to believe in on some level. Everyone does. It's partly why governments can exist, but also because of external threats (which is the primary reason). Any government needs to be almost non existent in terms of power. With no ability to write new law beyond the constitution and limited actual uses. Basically it exists but doesn't do anything. It's more a principle than a functional thing. And the politicians with any kind of power should face serious penalties for even minor infractions.

At some point humanity has to evolve. Governments have a terrible history and no current system is a good one. Anarchy would be superior if not perfect. But it's not what I envision.

I am not following the bolded. Governments need to be fairly forceful in their exercise of power, since maintaining a cohesive society is much like the proverbial herding of cats. While I agree that governments have a very checkered history, nobody has found a way to operate in their practical absence (I see this as the libertarian dream) except on scales so small that everyone in the village was de facto government.

An anarchic system has no survival power in the presence of predators ... bandits, governments with visions of conquest. The balance needs to be struck between a libertarian emphasis on the rights of the individual, and the authoritarian emphasis on the durability of the state. Some fascinating compromises have been struck - Athens in the day of Pericles, Achaemenid Persia, England before and after the Magna Charta. Our constitutional republic, which is changing under a new sort of stresses from an unanticipated syndicate of plutarch/technocrats. Will our children recognize the state in which our fathers lived? Can we reverse the current, concealed swing toward authoritarianism? It won't be by any of the popularized means, such as New Deal or Tea Party. And I see no relief from small-government dreamers, either. That way relies on the adulthood of almost all participants.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You think police departments exist to protect themselves? You think courts exist to protect themselves?

Police departments and courts are there to enforce the law

If it comes down to protecting you or enforcing the law, you will lose 100% of the time

 

[tokeprep]

<font color="#006400">Police departments and courts are there to enforce the law

If it comes down to protecting you or enforcing the law, you will lose 100% of the time</font>

The people ultimately retain absolute power over setting the law. Their failure to exercise that power is their own failure. We are not helpless victims; instead we're generally apathetic and ignorant, which is our own fault.

 

[Pinworm]

The people ultimately retain absolute power over setting the law. Their failure to exercise that power is their own failure. We are not helpless victims; instead we're generally apathetic and ignorant, which is our own fault.

[video=youtube;_TPucQHtHZs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TPucQHtHZs[/video]

I am Jack's sense of disillusion.

 

[NLXSK1]

• While I agree that governments have a very checkered history, nobody has found a way to operate in their practical absence (I see this as the libertarian dream)​
  
  
  
  

Libertarians are not Anarchists. They realize the need for government but want to keep it as small as possible.

 

[tokeprep]

[video=youtube;_TPucQHtHZs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TPucQHtHZs[/video]

I am Jack's sense of disillusion.

The people living in those places ultimately have control over their police forces. They have the power to hold them accountable. They are not helpless victims, and their failures to hold their police forces accountable are their own fault.

Abuses in all forms are generally permitted because people are willing to tolerate them. That was the point.

 

[Pinworm]

The people living in those places ultimately have control over their police forces. They have the power to hold them accountable. They are not helpless victims, and their failures to hold their police forces accountable are their own fault.

Abuses in all forms are generally permitted because people are willing to tolerate them. That was the point.

Your "point" is not based in reality. Cops have a gun and a badge. That lets them do ANYTHING they want (all in the name of justice) including fucking over helpless victims. How does one, such as the gentlemen, in the video, who was shot 18 times for loitering, go about "holding them accountable", being dead and all?
Let's say his family makes minimum wage....Do you think they can afford a lawyer for that kind of trial? But, then, that's their fault too, isn't it TP? Being poor is their fault.

Not helpless victims, my soft smooth ass.

I will not permit abuse, let alone tolerate it. From you. Or the cops.

 

[tokeprep]

Your "point" is not based in reality. Cops have a gun and a badge. That lets them do ANYTHING they want (all in the name of justice) including fucking over helpless victims. How does one, such as the gentlemen, in the video, who was shot 18 times for loitering, go about "holding them accountable", being dead and all?
Let's say his family makes minimum wage....Do you think they can afford a lawyer for that kind of trial? But, then, that's their fault too, isn't it TP? Being poor is their fault.

Not helpless victims, my soft smooth ass.

I will not permit abuse, let alone tolerate it. From you. Or the cops.

I'm not suggesting he should, I'm suggesting the ignorant and apathetic people who retain power over that police force should. I'm indicting them.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

You think police departments exist to protect themselves? You think courts exist to protect themselves? The state is not Leviathan; it is made up of many distinct parts with differing goals and motivations.

