what is government? why its your family of course.

[Mike Christ]

The problem lies within your people.

I agree; except I would word it as, "The problem lies within people", since the same result always occurs in all governments--that being, corruption--and occurs more so the larger and more powerful any government is.

Government can -and do- kill you or your family/friends. You can't do anything.

There's nothing any individual can do; mafias work in the same way, when you have one person pit against several people working for the same goal, you must either succumb to their will or face the pains of having fought against it.  The only solution is to band together and push against this mafia with greater numbers; this occurs when people understand why the mafia is undesirable and how they'll be better off without them, thus forming another group of people working for the same goal: those for the removal of the mafia, i.e., anarchists.

So, although you can't do anything, together, we can do something.  I'm not referring to violence or killing, as that is the behavior which brought us into such a situation to begin with, but through rational thought and the virtue of prudence can we overcome the mafia, for they are only fueled by the very people they claim to protect.

[ktttn]

im sorry but how is it obvious that family is a "worthless structure". i get a lot of benefits from living with and taking care of my daughter, and she, i believe, gets a lot of benefits from living with and being taken care of by me. we both are made better off by the arrangement that is characterized by the word family.

i think you probably just had bad relationships with your family and are sub-consciously projecting as some sort of psychological defense mechanism. for that i am sorry. perhaps if you found a husband and made a child and developed a relationship with them you may come to understand the value of family.

/personal attacks
It takes a village, amirite? Why would one read what I said as an attack on your relationship with your kid? There's no reason you can't be the most active part of that village. When I define family I'm using a Waspish, closedminded neoconservaliberal mainstream shopaholic definition- a definition that's intentionally rough on the eyes to point out the villiagelessness of contemporary childrearing, which causes innumerable societal ills ranging from ADHD to school shootings.

[Mike Christ]

/personal attacks
It takes a village, amirite? Why would one read what I said as an attack on your relationship with your kid? There's no reason you can't be the most active part of that village. When I define family I'm using a Waspish, closedminded neoconservaliberal mainstream shopaholic definition- a definition that's intentionally rough on the eyes to point out the villiagelessness of contemporary childrearing, which causes innumerable societal ills ranging from ADHD to school shootings.

I tend to agree; if the adage of "United we stand, divided we fall" is true, then treating a community as just you, your lover and your kids is almost as divided as it gets; we're so disconnected from other people that some of us feel nothing when taking from another person, whether their personal belongings or their life.

Although, I'm not certain of what causes this division; I know fluoride calcifies the pineal gland, which is what you use to remain connected to reality (and thus leads to such conditions as autism), but I believe this division is also a problem in nations which do not fluoridate; it appears, the larger any community is (referring specifically to huge cities), the less people know one another, and crime tends to increase in those areas; in more rural areas, where businesses can actually remember the names of their customers, crime isn't nearly as common.  So what exactly causes the disconnect in larger communities?  I know people have a limit to how many other people they can remember, but I'm otherwise stumped on the matter.

[Elwar]

Government is a gang. They keep away the other gangs and expect you to pay the gang leaders or they'll cut you.

[Anon136]

im sorry but how is it obvious that family is a "worthless structure". i get a lot of benefits from living with and taking care of my daughter, and she, i believe, gets a lot of benefits from living with and being taken care of by me. we both are made better off by the arrangement that is characterized by the word family.

i think you probably just had bad relationships with your family and are sub-consciously projecting as some sort of psychological defense mechanism. for that i am sorry. perhaps if you found a husband and made a child and developed a relationship with them you may come to understand the value of family.

/personal attacks
It takes a village, amirite? Why would one read what I said as an attack on your relationship with your kid? There's no reason you can't be the most active part of that village. When I define family I'm using a Waspish, closedminded neoconservaliberal mainstream shopaholic definition- a definition that's intentionally rough on the eyes to point out the villiagelessness of contemporary childrearing, which causes innumerable societal ills ranging from ADHD to school shootings.

it definitely was not my intention to personally attack you.

no it doesnt take a village. i do pretty much all of it myself and its not that difficult. plus the kinds of people i live near are closed minded, bigoted, irrational, religious/statist types. i highly doubt they would be a good influence on a developing mind.

[Anon136]

Government is not bad. They can be good.

Government can be anything and do anything.  The problem is, when you put people (not super-humans, or heroes, or messiahs, but regular people) in complete charge of other people, the people given power tend to use that power for personal gain at the expense of the others.  Because of this trait in human beings, who, when given both power and a varying freedom from being relieved of that power (democracy vs. dictatorship), thus resulting in a complete lack of responsibility of that power, tend to abuse that power, if not at first, later in their rule.  Governments generally act in a way that is, at best, inconvenient to the lives of the many, and at worst, fatal.

