What should be the Goal(s) of Government?

[theonewhowaskazu]

In my opinion, government can be distilled down to its essence in 3 statements:

1) Protect citizens' right to health & peace. This includes (A) preventing violent crimes and (B) ensuring that knowledge of the effects of substances on humans' health is public knowledge.

2) Protect the citizens' right to own. This includes preventing theft and ensuring enforceable contracts are properly enforced.

3) Provide services that are necessary to uphold the above to responsibilities without being forced to grant excessive power to a private business. For example, to enforce contracts, a dispute resolving system is needed.

I'm wondering if people here generally agree that government should be restricted to the above.

[1714150681]

1714150681

[1714150681]

1714150681

[1714150681]

1714150681

[Mike Christ]

From an anarchist's point of view (I pray you don't mind), the only purpose of government is to protect our most important rights, i.e. law & justice.  These are dictated by the law of reciprocal, e.g. "If you do this to me, you will receive similar treatment", which is essentially the golden rule.  The libertarian viewpoint is the non-aggression principle, which is an aggregate of "Do not kill", "Do not steal", "Do not rape", and anything else which can be defined as aggression.  Combining the two, you get a set of clear and concise laws where virtue is at the very core of society; the methods that these laws are protected are unrelated to any central source of power, thus placing government as a matter in the hands of every individual to protect; my philosophy is, nobody will ever reliably and consistently place your best interest in mind but you.

The trouble with giving a central source of power monopolies over certain services, especially in light of military, money and law-creation, is that they then use that power to their own advantage.  Once you have control of a people's defense systems, control over the flow of wealth, and can define what is just and what is not (even if unethical), you can then increase your control over people and divert their energy into empire building and thus, conquest.

Anyhow, when government is not allowed to have monopolies over these things, it is up to the market to provide these things.  It is a common view that the entire reason the state provides its services is because the private sector refuses to do so.  Bitcoin shows us that currencies don't have to be controlled by government; they can function on their own, powered by individuals.  Then again, gold showed this to us as well but that's a long story.  I believe, if people want it, they will pay for it, and people definitely want military to protect them, and just as well would like local law protection to ensure their daily lives go unhampered by crime.  Since people already pay for these things through taxation, it should follow they would also want these things voluntarily.  By doing this, we keep military and police in the hands of the individual, thereby removing the fear of these two entities becoming corrupt and fighting causes that are immoral, such as wars in the middle east and whatnot, but instead focused on protecting people from those who are breaking the law by breaking what is widely considered as ethical behavior, such as not murdering innocent people.  In the same vein, if people want knowledge of substances, they would fund agencies who compete to provide the most honest and truthful assessments of these items, and I believe we all want this; for example, nobody is mandated to have Internet (AFAIK) and yet a huge amount of us couldn't live without it.  Likewise, there are certain things we enjoy in this world that we couldn't live without and would be fine with spending the cash to make it happen.  I can't imagine a world where people want a product or service with there being nobody who says "Hey, I can make some money doing this!"

But aside from all that, I feel that any reduction of our currently bloated government is a step in the right direction.

[Wipeout2097]

It wouldn't go so fast on restricting the government. Don't forget that one can vote and elect politicians, while we can't influence corporations. Who is going to protect us from toxic food and environment, if not the regulators? Who is going to prevent massive healthcare costs?

That said, everyone has his own opinion of this topic, depending on his country of origin and personal ideology ...

[hawkeye]

2) Protect the citizens' right to own. This includes preventing theft and ensuring enforceable contracts are properly enforced.
 

Ask a group of people to prevent theft and uphold property rights but give them the right to steal(tax) and violate property rights?  How would you think that would turn out?  How did it turn out?

[User705]

Point 1 not possible to do.  Government can only punish someone after the fact.    You can't prevent violence.  Point 2 not possible to do.  You can't prevent theft.  Also if government grants someone the right to own it's not real it's simply letting citizens rent. This is how most modern real estate works.  You don't pay taxes or fees you lose the property that's not ownership that's rent.  Government contract enforcement is just a big loop of creating contract rules which participants have a natural tendency to try to game which then leads to rules fixing the loopholes which leads to different attempts to game and it's a forever cycle.  Private contract dispute resolution would work just as well.  So since point 1 & 2 are unworkable point 3 is irrelevant.

