5 ms·

I mean sure in a society where no one holds anyone accountable that would happen. That’s not what anyone is actually advocating for.

bbarnett 6y ago
You cannot just give people stern looks. The end result is, you need to be able to use violence, against those willing to use it against you. Note, that can be a last step, but without it? Those who care not about stern looks, "talking tos", or cold shoulders will literally take everything you have, and kill everyone. So now you fall to mob rule, lynchings, and what? Power of the strong man? As soon as you organize, to provide for a response to organized thugs/criminals/rapists/murderers, you now have a government. That's how governments came into creation ; shared defense. And you need that 24x7. And the people doing it for the community need to be paid. And you need a way to judge, and sentence, and on and on and on. You cannot simply wave this away.
- bena 6y ago
  Thank you. Government is the logical conclusion of anarchy. The minute you have two people who want to do something together, you need rules.
  - natmaka 6y ago
    Why can't they establish their cooperation rules between them, using existing static material (contract templates...) if they want to, without any third-party (for example a government) being mandatory?
    - bena 6y ago
      First, who enforces the contract? Second, it doesn't really matter. Two people working together is pretty much politics. It's government. It leads there. Cooperation requires coordination.
      - natmaka 6y ago
        > who enforces the contract? In any healthy small community everyone tries to, in order to keep a good reputation. In case of misunderstanding any third party appreciated by both parties may act as a judge/referee. The need for a government, especially central, only arises when the group isn't anymore a community but a large set of (on average) loosely related and interacting persons. > Two people working together is pretty much politics. It's government. It leads there. Cooperation requires coordination Coordination nor politics doesn't imply any government.
        bufferoverflow 6y ago
        And thus you invented government. As soon as you have an independent third party deciding who is right, that's your judicial branch. And then you will need the police to enforce the decisions of that judge/referee. And then when you start having insane judges who rule that raping a child is perfectly fine, you will want to stop it, and thus you will invent your standardized laws.
        natmaka 6y ago
        > As soon as you have an independent third party deciding who is right, that's your judicial branch There IMHO is major differences between "a single government, dedicated to regulate" (which attracts people willing to control others, often letting the most unscrupulous gain power) and "any chosen third party". Where most people are most of the time reasonable they will oppose insanity, if necessary forcefully.
        bufferoverflow 6y ago
        People who are reasonable most of the time don't need that much laws to govern them. It's the cases of conflict, violence, murder, property ownership, property destruction, and other negative things that inevitably lead to the invention of government, judges, police, prisons. Every country in the world has them, and for multiple reasons.
        6y ago
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  You can organise without a government, using the free market. Having competing law enforcement firms would bring competition to a state monopoly that does little to nothing to prevent actual crime and persecute tons of innocent people.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    Most laws govern interaction between two or more people, how exactly are you going to have that work with privately selected sets of laws? Is everyone going to have a little glowing icon above their head so I know what agency I'm dealing with? For N law sets, will we have N * N law set combinations when people from two different law sets interact? What about if there's three or four or five different ones at once?

bbarnett 6y ago

You cannot just give people stern looks. The end result is, you need to be able to use violence, against those willing to use it against you. Note, that can be a last step, but without it? Those who care not about stern looks, "talking tos", or cold shoulders will literally take everything you have, and kill everyone. So now you fall to mob rule, lynchings, and what? Power of the strong man? As soon as you organize, to provide for a response to organized thugs/criminals/rapists/murderers, you now have a government. That's how governments came into creation ; shared defense. And you need that 24x7. And the people doing it for the community need to be paid. And you need a way to judge, and sentence, and on and on and on. You cannot simply wave this away.

bena 6y ago
Thank you. Government is the logical conclusion of anarchy. The minute you have two people who want to do something together, you need rules.
- natmaka 6y ago
  Why can't they establish their cooperation rules between them, using existing static material (contract templates...) if they want to, without any third-party (for example a government) being mandatory?
  - bena 6y ago
    First, who enforces the contract? Second, it doesn't really matter. Two people working together is pretty much politics. It's government. It leads there. Cooperation requires coordination.
    - natmaka 6y ago
      > who enforces the contract? In any healthy small community everyone tries to, in order to keep a good reputation. In case of misunderstanding any third party appreciated by both parties may act as a judge/referee. The need for a government, especially central, only arises when the group isn't anymore a community but a large set of (on average) loosely related and interacting persons. > Two people working together is pretty much politics. It's government. It leads there. Cooperation requires coordination Coordination nor politics doesn't imply any government.
      - bufferoverflow 6y ago
        And thus you invented government. As soon as you have an independent third party deciding who is right, that's your judicial branch. And then you will need the police to enforce the decisions of that judge/referee. And then when you start having insane judges who rule that raping a child is perfectly fine, you will want to stop it, and thus you will invent your standardized laws.
        natmaka 6y ago
        > As soon as you have an independent third party deciding who is right, that's your judicial branch There IMHO is major differences between "a single government, dedicated to regulate" (which attracts people willing to control others, often letting the most unscrupulous gain power) and "any chosen third party". Where most people are most of the time reasonable they will oppose insanity, if necessary forcefully.
        bufferoverflow 6y ago
        People who are reasonable most of the time don't need that much laws to govern them. It's the cases of conflict, violence, murder, property ownership, property destruction, and other negative things that inevitably lead to the invention of government, judges, police, prisons. Every country in the world has them, and for multiple reasons.
      - 6y ago
jokethrowaway 6y ago
You can organise without a government, using the free market. Having competing law enforcement firms would bring competition to a state monopoly that does little to nothing to prevent actual crime and persecute tons of innocent people.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Most laws govern interaction between two or more people, how exactly are you going to have that work with privately selected sets of laws? Is everyone going to have a little glowing icon above their head so I know what agency I'm dealing with? For N law sets, will we have N * N law set combinations when people from two different law sets interact? What about if there's three or four or five different ones at once?