End of Governments

[pennywise]

So the basic question of this thread is:

If we disband government, can we stil have a free and safe society?

Answer: YES, WE CAN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

[cbeast]

So the basic question of this thread is:

If we disband government, can we stil have a free and safe society?

Answer: YES, WE CAN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

A completely philisophical thought experiment. You may believe this argument if you wish, but it is not based on forensic sciences. There are a lot of ifs used and no historical examples.

[pennywise]

A completely philisophical thought experiment. You may believe this argument if you wish, but it is not based on forensic sciences. There are a lot of ifs used and no historical examples.

Yes, of course, this stuf never made it to real world. Yet. Of course it was only thught of few decades ago, when the implementation was impossible, because the existing solutions worked fine for western world. Which is no more so.

There are ifs for sure (nice song, btw), however about historical examples following could be said:
-every empire, when only founded and rising to power (Say Greek, Roman, etc), had same rules: low taxes, low or inexistent welfare, simple and small set of laws. Yet population managed to grow, technical progres was made and civilisation was thriving. When empires were slowly dying, things above were mostly opposite. When romans realized that their budget spending will make them lose all the gold soon, they started to mix other metals to their coins while coins were maintaining same value. And they postponed their decline for a while.

-some of things that are described in video worked just fine in the wild west, includng basically  no welfare support.

[Anon136]

Do you want roads, police, courts, firemen, water, and electricity?

Of course I do.

Are you willing to live near people that would not pay for those because they can get what they want by force instead? Would you pay for them as well?

No. That's why I am an anarchist.

What you think you are is irrelevant. Before the extant of public commons, there was no civilization. Without civilization, you are merely food.

this is so amazingly backward. Government cant exist with out leaching resources from society. Reseources can not be leached from a society that does not have surplus production. A society can not have surpluss production with out specialization and the division of labor. Specialization and the division of labor are the hallmarks of civilization.

civilization necessarily comes before government because government has no means with which to sustain its self with out civilization.

Society cannot aggregate resources until they have protection from anarchist bandits and warlords. Tribes paying for good governance is far cheaper and more efficient than losing everything to roving barbarians. That's why people choose to live in the protection of castle walls. Eventually, the castle walls are replaced by roads (i.e. Rome) and standing armies that police the environs. Finally feudalism evolves into empire and into modern civilization.

Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.

[cbeast]

Do you want roads, police, courts, firemen, water, and electricity?

Of course I do.

Are you willing to live near people that would not pay for those because they can get what they want by force instead? Would you pay for them as well?

No. That's why I am an anarchist.

What you think you are is irrelevant. Before the extant of public commons, there was no civilization. Without civilization, you are merely food.

this is so amazingly backward. Government cant exist with out leaching resources from society. Reseources can not be leached from a society that does not have surplus production. A society can not have surpluss production with out specialization and the division of labor. Specialization and the division of labor are the hallmarks of civilization.

civilization necessarily comes before government because government has no means with which to sustain its self with out civilization.

Society cannot aggregate resources until they have protection from anarchist bandits and warlords. Tribes paying for good governance is far cheaper and more efficient than losing everything to roving barbarians. That's why people choose to live in the protection of castle walls. Eventually, the castle walls are replaced by roads (i.e. Rome) and standing armies that police the environs. Finally feudalism evolves into empire and into modern civilization.

Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.

That is probably the dumbest, most poorly contrived argument ever trolled. It belongs in the Internet Troll Hall of Shame.

[Anon136]

Do you want roads, police, courts, firemen, water, and electricity?

Of course I do.

Are you willing to live near people that would not pay for those because they can get what they want by force instead? Would you pay for them as well?

No. That's why I am an anarchist.

What you think you are is irrelevant. Before the extant of public commons, there was no civilization. Without civilization, you are merely food.

this is so amazingly backward. Government cant exist with out leaching resources from society. Reseources can not be leached from a society that does not have surplus production. A society can not have surpluss production with out specialization and the division of labor. Specialization and the division of labor are the hallmarks of civilization.

civilization necessarily comes before government because government has no means with which to sustain its self with out civilization.

Society cannot aggregate resources until they have protection from anarchist bandits and warlords. Tribes paying for good governance is far cheaper and more efficient than losing everything to roving barbarians. That's why people choose to live in the protection of castle walls. Eventually, the castle walls are replaced by roads (i.e. Rome) and standing armies that police the environs. Finally feudalism evolves into empire and into modern civilization.

Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.

That is probably the dumbest, most poorly contrived argument ever trolled. It belongs in the Internet Troll Hall of Shame.

and that was not a rebuttal nice try tho, i haven't fallen for tricks like that since i was very young.

[myrkul]

A completely philisophical thought experiment. You may believe this argument if you wish, but it is not based on forensic sciences. There are a lot of ifs used and no historical examples.

Right, no historical examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_commonwealth
And since it's St. Patrick's day, let's not forget the Irish Tuatha: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tuath

Historically, anarchies have been more stable, long-term, than States.

[Severian]

Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.

That is probably the dumbest, most poorly contrived argument ever trolled. It belongs in the Internet Troll Hall of Shame.

if cbeast didn't have me on ignore, he'd learn that a troll got onto a German stamp for exactly the idea put forward by Anon136:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppenheimer#Der_Staat_.28The_State.29

[cbeast]

Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.

That is probably the dumbest, most poorly contrived argument ever trolled. It belongs in the Internet Troll Hall of Shame.

if cbeast didn't have me on ignore, he'd learn that a troll got onto a German stamp for exactly the idea put forward by Anon136:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppenheimer#Der_Staat_.28The_State.29

Let's see something that has been written in recent anthropological or sociological peer reviewed journals. Anyone can conjecture. Again, if you are going to assert an opinion, base it on some evidence. I am not an historian, but at least I used Rome as an example of a developing state. That's the difference between philosophy and science. You can prove facts wrong, that is how science is done. Since philosophy cannot be falsified it is not science. Maybe I'll look for a discourse between Oppenheimer and Marx. It sounds like an interesting subject on labor philosophy. This will be very important in the post central bank era.