[Lethn]

If we absolutely must have government mine would be:

. Aiding ( not taking over like we have now ) in the defense of its citizens

. Mediating disputes in law or cases of fraud as a neutral third party

. Getting elected as representatives for cases of diplomacy for international purposes, I'm a bit different in that I think we should have direct democracy and the people should have a right to vote on every single law that politicians try to pass, if public opinion outweighs politicians opinions then the law should be stopped

I do pretty much agree with you for the most part except for the public health thing, that's just knowledge if people are taught things properly then the government wouldn't need to do the work. My thing for example is always being suspicious about food that's incredibly cheap, you've got to have a look at where it comes from and how they manage to get it that cheap, if they're being tight lipped, then you don't buy from them because they have something to hide, it's like that with any product.

I've found that many of the problems in this world can simply be solved by not being assholes, if people stopped it then we wouldn't even need any government at all.

[Hawker]

In my opinion, government can be distilled down to its essence in 3 statements:

1) Protect citizens' right to health & peace. This includes (A) preventing violent crimes and (B) ensuring that knowledge of the effects of substances on humans' health is public knowledge.

2) Protect the citizens' right to own. This includes preventing theft and ensuring enforceable contracts are properly enforced.

3) Provide services that are necessary to uphold the above to responsibilities without being forced to grant excessive power to a private business. For example, to enforce contracts, a dispute resolving system is needed.

I'm wondering if people here generally agree that government should be restricted to the above.

Sort of a short list isn't it?

4. Protect citizens right to exist as a community via border controls and work permits. 

5. Protect citizens right to live in the style of community they via via planning laws and zoning permits.

6. Act collectively for citizens in things like education and health.

[Ekaros]

Protect citizens from internal and external threats, be that individuals , larger entities like other governments and corporations or natural threats.
Provide minimal basic needs of citizens, health, nutrion and shelter.

And then positive extras:
Provide important infrastructure to support commerce
Provide important basic and/or advanced training for citizens

[theonewhowaskazu]

2) Protect the citizens' right to own. This includes preventing theft and ensuring enforceable contracts are properly enforced.
 

Ask a group of people to prevent theft and uphold property rights but give them the right to steal(tax) and violate property rights?  How would you think that would turn out?  How did it turn out?

The difference would be that tax money would be spent exclusively to obtain the above 3 goals, so taxes would be much lower & we would not have to pay interest on debt. Since chaos would erupt if multiple law-enforcement agencies of differing rules were to be given power to manage a specific area, there is simply no other reasonable way of protecting citizens in some respects without the aid of a government. Since governments with the above 3 rules don't have immigration rules, it would be very easy to simply immigrate to another country should any specific government become abusive in terms of its taxes.

[Anon136]

The question doesn't really make any sense. Government isnt a person and only people have goals. So if we are going to talk about what goals government has or ought to have, we can only be talking about what goals the people who run government have or ought to have. Government is comprised of millions of people with hundreds or thousands of goals each. So government has, and will continue to have, like literally a billion different entirely distinct goals at any given time.

[hawkeye]

2) Protect the citizens' right to own. This includes preventing theft and ensuring enforceable contracts are properly enforced.
 

Ask a group of people to prevent theft and uphold property rights but give them the right to steal(tax) and violate property rights?  How would you think that would turn out?  How did it turn out?

The difference would be that tax money would be spent exclusively to obtain the above 3 goals, so taxes would be much lower & we would not have to pay interest on debt. Since chaos would erupt if multiple law-enforcement agencies of differing rules were to be given power to manage a specific area, there is simply no other reasonable way of protecting citizens in some respects without the aid of a government. Since governments with the above 3 rules don't have immigration rules, it would be very easy to simply immigrate to another country should any specific government become abusive in terms of its taxes.

You are assuming the people that you give the power to, will follow these rules.  Like I said, it's been done before many times and never works out that way.

Why would there be chaos with multiple enforcement agencies?  Can companies in one industry not co-operate?   The costs of co-operation in the security protection industry are far lower than the costs of the companies not co-operating with each other.  Conflict is very expensive.  If you are trying to offer the best deal to your customers you want to keep your costs as low as possible.  Hence, co-operate with the other companies to provide arbitration services when there are disputes between customers of them.   This is in stark contrast to a monopoly who gets money regardless (police) and doesn't really have to provide good service.  Hence, they just provide the lowest amount of service they can get away with.  Which frankly, isn't that good.

