5 ms·

So what? That's sad, but in the end we rely on existence of these armed guys to do whatever we need to do. In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government arme

So what? That's sad, but in the end we rely on existence of these armed guys to do whatever we need to do. In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government armed guys cease to exist, who would usually thrive? Organized armed guys. At least we have some mechanisms to influence the armed guys we have now.

snitko 13y ago
> In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government armed guys cease to exist, who would usually thrive? Organized armed guys. As scientifically established by hollywood movies. Brilliant.
- xentronium 13y ago
  Do you deem it unreasonable?
- seren 13y ago
  In places with lack of central government, (ruthless) armed group tends to become the de facto ruling regional organisations, like Somalia, Libya, etc. This is debatable that the lack of government is the only issue with these areas. However, I don't have examples who come to mind where the lack of central authority transitioned in a peaceful coexistence of different factions/regions/tribes.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Let's conduct a thought experiment: tomorrow everyone in the US wakes up and realizes there's no government, no cops, no army etc. And for the purity of the experiment, let's say there is no way to create a new government. Do you think it'll be like Syria or Somalia? Do you think the demand for security and peace will suddenly evaporate?
    - enko 13y ago
      Let's toss in "no jobs" and "no food" to add a little pizzazz to your thought experiment.
      - snitko 13y ago
        1. Government doesn't provide food 2. Government only provides SOME jobs Even if we assume that ALL people who can no longer be employed because government disappeared cannot find jobs, it would only demonstrate that they can't work on jobs no one wants to pay for voluntarily. That is, if people wouldn't need cops anymore, because (let's imagine) there was no crime - no one would pay to private protection agencies and they would have to find something else to do. "Jobs" are not the desirable result, it's "doing something valuable" that's important.
        enko 13y ago
        I think you'll find that the presence of effective, competent governance is pretty strongly correlated with the availability of both food and jobs. You missed my point, anyway, which is that your comfortable notions of a safe, orderly society will go right out the window once the economy breaks down, which it would if you removed the framework in which it operates, which is basically indistinguishable from government. "Any society is only three square meals away from revolution"
        snitko 13y ago
        The proposition is not to remove the framework, but to de-monopolize it. We currently have a government framework of law, but nothing (except people not realizing it's even possible) prevents us from having multiple frameworks, each operating on its own client base (even when those clients physically live on the same territory) and negotiating with each other when disputes between clients of two different agencies arise. The major difference in this situation would be that clients of such firms would voluntarily pay money to be protected by them. If they don't want protection or don't like specific laws, they stop paying or switch. The monopoly we have now extracts money from taxpayers at gunpoint and provides a rather crappy service.
    - seren 13y ago
      It is really too far-fetched to provide a meaningful answer or discussion. Does it includes prison guards ? Are the inmates left to starve, or running freely ? Does it includes fire-fighters ? FDA, can I sell you my cure for cancer ? ... It is probably due to my education, and the time I was born, but I can't imagine a society working without "safeguards". Maybe it is because of lack of imagination, but I would like to see a working example, before making the jump. Which is a kind of chicken egg problem, because if no one tries, you can't know it works. Maybe it will seem obvious retrospectively in 500 or 1000 years, but currently it is not.
      - snitko 13y ago
        I would recommend a non-fiction book "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David D. Friedman, it depicts and discusses how a society could function without a government.
        seren 13y ago
        It seems to be available online, I'll check it or at least skim through it.
oleganza 13y ago
If you are concerned about violent armed people, why do you support an idea of a massive hierarchy of violent armed people aka Government?
- xentronium 13y ago
  Lesser evil principle.
  - snitko 13y ago
    So if someone demonstrated to you that any government is actually a bigger evil, would you consider changing your mind?
    - xentronium 13y ago
      Yes. I don't know (and frankly, hardly imagine) of any societies without any hierarchies though. I could imagine communities with democratic collegial decision-making, but it still implies there is a way to enforce decisions, which means armed men.

snitko 13y ago

> In post-apocalyptical fantasies where government armed guys cease to exist, who would usually thrive? Organized armed guys. As scientifically established by hollywood movies. Brilliant.

xentronium 13y ago
Do you deem it unreasonable?
seren 13y ago
In places with lack of central government, (ruthless) armed group tends to become the de facto ruling regional organisations, like Somalia, Libya, etc. This is debatable that the lack of government is the only issue with these areas. However, I don't have examples who come to mind where the lack of central authority transitioned in a peaceful coexistence of different factions/regions/tribes.
- snitko 13y ago
  Let's conduct a thought experiment: tomorrow everyone in the US wakes up and realizes there's no government, no cops, no army etc. And for the purity of the experiment, let's say there is no way to create a new government. Do you think it'll be like Syria or Somalia? Do you think the demand for security and peace will suddenly evaporate?
  - enko 13y ago
    Let's toss in "no jobs" and "no food" to add a little pizzazz to your thought experiment.
    - snitko 13y ago
      1. Government doesn't provide food 2. Government only provides SOME jobs Even if we assume that ALL people who can no longer be employed because government disappeared cannot find jobs, it would only demonstrate that they can't work on jobs no one wants to pay for voluntarily. That is, if people wouldn't need cops anymore, because (let's imagine) there was no crime - no one would pay to private protection agencies and they would have to find something else to do. "Jobs" are not the desirable result, it's "doing something valuable" that's important.
      - enko 13y ago
        I think you'll find that the presence of effective, competent governance is pretty strongly correlated with the availability of both food and jobs. You missed my point, anyway, which is that your comfortable notions of a safe, orderly society will go right out the window once the economy breaks down, which it would if you removed the framework in which it operates, which is basically indistinguishable from government. "Any society is only three square meals away from revolution"
        snitko 13y ago
        The proposition is not to remove the framework, but to de-monopolize it. We currently have a government framework of law, but nothing (except people not realizing it's even possible) prevents us from having multiple frameworks, each operating on its own client base (even when those clients physically live on the same territory) and negotiating with each other when disputes between clients of two different agencies arise. The major difference in this situation would be that clients of such firms would voluntarily pay money to be protected by them. If they don't want protection or don't like specific laws, they stop paying or switch. The monopoly we have now extracts money from taxpayers at gunpoint and provides a rather crappy service.
  - seren 13y ago
    It is really too far-fetched to provide a meaningful answer or discussion. Does it includes prison guards ? Are the inmates left to starve, or running freely ? Does it includes fire-fighters ? FDA, can I sell you my cure for cancer ? ... It is probably due to my education, and the time I was born, but I can't imagine a society working without "safeguards". Maybe it is because of lack of imagination, but I would like to see a working example, before making the jump. Which is a kind of chicken egg problem, because if no one tries, you can't know it works. Maybe it will seem obvious retrospectively in 500 or 1000 years, but currently it is not.
    - snitko 13y ago
      I would recommend a non-fiction book "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David D. Friedman, it depicts and discusses how a society could function without a government.
      - seren 13y ago
        It seems to be available online, I'll check it or at least skim through it.

oleganza 13y ago

If you are concerned about violent armed people, why do you support an idea of a massive hierarchy of violent armed people aka Government?

xentronium 13y ago
Lesser evil principle.
- snitko 13y ago
  So if someone demonstrated to you that any government is actually a bigger evil, would you consider changing your mind?
  - xentronium 13y ago
    Yes. I don't know (and frankly, hardly imagine) of any societies without any hierarchies though. I could imagine communities with democratic collegial decision-making, but it still implies there is a way to enforce decisions, which means armed men.