7 ms·

Why do you want a government so much?

daeken 13y ago
I don't. Unfortunately, most people do, and I'm a pragmatist at the end of the day.
tripzilch 13y ago
> Why do you want a government so much? Because it's the only way to take proper care of the elderly and the disabled. No anarcho-syndicalist pipe dream has ever convincingly sketched me a scenario where the elderly (without family) do not just waste away in isolation, and the schizophrenics are rotting in the streets. Now, a government is not a guarantee to fix this (see for example the NYC homeless), but without a government, the weaker groups in society are just shit out of luck.
- snitko 13y ago
  If elderly without a family is not more than 2-3% of the population, I don't think it's anything that charities wouldn't be able to do. And that is assuming people are completely irresponsible and don't save during their lifetime. Pensions is just that, but with a middleman.
- whiddershins 13y ago
  Anarchist societies throughout history took care of the elderly and disabled. Do you have any evidence of your claims that they didn't?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    A bunch of people who organize on purpose to put forward a given political ideology is hardly representative of how the mass of the population can be expected to handle a similar social concern. Sure, the kids may clean their room if you tell them they can have cookies afterwards, but what's the plan when the anarchists have already achieved their goal and removed that external motivator?
    - whiddershins 13y ago
      I wasn't defining anarchists as you just have. Anarchism has taken a variety of forms throughout history, and the kind you describe is the most rare. http://www.eleuthera.it/files/materiali/David_Graeber_Fragments_%20Anarchist_Anthropology.pdf http://www.eleuthera.it/files/materiali/David_Graeber_Fragme...
- dnautics 13y ago
  Empirically speaking, government is utterly horrible about taking care of the elderly and disabled. The mentally disabled historically were far better treated by their communities before the government instituted sanitoria. Block Island, RI, is a good example of a community thant functions to help each other without government aid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUxu02GPAqg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUxu02GPAqg And government has been similarly horrible at taking care of the poor. a large part of social equalization in the 1900-1950 era was the ascendancy of private community associations, mutual benefit societies, and so forth. The remnants of these are the Kiwanis, Lions, Rotary club, etc... But these have been squeezed out by government sponsored programs, and we have seen economic inequity rise. Part of this is probably also because the poor have been squeezed by money printing - but that's another issue altogether. Especially the way that the government engages in charity. By spending money that is borrowed to bail out the poor (the anti-austerity argument) - the government transfers funds to the poor (which, let's assume is fine) by borrowing from the rich and politically connected. But it's a loan, so the rich are getting paid back, with interest. The net resource flow is to the rich, even though you have paid the poor.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    Booster clubs have never really taken care of the poor, as Sinclair Lewis eloquently observed.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      by his criteria, an honest analysis would conclude: neither has government.
raintrees 13y ago
Don't we need a social body (government) to enforce contracts? Be they social, financial, etc. Edit: And to avoid might makes right?
- snitko 13y ago
  No, we don't. A great talk and an illustration about how law and protection could work in a stateless society: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o by David D. Friedman (an economist AND a lawyer).
  - raintrees 13y ago
    Interesting talk, thanks. Basically, rule of law under market conditions/forces. The main benefit is more individual power over law due to market choice by that individual, instead of political choice and the lack of power that offers due to dilution. That is of course assuming we do not end up with the same M&A activity that leaves only a handful of law market/arbitration agencies (similar to what has happened in many arenas, such as media). I am going to have to think about that one for awhile...
sethrin 13y ago
"...to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak ... to further the well-being of mankind." Or if you like "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The moment that you abolish government I will personally get a gang together to make you regret the action. The power vacuum will be filled, and given the opportunity I would much rather be the one wearing the boots than the one getting his face kicked in. I like to think that most libertarians are mostly confused anarchists, and thus mostly imbeciles, but those that can deny the necessity of government altogether are beyond idiocy into an entirely separate plane of existence. It's beyond even opprobrium; we simply do not live in a world that would permit large groups of humanity to live without some form of government.
- snitko 13y ago
  In other words, you'd rather have a really big and powerful gang that is impossible to fight, than many more competing small gangs? Totally sold me on the idea.
  - sethrin 13y ago
    Setting aside the tendency of small gangs to become large ones, a gang is a form of government in most senses of the term, i.e. it is not anarchy. You'll also need to show that gang warfare is a desirous state. A government is a local monopoly on the use of force. We do not live in a world that can be made free of violence, therefore government is an unpleasant necessity. Solve the violence issue, and we can talk about abolishing government -- although you should also be aware of the concepts of "market failure" and "natural monopoly".
    - brokenmusic 13y ago
      Interesting. If you look at history, it is precisely governments and empires that produced more violence than anyone else. The bloodiest, most devastating wars are all the result of government action. Even the most bloodiest anarchist in the world cannot come close to what an average "peaceful" state has done in his lifetime. Violence is inherent, at least at this point of our development, in human species. Question is, what brings about more violence. I would argue, that it's the idea that we need some sort of government. This very idea creates the incentive for sociopaths and bandits to get into politics and allows the ruling class to continuously keep fucking the population.
Roboprog 13y ago
Because I don't live in a hunter-gatherer tribe geographically separated from other competing tribes. Because I don't live in a spaceship with nuclear power, an FTL drive and a working replicator to run away from the rest of humanity. See Sethrin's comment.