Immigration is just moving when you don't have the nonsense of country borders.  There are many cases where you can move 1000 or more miles in one direction with no problem, but moving 100 miles or even less sometimes in another direction requires visa, passport, etc.  What nonsense is this?

[Mike Christ]

In my opinion, government can be distilled down to its essence in 3 statements:

1) Protect citizens' right to health & peace. This includes (A) preventing violent crimes and (B) ensuring that knowledge of the effects of substances on humans' health is public knowledge.

2) Protect the citizens' right to own. This includes preventing theft and ensuring enforceable contracts are properly enforced.

3) Provide services that are necessary to uphold the above to responsibilities without being forced to grant excessive power to a private business. For example, to enforce contracts, a dispute resolving system is needed.

I'm wondering if people here generally agree that government should be restricted to the above.

Sort of a short list isn't it?

4. Protect citizens right to exist as a community via border controls and work permits. 

5. Protect citizens right to live in the style of community they via via planning laws and zoning permits.

6. Act collectively for citizens in things like education and health.

I just played a brilliant game where government had control over these things and business and more, where you work as the guy who sees who's allowed in the community or not at a national checkpoint, check it out: Papers, Please

A question: once government is out of individual control, how do individuals stop it from evolving into fascism/communism without taking control of it again?

[Elwar]

The goal of the government should be to do whatever people pay for.

[yvv]

The goal of the government should be to do whatever people pay for.

Yeah, they actually do whatever people pay for. People from oligarchic elite.

[TheButterZone]

Self-destruct, rather than continue its out of control totalitarian crescendo.

[PrintMule]

There's no ideal solution. No utopia for you, sorry. Not in your lifetime, or in a lifetime of your kids. Only thing you can do is to steal/earn enough for yourself and those that are close to you, and live happily ever after in some remote corner, as far as you can be from any government. People are competitive by nature, they work in their own interests, and there are too many people with too many interests. It's logical that given the power you usurp that power. If someone is delusional enough to believe in some greater good, this is only a stage in his life, until a point where his delusions are replaced with common sense, coming in terms with his needs.

[Mike Christ]

There's no ideal solution. No utopia for you, sorry. Not in your lifetime, or in a lifetime of your kids. Only thing you can do is to steal/earn enough for yourself and those that are close to you, and live happily ever after in some remote corner, as far as you can be from any government. People are competitive by nature, they work in their own interests, and there are too many people with too many interests. It's logical that given the power you usurp that power. If someone is delusional enough to believe in some greater good, this is only a stage in his life, until a point where his delusions are replaced with common sense, coming in terms with his needs.

To sum up your post:

"Give up, it's not worth it."

At least you have admitted to there being a problem

[freethink2013]

mainly the judiciary. no real reason for the rest of it.

[theonewhowaskazu]

There's no ideal solution. No utopia for you, sorry. Not in your lifetime, or in a lifetime of your kids. Only thing you can do is to steal/earn enough for yourself and those that are close to you, and live happily ever after in some remote corner, as far as you can be from any government. People are competitive by nature, they work in their own interests, and there are too many people with too many interests. It's logical that given the power you usurp that power. If someone is delusional enough to believe in some greater good, this is only a stage in his life, until a point where his delusions are replaced with common sense, coming in terms with his needs.

Exactly, and the concept of this utopia is exactly why people want a socialist government. Since, at the end of the day, it is in the interest of the most people to not have such a government, then why, by your theory, don't they assert this interest?

[dank]

There's no ideal solution. No utopia for you, sorry. Not in your lifetime, or in a lifetime of your kids. Only thing you can do is to steal/earn enough for yourself and those that are close to you, and live happily ever after in some remote corner, as far as you can be from any government. People are competitive by nature, they work in their own interests, and there are too many people with too many interests. It's logical that given the power you usurp that power. If someone is delusional enough to believe in some greater good, this is only a stage in his life, until a point where his delusions are replaced with common sense, coming in terms with his needs.

Unless the entire generation of youth believes in the same delusion.

A question: once government is out of individual control, how do individuals stop it from evolving into fascism/communism without taking control of it again?

Anarchy, complete nature and balance.