[Severian]

Let's see something that has been written in recent anthropological or sociological peer reviewed journals.

Moving the goalposts isn't an intellectually honest approach. It was your claim that only "trolls" would posit that the State is a gang of thieves. Now that your claim is disproved, it might serve you better to educate yourself further or refrain from commenting out of ignorance again.

I am not an historian

That's quite obvious. I can safely discount your further opinions of anything having to do with historical matters, theories of the State being one of them.

[cbeast]

Let's see something that has been written in recent anthropological or sociological peer reviewed journals.

Moving the goalposts isn't an intellectually honest approach. It was your claim that only "trolls" would posit that the State is a gang of thieves. Now that your claim is disproved, it might serve you better to educate yourself further or refrain from commenting out of ignorance again.

I am not an historian

That's quite obvious. I can safely discount your further opinions of anything having to do with historical matters, theories of the State being one of them.

Look. He threw the first ad hominem. Calling him a troll was for that more than the argument. Besides, Oppenheimer's opinions are interesting, but hardly prove or disprove anything. Perhaps he was only trolling Marx or vice verse. As far as my opinions, you may discount anything you like. Your feelings add nothing to the conversation. Unless you are an accredited historian, shall I discount your conjecture as well?

[Severian]

Look. He threw the first ad hominem.

I agreed with you. You said you weren't a historian. That's not ad hominem.

Unless you are an accredited historian

Yes, I have publicly acknowledged expertise in certain branches of history, mostly having to do with the rise of central banking in America. What would you like to know?

[cbeast]

Look. He threw the first ad hominem.

I agreed with you. You said you weren't a historian. That's not ad hominem.

Unless you are an accredited historian

Yes, I have publicly acknowledged expertise in certain branches of history, mostly having to do with the rise of central banking in America. What would you like to know?

You did not answer my question about supporting the posited Oppenheimer hypothesis in a peer reviewed science journal. Or at least some historical example that demonstrates the dynamic. Or maybe you too are a naive person? According to you, that is not ad hominem.

[Severian]

You did not answer my question about supporting the posited Oppenheimer hypothesis in a peer reviewed science journal. Or at least some historical example that demonstrates the dynamic.

I'll look around and get back to you. While I'm doing that, find me a something in a peer reviewed science journal supporting Bitcoin. I'll probably have a little more luck than you will but let's post our findings here.

maybe you too are a naive person? According to you, that is not ad hominem.

I've been called worse. In contrast, "naive" is a compliment.

[cbeast]

You did not answer my question about supporting the posited Oppenheimer hypothesis in a peer reviewed science journal. Or at least some historical example that demonstrates the dynamic.

I'll look around and get back to you. While I'm doing that, find me a something in a peer reviewed science journal supporting Bitcoin. I'll probably have a little more luck than you will but let's post our findings here.

I did not proffer an argument about Bitcoin in this discussion, so I'll concede the point if I did. I would truly like to see a study about how bandits form governments as the argument you are championing:

Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.

[Severian]

I don't believe either one of us can be persuaded from our positions so I'm going to refrain from further engagement in a pissing contest. I've found that by and large, an individual's nature is either geared toward bending to the authority of the State and its decrees or its geared to less centralized modes of existence. No amount of debate is going to change a person's nature.

An excellent history of the rise of centralized authority of the past 100 years and its fruits is found in Advance To Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare From Sarajevo to Hiroshima by Veale. You probably won't see this work used as a history book in any state-funded university.

As a return, perhaps you could direct me to a work that details the positive aspects of the centralized control of economic, jurisdictional and civil matters. We have examples in the Soviet Union, Maoist and modern China, the European Union and the United States so there's plenty to draw from.

[cbeast]

I don't believe either one of us can be persuaded from our positions so I'm going to refrain from further engagement in a pissing contest. I've found that by and large, an individual's nature is either geared toward bending to the authority of the State and its decrees or its geared to less centralized modes of existence. No amount of debate is going to change a person's nature.

An excellent history of the rise of centralized authority of the past 100 years and its fruits is found in Advance To Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare From Sarajevo to Hiroshima by Veale. You probably won't see this work used as a history book in any state-funded university.

As a return, perhaps you could direct me to a work that details the positive aspects of the centralized control of economic, jurisdictional and civil matters. We have examples in the Soviet Union, Maoist and modern China, the European Union and the United States so there's plenty to draw from.

I am not accepting your false dichotomy of statist vs. agorist (or whatever). There are a lot of books these days with highly provocative themes. Most of them use cherry-picked facts and twist statistics into things that would make a contortionist wince. I have my own hypotheses that are far more complex and involve the rise of religion, developmental psychology, linguistics, and other correlational research. People tend to see the patterns they want to see in complex systems, but these systems arose from somewhere and somewhen. I am more curious about fundamental forces in psychohistory and sociohistory.

[Severian]

I am not accepting your false dichotomy of statist vs. agorist (or whatever).

One is either prone to accept the yoke or not. If nothing else, this is what political history teaches us.

[cbeast]

I am not accepting your false dichotomy of statist vs. agorist (or whatever).

One is either prone to accept the yoke or not. If nothing else, this is what political history teaches us.

Then that is the limit of political history. I don't bind myself to currently accepted paradigms.

[Severian]

I don't bind myself to currently accepted paradigms.

The rights of the individual vs. the power of the collective is one of the oldest paradigms there is. What paradigm are you working under?