I don't. Unfortunately, most people do, and I'm a pragmatist at the end of the day.

> Why do you want a government so much? Because it's the only way to take proper care of the elderly and the disabled. No anarcho-syndicalist pipe dream has ever convincingly sketched me a scenario where the elderly (without family) do not just waste away in isolation, and the schizophrenics are rotting in the streets. Now, a government is not a guarantee to fix this (see for example the NYC homeless), but without a government, the weaker groups in society are just shit out of luck.

snitko 13y ago
If elderly without a family is not more than 2-3% of the population, I don't think it's anything that charities wouldn't be able to do. And that is assuming people are completely irresponsible and don't save during their lifetime. Pensions is just that, but with a middleman.
whiddershins 13y ago
Anarchist societies throughout history took care of the elderly and disabled. Do you have any evidence of your claims that they didn't?
- mpyne 13y ago
  A bunch of people who organize on purpose to put forward a given political ideology is hardly representative of how the mass of the population can be expected to handle a similar social concern. Sure, the kids may clean their room if you tell them they can have cookies afterwards, but what's the plan when the anarchists have already achieved their goal and removed that external motivator?
  - whiddershins 13y ago
    I wasn't defining anarchists as you just have. Anarchism has taken a variety of forms throughout history, and the kind you describe is the most rare. http://www.eleuthera.it/files/materiali/David_Graeber_Fragments_%20Anarchist_Anthropology.pdf http://www.eleuthera.it/files/materiali/David_Graeber_Fragme...
dnautics 13y ago
Empirically speaking, government is utterly horrible about taking care of the elderly and disabled. The mentally disabled historically were far better treated by their communities before the government instituted sanitoria. Block Island, RI, is a good example of a community thant functions to help each other without government aid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUxu02GPAqg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUxu02GPAqg And government has been similarly horrible at taking care of the poor. a large part of social equalization in the 1900-1950 era was the ascendancy of private community associations, mutual benefit societies, and so forth. The remnants of these are the Kiwanis, Lions, Rotary club, etc... But these have been squeezed out by government sponsored programs, and we have seen economic inequity rise. Part of this is probably also because the poor have been squeezed by money printing - but that's another issue altogether. Especially the way that the government engages in charity. By spending money that is borrowed to bail out the poor (the anti-austerity argument) - the government transfers funds to the poor (which, let's assume is fine) by borrowing from the rich and politically connected. But it's a loan, so the rich are getting paid back, with interest. The net resource flow is to the rich, even though you have paid the poor.
- rdouble 13y ago
  Booster clubs have never really taken care of the poor, as Sinclair Lewis eloquently observed.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    by his criteria, an honest analysis would conclude: neither has government.

raintrees 13y ago

Don't we need a social body (government) to enforce contracts? Be they social, financial, etc. Edit: And to avoid might makes right?

snitko 13y ago
No, we don't. A great talk and an illustration about how law and protection could work in a stateless society: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o by David D. Friedman (an economist AND a lawyer).
- raintrees 13y ago
  Interesting talk, thanks. Basically, rule of law under market conditions/forces. The main benefit is more individual power over law due to market choice by that individual, instead of political choice and the lack of power that offers due to dilution. That is of course assuming we do not end up with the same M&A activity that leaves only a handful of law market/arbitration agencies (similar to what has happened in many arenas, such as media). I am going to have to think about that one for awhile...

sethrin 13y ago

"...to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak ... to further the well-being of mankind." Or if you like "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The moment that you abolish government I will personally get a gang together to make you regret the action. The power vacuum will be filled, and given the opportunity I would much rather be the one wearing the boots than the one getting his face kicked in. I like to think that most libertarians are mostly confused anarchists, and thus mostly imbeciles, but those that can deny the necessity of government altogether are beyond idiocy into an entirely separate plane of existence. It's beyond even opprobrium; we simply do not live in a world that would permit large groups of humanity to live without some form of government.

snitko 13y ago
In other words, you'd rather have a really big and powerful gang that is impossible to fight, than many more competing small gangs? Totally sold me on the idea.
- sethrin 13y ago
  Setting aside the tendency of small gangs to become large ones, a gang is a form of government in most senses of the term, i.e. it is not anarchy. You'll also need to show that gang warfare is a desirous state. A government is a local monopoly on the use of force. We do not live in a world that can be made free of violence, therefore government is an unpleasant necessity. Solve the violence issue, and we can talk about abolishing government -- although you should also be aware of the concepts of "market failure" and "natural monopoly".
  - brokenmusic 13y ago
    Interesting. If you look at history, it is precisely governments and empires that produced more violence than anyone else. The bloodiest, most devastating wars are all the result of government action. Even the most bloodiest anarchist in the world cannot come close to what an average "peaceful" state has done in his lifetime. Violence is inherent, at least at this point of our development, in human species. Question is, what brings about more violence. I would argue, that it's the idea that we need some sort of government. This very idea creates the incentive for sociopaths and bandits to get into politics and allows the ruling class to continuously keep fucking the population.

Roboprog 13y ago

Because I don't live in a hunter-gatherer tribe geographically separated from other competing tribes. Because I don't live in a spaceship with nuclear power, an FTL drive and a working replicator to run away from the rest of humanity. See Sethrin's comment.