[PrintMule]

There's no ideal solution. No utopia for you, sorry. Not in your lifetime, or in a lifetime of your kids. Only thing you can do is to steal/earn enough for yourself and those that are close to you, and live happily ever after in some remote corner, as far as you can be from any government. People are competitive by nature, they work in their own interests, and there are too many people with too many interests. It's logical that given the power you usurp that power. If someone is delusional enough to believe in some greater good, this is only a stage in his life, until a point where his delusions are replaced with common sense, coming in terms with his needs.

Unless the entire generation of youth believes in the same delusion.

A question: once government is out of individual control, how do individuals stop it from evolving into fascism/communism without taking control of it again?

Anarchy, complete nature and balance.

Even if you raise all that generation as your kids, teaching them to be good and all, and giving all attention needed - there will be conflicts and it will go out of control. People will fight for money, for power, for space. It's human nature.

If you altruistically give give and give, there will be those who'll get used to take take and take. You will get tired of giving it to people like that, and stop - they will get angry at you for stopping, and fight among themselves for scraps, or even attack you. If we build something together, one of us will get tired/annoyed/bored faster than others and will sabotage our hard labor. If one of us works harder than others, he would want to receive better payment than others.

Only possible way would be to clone same guy over and over, and brainwash him - so there's uniformity. Unachievable otherwise.

[hawkeye]

Even if you raise all that generation as your kids, teaching them to be good and all, and giving all attention needed - there will be conflicts and it will go out of control. People will fight for money, for power, for space. It's human nature.

If you altruistically give give and give, there will be those who'll get used to take take and take. You will get tired of giving it to people like that, and stop - they will get angry at you for stopping, and fight among themselves for scraps, or even attack you. If we build something together, one of us will get tired/annoyed/bored faster than others and will sabotage our hard labor. If one of us works harder than others, he would want to receive better payment than others.

Only possible way would be to clone same guy over and over, and brainwash him - so there's uniformity. Unachievable otherwise.

If it's more beneficial to co-operate with others then that's what most people will do.  This whole thing about anarchy being chaos and survival of the fittest is a complete myth.   The few that decide they want to steal and kill will find themselves outnumbered by the many and subject to being rounded up by security.

If government is, for the most part, a monopoly protection service (ie. racket) then an anarchic situation would have competitive protection services that aren't tied to the land.  ie. you are free to choose your level of protection rather than the one size fits all and you are forced to pay.  

It's human nature for psychopaths to kill and steal.  But they are a small percentage of the population.  Most people want decent lives where they look after their children, have fun with friends, etc.  They don't want a situation where week after week they are thinking about who they are going to have to steal from this time, planning it out, and quite likely having to commit at least one murder in the process.  I don't know about you but most people I know would find that lifestyle horrifying.   No, what people do when they form communities is they start getting the market process, division of labour going for the benefit of all.  Yes, there are always psychopaths that seek to benefit from this but even they don't want a complete breakdown because they know their lives would be much harder.  It's much easier with an abundance of products to steal what you want.   The psychos would be easier to deal with in an anarchic society, unlike the current situation where we put them in government and ask plead with them to be nice, lol.

[Mike Christ]

If it's more beneficial to co-operate with others then that's what most people will do.  This whole thing about anarchy being chaos and survival of the fittest is a complete myth.   The few that decide they want to steal and kill will find themselves outnumbered by the many and subject to being rounded up by security.

If government is, for the most part, a monopoly protection service (ie. racket) then an anarchic situation would have competitive protection services that aren't tied to the land.  ie. you are free to choose your level of protection rather than the one size fits all and you are forced to pay.  

It's human nature for psychopaths to kill and steal.  But they are a small percentage of the population.  Most people want decent lives where they look after their children, have fun with friends, etc.  They don't want a situation where week after week they are thinking about who they are going to have to steal from this time, planning it out, and quite likely having to commit at least one murder in the process.  I don't know about you but most people I know would find that lifestyle horrifying.   No, what people do when they form communities is they start getting the market process, division of labour going for the benefit of all.  Yes, there are always psychopaths that seek to benefit from this but even they don't want a complete breakdown because they know their lives would be much harder.  It's much easier with an abundance of products to steal what you want.   The psychos would be easier to deal with in an anarchic society, unlike the current situation where we put them in government and ask plead with them to be nice, lol.

This is why anarchism cannot occur right now; it's often believed that anarchism is the result of failed government, but this is not true; totalitarianism is the result of failed government.  A people who can self-govern on a national level become anarchists; a people who become entirely dependent on the state become fascists.  Our slow drift into fascism in America is a result of people becoming progressively dependent, which is the exact opposite direction we want to head if it's good progress we're seeking; we want to be free and independent, not enslaved and dependent.

