3 ms·

> such as any human society — you need rules and traffic cops. We need some rules does not automatically mean we need to put government in charge. Rules and o

> such as any human society — you need rules and traffic cops. We need some rules does not automatically mean we need to put government in charge. Rules and order can emerge spontaneously from the society itself and it is much more accountable to their customers than any government red tape system will be. > Running red lights, speeding through school zones, dumping toxic wastes into the nearest available stream or river, etc. — fucking things up for everyone else. That way lies failed-state status. Most of these issues happen "because of government" rather than due to lack of it.

dctoedt 2y ago
> Rules and order can emerge spontaneously from the society itself and it is much more accountable to their customers than any government red tape system will be. That's a nice idea, and it might work in special cases where everyone has equal smarts, equal access to information and to economic- and self-defense power, along with a generous helping of fellow-feeling. But in the general case, that idea doesn't comport with millennia of human experience: Too many opportunistic folks are happy to lie, cheat, and steal to the greatest extent they think they can get away with it, with little or no regard for others except friends and family (and sometimes not even them). For those folks, their seeming motto is often, "hooray for me and [forget] you." EDIT: Also, overall costs are increased for everyone when each person has to be perpetually on guard for possible rule-breaking by everyone else. Better to achieve economies of scale by outsourcing some of that function to a commonly-empowered and -regulated agency. And that's just fancy name for "government," of course. This is true even when the "government" is based on Hobbesian brute force: Even brute-force governments have to deliver a modicum of security and order at a minimum, lest they risk being overthrown by challengers. (Think of gang leaders in failed states: They have to keep not just their "soldiers" but their "citizens" from becoming too dissatisfied — otherwise, they risk losing their power and, sometimes, their lives.)

dctoedt 2y ago

> Rules and order can emerge spontaneously from the society itself and it is much more accountable to their customers than any government red tape system will be. That's a nice idea, and it might work in special cases where everyone has equal smarts, equal access to information and to economic- and self-defense power, along with a generous helping of fellow-feeling. But in the general case, that idea doesn't comport with millennia of human experience: Too many opportunistic folks are happy to lie, cheat, and steal to the greatest extent they think they can get away with it, with little or no regard for others except friends and family (and sometimes not even them). For those folks, their seeming motto is often, "hooray for me and [forget] you." EDIT: Also, overall costs are increased for everyone when each person has to be perpetually on guard for possible rule-breaking by everyone else. Better to achieve economies of scale by outsourcing some of that function to a commonly-empowered and -regulated agency. And that's just fancy name for "government," of course. This is true even when the "government" is based on Hobbesian brute force: Even brute-force governments have to deliver a modicum of security and order at a minimum, lest they risk being overthrown by challengers. (Think of gang leaders in failed states: They have to keep not just their "soldiers" but their "citizens" from becoming too dissatisfied — otherwise, they risk losing their power and, sometimes, their lives.)