So, although government can potentially do only good, or at least mostly good, recall that government is made of normal people, who have proven, time and time again, that when coupled with power and lack of responsibility to maintain that power, will become corrupt, and only more corrupt the more power they are given.  Hoping for a perfect nation with a perfect people and a perfect government is unrealistic, and especially pointless once one comes to the conclusion that a "one, true government" is not necessary, nor desirable.

Certainly, the proxy killer who has less deaths under his belt is not more preferable than the proxy killer who has more; they're both killers and undesirable.  If given a choice between one type of cancer and another type of cancer, we don't ponder the benefits of having the lesser cancer; we instead decide we don't want any type of cancer at all; there is no "lesser of two evils" when we acknowledge the idea of having no evil at all.  Much like the atheist came to the conclusion that no religion is likely to be any more correct than the other, as much as each is comparably and almost equally far from the truth, the anarchist identifies the many types of government as detrimental, and realizes it is preferable to be ruled by his conscious and natural consequence than by the coercion of a coalition of sociopaths.

And what would the solution to this be? Anarchy?
Without government, who would keep society "civilized"?

Well first its important to recognize where civilization comes from. it doesnt come from government, it comes from people working to gather for mutual benefit, it comes from voluntary exchange. government is just an entity in a society that is widely believed to have the right to break the law. for example everyone knows that extortion is illegal, unless the government does it then its called taxation, even though its fundamentally the same set of physical actions. So anarchy is not lawlessness, lawlessness is what we have now, laws dont apply to government. ironically anarchy is the proposition that we should end lawlessness.

ok so if we have a society where the majority of the population are violent barbarians, than anarchy cant be expected to work well. but then of course neither can a statist society. a bunch of violent barbarians are not going to elect wise reasonable rulers and then obey them and solve the problem of having a violent barbaric society. so any hopes for either a statist or an anarchist society that would look even remotely desirable to you or i are going to rely on the assumption that most people are reasonably honest, cooperative, orderly and respectful.

If you go knocking door to door where i live these are generally the sorts of people you meet. i know in the cities its not like that and thats mostly because of the incentives crafted by welfare dependency and single parent households which are also largely a product of state involvement in courts and and the enabling effect of welfare. so unfortunately this generally civilized nature of people in general is being changed by the state but it isnt too late yet.

ok so if we have 10-20% of the population that is dishonest and uncivilized and 80-90% who are civilized than the solution is simple. If an individual is honest than it is very cheap for him to buy assurance. Since assurance is very cheap for honest decent people we can resasonably expect most decent honest people to have assurance. This means that if you encounter someone who does not have assurance, you can reasonably expect him to be some sort of scoundrel. This means that if you encounter someone who does not have assurance than you will tend to refrain from contracting with him since there is likely someone else near by offering the same service who does have assurance. In affect this means that people who are unassurable are cut out of the economy. This reverses the incentives for people who would be willing to engage in fraud, and makes it so that even though they would be willing to engage in fraud, it is no longer in their interest to do so.

this solves the problem with 99% of criminals. all criminals who are interested in crime for the sake of improving their status or increasing their material influence. it does not however deal with the problem of the proverbial "axe wielding maniac". A person who is not interested in status or material gain, but rather sees causing harm to others as the end rather than a means, can not be controlled by assurance. For this sort of person you buy insurance. Say you have a policy that will pay out 10 million dollars if you happen to be the victim of an axe attack. This puts incentives in the right place for the insurance company to find the most cost effective way of addressing the axe murdering problem. It may be the case that police patrols are the right answer, and if they were than we would have police patrols, but i doubt it.

the last and hardest crime problem we have to deal with is war, that is the aggressive neighboring nation. again this problem roughly falls into the same catigories as the former only on a larger scale. assurance may be effective to some extent but mostly we would rely on insurance. if you dont want something to happen to you, then buy insurance against it. the insurance companies, not waning to pay out on claims will find the most cost effective way of preventing aggression by other nations. this would probably boil down to border control and lobbying. the anarchist society would most likely have the best funded lobbying presence in the world in statist societies. it would most likely dwarf even the pharmaceutical lobby. if there is one thing we can learn from statist societies its that lobbies can control governments. Of course i could be wrong maybe it would find a standing army to be more cost effective deterrent, but i highly doubt it.

in the event that you are about to scream pubic goods problem!, public goods problem! then here is a youtube video about how to fund public goods on a free market. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQvjZ12Vpko

Lets call it what it is : http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stephan+molyneux+anarchy

yes libertarian anarchy is what i am describing.

[crumbs]

...
no it doesnt take a village. im quite content without the sorts of people near me having the opportunity to poison my daughters mind with their irrationality and dogma.

You want the fun all for yourself, huh?