For anarchism to occur, we need a world of rational actors, fit with enough intelligence and maturity to handle themselves without a state, and doubly so to prevent the sociopath from rising to power, as he will always try no matter how far along we've come as a species; the state does not enable society, society enables the state, and enables it varying on how individualistic its citizenry is.  People who seek a small state are almost there, and as I'm sure you've seen, they're gradually becoming a majority; people who seek a huge state cannot trust even themselves, so it comes to no surprise that this is projected onto others.

The state will always occur in a society of irrational people, because they'll always be duped by the sociopaths into believing they cannot survive without it (in the same way we once believed God was necessary in life and the fear of not having him was too great to abandon; rational thinking disposed of this idea in a great many, and increasingly every day.)  Thus, the beginnings of anarchism, a fairly new idea when compared to the state and likewise relevant to the beginning of man's focus on rational thought, will be seen as a natural shift from the state so long as rational actors remain vigilant, and continue to train others in the rational method.  Though you and I can see why this is the preferable method of governance, it can often look like gibberish to others due to this effect.

Only possible way would be to clone same guy over and over, and brainwash him - so there's uniformity. Unachievable otherwise.

This observation, albeit consistent with religion and politics, remains inconsistent in atheism; nobody is brainwashed into believing atheism, and most atheists become so on their own even with a religious upbringing.

If this is true, can we not assert that atheism is the product of rational thinking?  In other words, if you've never been exposed to another atheist and you can still come to the same conclusions, whilst, in comparison, the only way to become a Christian is through other Christians, then we can assert that atheism (weak atheism anyway) is the rational conclusion on the concept of religion.

Looking at this another way: I give you a logic tool.  You use this tool in thoughts about religion and come to a conclusion.

What are the chances that you've reproduced Hinduism?  What are the chances you've reproduced atheism?

This same line of thinking can be applied to morals and ethics; the more this tool spreads, the more uniform people are, for they always seek the best methods of interaction, not the "traditional" methods.  Thus, conclusions such as "do not aggress" become very popular in people with this logic tool, while conclusions like "might is right" die gradually with nobody to preach it.

[NewLiberty]

Your logic is coercive!

I did see a typo though...
If man is incapable of governing himself, man is incapable of governing others.  Ergo, either anarchism is possible or we are ruled not by mortal moral men.

[hawkeye]

It seems that even a germ of government (small government if you will) will essentially grow in time to larger and larger government.  People can try and bind the government in a constitution, but there will always be people in government eager to grow the government and expand it's power.  They will push at the edges to see what they can get away with at first.  There are always loopholes.   People for the most part let things go, it's too much trouble to make a fuss with the government for most people, especially when they've got all the issues in their own lives to deal with.  Eventually, government becomes a runaway train, taking over more and more aspects of people's lives, by which point it's too late to apply the brakes.    As government takes over people's lives, more and more become dependent on it, which leads to a feedback process.  Govt grows, more people become dependent, govt needs to expand further to cope with them, which leads to more people becoming dependent and so on.

Even if we can get to a point where government is small again, it will only be a temporary period in time.  

The state will always occur in a society of irrational people, because they'll always be duped by the sociopaths into believing they cannot survive without it (in the same way we once believed God was necessary in life and the fear of not having him was too great to abandon; rational thinking disposed of this idea in a great many, and increasingly every day.)  Thus, the beginnings of anarchism, a fairly new idea when compared to the state and likewise relevant to the beginning of man's focus on rational thought, will be seen as a natural shift from the state so long as rational actors remain vigilant, and continue to train others in the rational method.  Though you and I can see why this is the preferable method of governance, it can often look like gibberish to others due to this effect.

Yep, it's just keep bashing away at people's belief in government.  The one thing people like you and me will be able to say, if the ideas come to fruition in our lifetime, is that we were in on the ground floor.  (well, maybe the first floor    ).

And just knowing that you have the right philosophy is a huge relief.  I used to be on the left, but there were always some things about the left that made me feel uncomfortable.  The right was never an option.  Even as a small government minarchist I wasn't completely comfortable.   Now, I feel comfortable and at ease with the anarchist philosophy.  

