4 ms·

Government is very easy to define, a system of social control for which a group or entity is given the exclusive authority to use violence to enforce that cont

Government is very easy to define, a system of social control for which a group or entity is given the exclusive authority to use violence to enforce that control Thus there are no voluntary governments, as if everyone agree to something no force is required, and all government actions are enforced via the threat of violence

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
This is simplistic and fails to cover all the arrangements that one might one to call a government. It also shows all the hallmarks of an over-reliance on the internet-provided definition of a government (which of course pats itself on the back of seeing what all those silly academics couldn't see). I mean, for goodness sake, just a quick browse of Graeber & Wengrow will reveal many forms of societies' arrangements for collective decision making that violate your description (in part because your description is about enforcement, which some societies eschew, and fails to deal with collection decision making at all).
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>This is simplistic and fails to cover all the arrangements that one might one to call a government. This would then imply that all collective social arrangements of people must be called "government" and that any definition of "government" that does not include every possible social arrangement of people is flawed I reject this over broad assertion, when we attempt to broaden the definition of words to that degree they lose all value in meaningful conversation as the word now means anything. These seems to be common in modern times something that should be resisted
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > This would then imply that all collective social arrangements of people must be called "government" and that any definition of "government" that does not include every possible social arrangement of people is flawed Wow. As made clear subsequently, "government" covers the process(es) a society uses for collective decision making and enforcement of those decisions. It does not cover the nature of marriage, the presence or absence of multi-generational households, the size of cities, methods of transportation or the religious demographics. It is still a narrowly defined term, but just not narrowed down to the 30 year old look-ma-i-discovered-the-internet version of "it's about the monopoly on violence".
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      Your derision aside (which is not really a winning method if you want to convey your point or gain understanding with others ) Why do you believe my definition which is a very old definition dating back long before computers let alone the internet is " look-ma-i-discovered-the-internet version" Or maybe that is suppose to be a weak attack on either my chronological age (which you believe to be 30, far from accurate) or that I am naive in my views even though I have been refining my political options for decades in various venues. So who about you formulate a better agreement than your current dismissive weak ones where by simply because you only discovered this view on the internet you assume that is the only place it was present, and therefore should be dismissed out of hand. Seems like a lot of projection going on here.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        I have no idea about your age, nor do I care. The definition of government that you offered comes from a very distinct strain of philosophy, which doesn't go back that far, historically had few believers, and gained far more prominence with the rise of Usenet than it had ever had before in the history of humanity. I'm also not interested in convincing you of anything. My only goal is to point out fallacies, so that simplistic depictions of "what is" don't go unchallenged. It's fine with me if you continue to believe what you already believe.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

This is simplistic and fails to cover all the arrangements that one might one to call a government. It also shows all the hallmarks of an over-reliance on the internet-provided definition of a government (which of course pats itself on the back of seeing what all those silly academics couldn't see). I mean, for goodness sake, just a quick browse of Graeber & Wengrow will reveal many forms of societies' arrangements for collective decision making that violate your description (in part because your description is about enforcement, which some societies eschew, and fails to deal with collection decision making at all).

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>This is simplistic and fails to cover all the arrangements that one might one to call a government. This would then imply that all collective social arrangements of people must be called "government" and that any definition of "government" that does not include every possible social arrangement of people is flawed I reject this over broad assertion, when we attempt to broaden the definition of words to that degree they lose all value in meaningful conversation as the word now means anything. These seems to be common in modern times something that should be resisted
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > This would then imply that all collective social arrangements of people must be called "government" and that any definition of "government" that does not include every possible social arrangement of people is flawed Wow. As made clear subsequently, "government" covers the process(es) a society uses for collective decision making and enforcement of those decisions. It does not cover the nature of marriage, the presence or absence of multi-generational households, the size of cities, methods of transportation or the religious demographics. It is still a narrowly defined term, but just not narrowed down to the 30 year old look-ma-i-discovered-the-internet version of "it's about the monopoly on violence".
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Your derision aside (which is not really a winning method if you want to convey your point or gain understanding with others ) Why do you believe my definition which is a very old definition dating back long before computers let alone the internet is " look-ma-i-discovered-the-internet version" Or maybe that is suppose to be a weak attack on either my chronological age (which you believe to be 30, far from accurate) or that I am naive in my views even though I have been refining my political options for decades in various venues. So who about you formulate a better agreement than your current dismissive weak ones where by simply because you only discovered this view on the internet you assume that is the only place it was present, and therefore should be dismissed out of hand. Seems like a lot of projection going on here.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      I have no idea about your age, nor do I care. The definition of government that you offered comes from a very distinct strain of philosophy, which doesn't go back that far, historically had few believers, and gained far more prominence with the rise of Usenet than it had ever had before in the history of humanity. I'm also not interested in convincing you of anything. My only goal is to point out fallacies, so that simplistic depictions of "what is" don't go unchallenged. It's fine with me if you continue to believe what you already believe.