[herzmeister]

i do pretty much all of it myself and its not that difficult.

wow, that's telling... i'm glad you're not my father, and I hope you'll never be in another life. You just don't seem to "get it".

plus the kinds of people i live near are closed minded, bigoted, irrational, religious/statist types. i highly doubt they would be a good influence on a developing mind.

ok, just a little hint: a child doesn't care if a villager is a statist or prays to the spaghetti monster. Children draw their inspiration from more subtle things. What they need is richness and diversity in their environment.

[Anon136]

i do pretty much all of it myself and its not that difficult.

wow, that's telling... i'm glad you're not my father, and I hope you'll never be in another life. You just don't seem to "get it".

plus the kinds of people i live near are closed minded, bigoted, irrational, religious/statist types. i highly doubt they would be a good influence on a developing mind.

ok, just a little hint: a child doesn't care if a villager is a statist or prays to the spaghetti monster. Children draw their inspiration from more subtle things. What they need is richness and diversity in their environment.

i would agree the child doesn't care, i dont think muslam children "mind" the fact that they have been indoctrinated into being muslams, that doenst mean its a good thing.

Children are influenced in all ways conceivable by all people they spend time with. more subtle things and less subtle things. a child that spends large amounts of time around Muslims will grow up to be Muslim, a child that spends time around people who speak chinese will grow up to speak chinese. its not freaking rocket science, children respond to their environment. for the exact same reasons that a child who spends lots of time around chinese people will grow up to speak chinese, a child that spends lots of time around irrational people will grow up to be irrational.

what some people in this thread appear to be suggesting, is that the best qualification for determining who a child should spend time, is not merit, but geographical proximity. excuse me for calling bullshit on that one.

*edit* you know i had to come back because this is just so stupid. suppose i was willing to let other people raise my child, what makes you people think that the people in my geographical vicinity give 1/2 a shit about raising my child for me. What makes you think that any of them even want to do that? what incentive do any of them have to want to do that? this whole "it takes a viliage" thing is such complete and utter bullshit. when its 3 in the morning and your baby has been crying all night, you think you can just go knock on your neighbors door? would you wake up at 3 in the morning to watch your neighbors baby? because thats what it takes to raise a child, if the child doesnt feel like sleeping YOU ARNT SLEEPING. who else other than a parent has any interest in dealing with that shit?

*edit**edit* if any of you clowns want to put your money where your mouth is. if you really believe in what you are saying than maybe one of you would like to volunteer to change some of my child's shit filled diapers for me. ill be waiting. i know i know, thats not realisitic you probably live on the other side of the planet, but i bet you have a neighbor who would welcome the reprieve. post a video up on youtube and link it here of you chaining your neighbors babies shit filled diaper and ill eat my own words. dont forget to hold up a news paper with today's date, and especially dont forget to wash your hands.

[NewLiberty]

Government is not bad. They can be good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I see your Stockholm Syndrome card and raise you with Münchhausen by proxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome_by_proxy

Since government isn't "real" -- it's just an abstraction so people don't waste breath describing this huge mass of accountants, managers and other public servants -- then how can "it" be sick? The problem lies within your people.

I wasn't claiming that the government was suffering from Stockholm syndrome. i was claiming that b!z was and really i was just poking fun. he may or may not be suffering from it i really dont know.

Münchhausen deals with situations where a caregiver deliberately exaggerates, fabricates, and/or induces physical, psychological, behavioral, and/or mental health problems in those who are in their care. The government is not in my care so i cant be "munchhauesening" it.

also government is real in the same sense that the number 4 is real. i mean the number 4 isnt a thing that exists in some physical form somewhere in the the universe. its an abstract concept that exists in our minds just like government but i dont think it makes any sense to say that either one of those things arnt real things just because they are non physical. i guess in some sense neither one of those things are real, but if you are meaning to use the word real in that sense than i think you have the burden of specifying that, because i think most people are going to interpret your meaning when you use the word real to include things like the number 4 unless you specify otherwise.

I read it differently, as suggesting that the government has Münchhausen, and so is gaining power by amplifying the problems so that it can have the authority to take charge of those problems based on the rewards it gains from that...  But I can't say if its the author's intent, or what is meant by "real" in the passage that follows it.

[Anon136]

Government is not bad. They can be good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I see your Stockholm Syndrome card and raise you with Münchhausen by proxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome_by_proxy

Since government isn't "real" -- it's just an abstraction so people don't waste breath describing this huge mass of accountants, managers and other public servants -- then how can "it" be sick? The problem lies within your people.

I wasn't claiming that the government was suffering from Stockholm syndrome. i was claiming that b!z was and really i was just poking fun. he may or may not be suffering from it i really dont know.