[Hawker]

In my opinion, government can be distilled down to its essence in 3 statements:

1) Protect citizens' right to health & peace. This includes (A) preventing violent crimes and (B) ensuring that knowledge of the effects of substances on humans' health is public knowledge.

2) Protect the citizens' right to own. This includes preventing theft and ensuring enforceable contracts are properly enforced.

3) Provide services that are necessary to uphold the above to responsibilities without being forced to grant excessive power to a private business. For example, to enforce contracts, a dispute resolving system is needed.

I'm wondering if people here generally agree that government should be restricted to the above.

Sort of a short list isn't it?

4. Protect citizens right to exist as a community via border controls and work permits. 

5. Protect citizens right to live in the style of community they via via planning laws and zoning permits.

6. Act collectively for citizens in things like education and health.

I just played a brilliant game where government had control over these things and business and more, where you work as the guy who sees who's allowed in the community or not at a national checkpoint, check it out: Papers, Please

A question: once government is out of individual control, how do individuals stop it from evolving into fascism/communism without taking control of it again?

The best way to is to use a calendar.  There hasn't been a fascist coup or a communist revolution since Nicaragua in 1979.  Based on this, we can stop worrying about them and worry about inefficient and/or unfree systems.

[User705]

The best way to is to use a calendar.  There hasn't been a fascist coup or a communist revolution since Nicaragua in 1979.  Based on this, we can stop worrying about them and worry about inefficient and/or unfree systems.

Sweet 30 years without really bad governments just a few somewhat bad ones.  That's way less then 1% of total human time but we are all good now.

[Hawker]

The best way to is to use a calendar.  There hasn't been a fascist coup or a communist revolution since Nicaragua in 1979.  Based on this, we can stop worrying about them and worry about inefficient and/or unfree systems.

Sweet 30 years without really bad governments just a few somewhat bad ones.  That's way less then 1% of total human time but we are all good now.

Socialism and fascism are less than a century old.  That they died over 30 years ago surely means that you can stop worrying about them.

[hawkeye]

The best way to is to use a calendar.  There hasn't been a fascist coup or a communist revolution since Nicaragua in 1979.  Based on this, we can stop worrying about them and worry about inefficient and/or unfree systems.

Sweet 30 years without really bad governments just a few somewhat bad ones.  That's way less then 1% of total human time but we are all good now.

Socialism and fascism are less than a century old.  That they died over 30 years ago surely means that you can stop worrying about them.

Fascism is when big business and government are in bed together.   Kind of looks like we have fascism now it's just that they don't deliberately use that name any more.  An obsession with security is one of the key features of socialist/fascist/communist systems.

[Hawker]

The best way to is to use a calendar.  There hasn't been a fascist coup or a communist revolution since Nicaragua in 1979.  Based on this, we can stop worrying about them and worry about inefficient and/or unfree systems.

Sweet 30 years without really bad governments just a few somewhat bad ones.  That's way less then 1% of total human time but we are all good now.

Socialism and fascism are less than a century old.  That they died over 30 years ago surely means that you can stop worrying about them.

Fascism is when big business and government are in bed together.   Kind of looks like we have fascism now it's just that they don't deliberately use that name any more.  An obsession with security is one of the key features of socialist/fascist/communist systems.

On that basic, all government is fascism which creates a need for a new word in the dictionary.  What do you want to call the movements led by the likes of Hitler, Franco and Mussolini that the rest of us call "fascist?"

[theonewhowaskazu]

The best way to is to use a calendar.  There hasn't been a fascist coup or a communist revolution since Nicaragua in 1979.  Based on this, we can stop worrying about them and worry about inefficient and/or unfree systems.

Sweet 30 years without really bad governments just a few somewhat bad ones.  That's way less then 1% of total human time but we are all good now.

Socialism and fascism are less than a century old.  That they died over 30 years ago surely means that you can stop worrying about them.

Fascism is when big business and government are in bed together.   Kind of looks like we have fascism now it's just that they don't deliberately use that name any more.  An obsession with security is one of the key features of socialist/fascist/communist systems.

On that basic, all government is fascism which creates a need for a new word in the dictionary.  What do you want to call the movements led by the likes of Hitler, Franco and Mussolini that the rest of us call "fascist?"

Super-fascist.

[hawkeye]

On that basic, all government is fascism which creates a need for a new word in the dictionary.  What do you want to call the movements led by the likes of Hitler, Franco and Mussolini that the rest of us call "fascist?"