Past bouts of lawlessness tell us all we need to know about lawlessness. Humans have not evolved. We are as petty, stupid, greedy, and impulsive as we ever were. When you turn everyone into a judge with the power to dispense justice, there is no justice, because justice becomes far more subjective and questionable than it should ever be. That is incredibly disruptive to society. The state's process of justice is not perfect but it is certain, predictable, respected, and effective, to degrees far greater than otherwise possible in the absence of a state process of justice.

The government of course exists to protect itself. If it didn't there would be no government.

Better to give petty, greedy and impulsive humans huge power over other humans then? Your logic is flawed. Your idea that state doled out justice is somehow more fair is completely baseless and absurd as well.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I am not following the bolded. Governments need to be fairly forceful in their exercise of power, since maintaining a cohesive society is much like the proverbial herding of cats. While I agree that governments have a very checkered history, nobody has found a way to operate in their practical absence (I see this as the libertarian dream) except on scales so small that everyone in the village was de facto government.

An anarchic system has no survival power in the presence of predators ... bandits, governments with visions of conquest. The balance needs to be struck between a libertarian emphasis on the rights of the individual, and the authoritarian emphasis on the durability of the state. Some fascinating compromises have been struck - Athens in the day of Pericles, Achaemenid Persia, England before and after the Magna Charta. Our constitutional republic, which is changing under a new sort of stresses from an unanticipated syndicate of plutarch/technocrats. Will our children recognize the state in which our fathers lived? Can we reverse the current, concealed swing toward authoritarianism? It won't be by any of the popularized means, such as New Deal or Tea Party. And I see no relief from small-government dreamers, either. That way relies on the adulthood of almost all participants.

There have been many native American tribes that functioned without government. None gigantic. But not small either. Large government requires much more in the way of adulthood from the participants controlling the government. Of course those people are usually sociopath/killers though, so it's probably unwise to trust them.

 

[NoDrama]

Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation.

&#8212; Judge Emory A. Plitt, Jr., Maryland v. Graber​

 

[tokeprep]

The government of course exists to protect itself. If it didn't there would be no government.

Government exists because people created it. Since it is a creature of human creation and populated by people, obviously it is and will always be imperfect. That does not mean that the alternative--no government--is necessarily better.

Better to give petty, greedy and impulsive humans huge power over other humans then? Your logic is flawed. Your idea that state doled out justice is somehow more fair is completely baseless and absurd as well.

If that power were unlimited and unmediated I would agree with you. But it isn't.

I don't see you refuting the notion that state justice is more fair either. "Fair" is the collective judgment of society. You suggest ad hoc personal justice. How could you possibly believe that to be more fair? By its nature it could not be.

 

[tokeprep]

There have been many native American tribes that functioned without government. None gigantic. But not small either. Large government requires much more in the way of adulthood from the participants controlling the government. Of course those people are usually sociopath/killers though, so it's probably unwise to trust them.

Some examples of tribes that functioned without government?

 

[Pinworm]

The government of course exists to protect itself. If it didn't there would be no government.[/quote[

Government exists because people created it. Since it is a creature of human creation and populated by people, obviously it is and will always be imperfect. That does not mean that the alternative--no government--is necessarily better.



If that power were unlimited and unmediated I would agree with you. But it isn't.

I don't see you refuting the notion that state justice is more fair either. "Fair" is the collective judgment of society. You suggest ad hoc personal justice. How could you possibly believe that to be more fair? By its nature it could not be.

Government, and societies collective judgment won't save you when your in the HQ getting your anal prolapse sewn up after several delightful hours of sandpapery peni invading your butthole over and over. I'll just picture that in my head for this afternoon. All of a sudden, I can breathe a little easier. All from knowing that you're being repeatedly anally raped in my brain. Isn't that fun to think about, TP?

 

[tokeprep]

Government, and societies collective judgment won't save you when your in the HQ getting your anal prolapse sewn up after several delightful hours of sandpapery peni invading your butthole over and over. I'll just picture that in my head for this afternoon. All of a sudden, I can breathe a little easier. All from knowing that you're being repeatedly anally raped in my brain. Isn't that fun to think about, TP?

I love getting fucked, so yes, that is delightful to think about. I'm probably going to do the fucking on my date tomorrow night, but it still is nice to imagine getting fucked...