Münchhausen deals with situations where a caregiver deliberately exaggerates, fabricates, and/or induces physical, psychological, behavioral, and/or mental health problems in those who are in their care. The government is not in my care so i cant be "munchhauesening" it.

also government is real in the same sense that the number 4 is real. i mean the number 4 isnt a thing that exists in some physical form somewhere in the the universe. its an abstract concept that exists in our minds just like government but i dont think it makes any sense to say that either one of those things arnt real things just because they are non physical. i guess in some sense neither one of those things are real, but if you are meaning to use the word real in that sense than i think you have the burden of specifying that, because i think most people are going to interpret your meaning when you use the word real to include things like the number 4 unless you specify otherwise.

I read it differently, as suggesting that the government has Münchhausen, and so is gaining power by amplifying the problems so that it can have the authority to take charge of those problems based on the rewards it gains from that.

good point.

[ktttn]

im sorry but how is it obvious that family is a "worthless structure". i get a lot of benefits from living with and taking care of my daughter, and she, i believe, gets a lot of benefits from living with and being taken care of by me. we both are made better off by the arrangement that is characterized by the word family.

i think you probably just had bad relationships with your family and are sub-consciously projecting as some sort of psychological defense mechanism. for that i am sorry. perhaps if you found a husband and made a child and developed a relationship with them you may come to understand the value of family.

/personal attacks
It takes a village, amirite? Why would one read what I said as an attack on your relationship with your kid? There's no reason you can't be the most active part of that village. When I define family I'm using a Waspish, closedminded neoconservaliberal mainstream shopaholic definition- a definition that's intentionally rough on the eyes to point out the villiagelessness of contemporary childrearing, which causes innumerable societal ills ranging from ADHD to school shootings.

it definitely was not my intention to personally attack you.

no it doesnt take a village. i do pretty much all of it myself and its not that difficult. plus the kinds of people i live near are closed minded, bigoted, irrational, religious/statist types. i highly doubt they would be a good influence on a developing mind.

People turn into "closed minded, bigoted, irrational, religious/statist types" by having a lack of variety in their upbringing. The concepts of biodiversity and community are important concepts, are they not?

[ktttn]

Government is not bad. They can be good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I see your Stockholm Syndrome card and raise you with Münchhausen by proxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome_by_proxy

Since government isn't "real" -- it's just an abstraction so people don't waste breath describing this huge mass of accountants, managers and other public servants -- then how can "it" be sick? The problem lies within your people.

I wasn't claiming that the government was suffering from Stockholm syndrome. i was claiming that b!z was and really i was just poking fun. he may or may not be suffering from it i really dont know.

Münchhausen deals with situations where a caregiver deliberately exaggerates, fabricates, and/or induces physical, psychological, behavioral, and/or mental health problems in those who are in their care. The government is not in my care so i cant be "munchhauesening" it.

also government is real in the same sense that the number 4 is real. i mean the number 4 isnt a thing that exists in some physical form somewhere in the the universe. its an abstract concept that exists in our minds just like government but i dont think it makes any sense to say that either one of those things arnt real things just because they are non physical. i guess in some sense neither one of those things are real, but if you are meaning to use the word real in that sense than i think you have the burden of specifying that, because i think most people are going to interpret your meaning when you use the word real to include things like the number 4 unless you specify otherwise.

I read it differently, as suggesting that the government has Münchhausen, and so is gaining power by amplifying the problems so that it can have the authority to take charge of those problems based on the rewards it gains from that...  But I can't say if its the author's intent, or what is meant by "real" in the passage that follows it.

Münchhausen by proxy != Münchhausen. I meant something along the lines that society at-large is a guilt-tripping caregiver that wants migraine medication for themselves because their retarded child/government is making them sick. It would be understandable, except...

The government is not in my care so i cant be "munchhauesening" it.

...for the neglect?

Edit: maybe I'm confusing the issue somewhat. Putting aside the medical analogies, a lot of people seem to reject the idea of circularity in the government-society relationship. They like to complain that government rules over them, but then make it a self-fulfilling prophecy by playing the victim and convincing themselves that they're "utterly helpless" and "there's nothing they can do to influence the direction their government goes in".

The amount of effort it would take to influence the government- large cities, nationally, even most medium-sized towns is so large as to take up all of one's time and energy.
There is nothing I can do to influence the direction of my government. People spend their whole lives trying to get elected so they can be slightly more in control than your average me.
Even then, the resulting control is little more than a backed up megabureaucratic tangle of half- ideas, shell companies and regulation.
One does not wonder why 'terrorists' are so desperate to find a way to influence government.

[NewLiberty]

Münchhausen by proxy != Münchhausen. I meant something along the lines that society at-large is a guilt-tripping caregiver that wants migraine medication for themselves because their retarded child/government is making them sick. It would be understandable, except...

I'm familiar with the difference.

The government is empowered based on the maladies of the citizenry.  When we are "terrorized", government gets security powers.  When we have "inefficient health care" government gets the power over that. 
Government may also be engaged in the source of these problems as well. 

Which side of the relationship is the "caregiver" is a matter of perspective.

Those to whom you go to for aid, you also empower.