Not all governments.  Just most of the ones of today.  Democracy always eventually devolves to fascism.  It's just how it works.

[tkbx]

1. Emergency services (police, fire, ambulance).
2. Some non-emergency services (roads, maybe trash).
3. Prosecution of criminals (violence, theft, sex offenses).
4. Military

[Ekaros]

1. Emergency services (police, fire, ambulance).
2. Some non-emergency services (roads, maybe trash).
3. Prosecution of criminals (violence, theft, sex offenses).
4. Military

I think trash is such area where free market can work, with proper regulation. That is hefty penalties when trash is dumped where it shouldn't be...

I support regulations in areas where natural monopols can form... Water, sewage and electricity...

[dank]

There's no ideal solution. No utopia for you, sorry. Not in your lifetime, or in a lifetime of your kids. Only thing you can do is to steal/earn enough for yourself and those that are close to you, and live happily ever after in some remote corner, as far as you can be from any government. People are competitive by nature, they work in their own interests, and there are too many people with too many interests. It's logical that given the power you usurp that power. If someone is delusional enough to believe in some greater good, this is only a stage in his life, until a point where his delusions are replaced with common sense, coming in terms with his needs.

Unless the entire generation of youth believes in the same delusion.

A question: once government is out of individual control, how do individuals stop it from evolving into fascism/communism without taking control of it again?

Anarchy, complete nature and balance.

Even if you raise all that generation as your kids, teaching them to be good and all, and giving all attention needed - there will be conflicts and it will go out of control. People will fight for money, for power, for space. It's human nature.

If you altruistically give give and give, there will be those who'll get used to take take and take. You will get tired of giving it to people like that, and stop - they will get angry at you for stopping, and fight among themselves for scraps, or even attack you. If we build something together, one of us will get tired/annoyed/bored faster than others and will sabotage our hard labor. If one of us works harder than others, he would want to receive better payment than others.

Only possible way would be to clone same guy over and over, and brainwash him - so there's uniformity. Unachievable otherwise.

Luckily for us we are all the same person.  Once we all realize this, it shouldn't be hard to respect one another and achieve equality.  Anarchy requires people to evolve on a conscious scale to treat all other beings as their self.  People could fight for power, but the population would regulate people who thrive power, because nature is against those who seek power.  Money ideally would not exist in an anarchist society, to keep people free from greed/power.

[PrintMule]

Luckily for us we are all the same person.  Once we all realize this, it shouldn't be hard to respect one another and achieve equality.  Anarchy requires people to evolve on a conscious scale to treat all other beings as their self.  People could fight for power, but the population would regulate people who thrive power, because nature is against those who seek power.  Money ideally would not exist in an anarchist society, to keep people free from greed/power.

This is nothing but a childish dream. Also money = convenience.

If medical treatment costs 10 sheep.
And 100 sheep are equal to an elephant.
Would you cut 1/10 off your elephant to go see a doctor?

And if someone in power gets thrown out, it's only for someone to get in his place. And you have to have someone important for all the risky decisions, which you cannot wait for people to make a mass vote or something. All this anarchy talk is useless, we should be talking about making current systems more manageable to live in, not daydreaming about something else.

[dank]

Perhaps we won't need money or resources from earth in the future.

[dadomado]

Governments should primarily serve his people as in most of world countries is not the case everything else is demagoguery

[countryfree]

I'm happy to read there are many people here who support the ideas of old liberals like Swiss Benjamin Constant. Government should not have a goal, but a purpose. It's essentially to protect everyone's civil liberties, and to guarantee the freedom to express your talent. Nothing more.

[countryfree]

I'm adding a simple idea.

A good government shall be close to a concierge in a large building. Making sure the alleys and the stairs are clean, and preventing some tenants to be loud at night, but most of the time staying silent and not interfering in any way in people's lives.

[NewLiberty]

I'm adding a simple idea.

A good government shall be close to a concierge in a large building. Making sure the alleys and the stairs are clean, and preventing some tenants to be loud at night, but most of the time staying silent and not interfering in any way in people's lives.

The problem of this analogy is that whenever you ask this concierge for anything you have to remember that they are also the armed guard, they spread the cost on the bill of everyone staying at the building, and if the residents don't pay for that, they can get imprisoned or worse.  And somewhere along the way someone asked the concierge to bug all the rooms in the hotel and put that on your tab.