Do We Need Government?

[Gyom]

We are talking about how to stop the domestic violence resulting in death, not how best to copy it.  OP suggests the answer is for the victim to move to a shelter and the community to ostracise the violent person.  I'm suggesting the police arresting the violent person is a proven better way of handling things.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting other than that there are bad countries in the world.  If you have a useful suggestion, please post it.

I'm gonna try to steer this back towards the main topic of the discussion (Do we need government?)... I don't necessarily agree with the OP on everything, but I think he is right when he says :

... but I believe it's right to question and challenge the philosophical concept of the "state", and to acknowledge that today's forms of living together is just one of many possibilities.

My point was simply to highlight the fact that government is not automatically "good" or even morally justified... The gender "equality" we see today is a recent change in our western societies. Racial segregation in various areas was legally enforced by the US federal and state governments into the 1970s.

Even as we speak, law enforcement is pepper-spraying peaceful OWS protesters, in violation of the law they are supposed to uphold.

The rule of law CAN and WILL be abused. At least, if a corporation is doing something bad / evil, I can protest by not giving them my money. I still have to pay my sale and income taxes to the government whether or not they are involved in an illegal war (the Iraq war), whether or not they are approving the use of torture (waterboarding) or unlawful imprisonment (guantanamo bay), or else, they will jail me (or shoot me if I offer resistance).

In that regard, it is best to be as limited as possible and if the free markets can find a solution to solve the government monopoly on violence, I am all for it.

[FredericBastiat]

One thing we need to determine is whether or not it's possible for competing force agencies to resolve most of their disputes in an orderly and timely manner. Additionally, it's important to determine the solution or restitution of the problem in a proportional way. An eye for an eye, being the worst case scenario.

Competition on force contracts, which depend on the interpretation of what is right and wrong, are the the most difficult environments to deal in. It would seem plausible that violence could escalate very quickly in situations where the majority of individuals have a large belief-variation in what is wrong and right. Those situations can degrade quickly to feuding and infighting.

In reality, we actually have a market for governments. They exist on a global scale between countries, and within those police states exist some private contract dispute arbitration firms. What's interesting is, none of the governments of the world are free-will choice. You cannot choose your form of security and arbitration resolution exclusive of the state. The state can step in and overturn any or all of your decisions at any time. If they didn't step in, would justice still exist (even in the case where the arbitration is patently one-sided and unfair) or would the market eventually find its way?

[ALPHA.]

Do people still desire government? It seems so.

Do I need or want it? Nope. Can me and the people who desire little to no government get our desires met? Unlikely at this point.

[JeffK]

Do people still desire government? It seems so.

Do I need or want it? Nope. Can me and the people who desire little to no government get our desires met? Unlikely at this point.

Start seasteading

[ALPHA.]

Do people still desire government? It seems so.

Do I need or want it? Nope. Can me and the people who desire little to no government get our desires met? Unlikely at this point.

Start seasteading

There are also economic free zones such as Hong Kong and ones that are going to open up in South America. We'll see.

[JeffK]

Do people still desire government? It seems so.

Do I need or want it? Nope. Can me and the people who desire little to no government get our desires met? Unlikely at this point.

Start seasteading

There are also economic free zones such as Hong Kong and ones that are going to open up in South America. We'll see.

Cool, like an economic version of gladiator battles for the civilised world to watch. Should be a cute experiment.

[crawdaddy]

I think a better question would be:

What do we need government for?

[ALPHA.]

I think a better question would be:

What do we need government for?

To protect us from ourselves apparently.

[onesalt]

Do people still desire government? It seems so.

Do I need or want it? Nope. Can me and the people who desire little to no government get our desires met? Unlikely at this point.

Move to somalia and stop trying to ruin the country for everyone else then perhaps?

[bb113]

Any "Weak Government" theory needs to deal with what happened to every other "weak" government society. They were overtaken by people living under systems with centralized power. (please provide a counter example, I have looked for an example extensively) This should also be applied to considering places like Costa Rica today. Could those libertarian communities exist without US tourism and protectionism? A well-functioning economy is not the only aspect of a society that needs to be considered.

[Hawker]

Any "Weak Government" theory needs to deal with what happened to every other "weak" government society. They were overtaken by people living under systems with centralized power. (please provide a counter example, I have looked for an example extensively) This should also be applied to considering places like Costa Rica today. Could those libertarian communities exist without US tourism and protectionism? A well-functioning economy is not the only aspect of a society that needs to be considered.

It is one of the ironies that the "no state" crowd are all against their own state.  They seem to think foreign occupation would be far less unpleasant than living in a democracy.

[herzmeister]

yah those pesky non-libertarian neighbors as said.

they'd have to send out evangelists first 

[Vitalik Buterin]

I don't think nation states invading other nation states is a serious threat anymore. Most of the wealth in modern society is not nearly invincible physical resources tied to land, as was the case in ancient times, or even factories or equipment which could be captured and salvages. Modern wealth is people - it is us, our skills and our relationships with other people that we work with. If you try to capture a country for profit, you'll find that the people there will be much more interested in putting IEDs under your tanks than working for you, and the only way to truly subdue a nation is to pretty much burn everything and everyone to the ground, and what's the profit in that?

[Hawker]

I don't think nation states invading other nation states is a serious threat anymore. Most of the wealth in modern society is not nearly invincible physical resources tied to land, as was the case in ancient times, or even factories or equipment which could be captured and salvages. Modern wealth is people - it is us, our skills and our relationships with other people that we work with. If you try to capture a country for profit, you'll find that the people there will be much more interested in putting IEDs under your tanks than working for you, and the only way to truly subdue a nation is to pretty much burn everything and everyone to the ground, and what's the profit in that?

You are so right.  Tell the Iraqis that it was all a bad dream and tell the Iranians they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to worry about. 

Sigh.

[bb113]

Any "Weak Government" theory needs to deal with what happened to every other "weak" government society. They were overtaken by people living under systems with centralized power. (please provide a counter example, I have looked for an example extensively) This should also be applied to considering places like Costa Rica today. Could those libertarian communities exist without US tourism and protectionism? A well-functioning economy is not the only aspect of a society that needs to be considered.

Please address this before continuing the conversation. It is a major point of failure in many people's minds.

[bb113]

Maybe I don't know all the details, please correct me. I am not trying to be an ass here... here is the most obvious example:

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

In the early 13th century, the Sturlung era, the Commonwealth began to suffer from serious internal strife. The King of Norway began to exert pressure on his Icelandic vassals that they bring the country under his rule. A combination of discontent with domestic hostilities and pressure from the King of Norway led the Icelandic chieftains to accept Norway's Haakon IV as king by the signing of the Gamli sáttmáli ("Old Covenant") in 1262. This effectively brought the Commonwealth to an end.

[herzmeister]

Please provide examples of small government countries being swallowed by big government countries before demanding attention.

Planet Earth.

[bb113]

I should say that I am against sociologists and economists dictating policy with their baby science (only around since 1800s). How to go from the system I was born into towards something else though... I don't know. I mean look at black friday, who would do that?

[mobodick]

Libertarian pr0n 4 u. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItjiDWa48q4

Should government provide law enforcement? Most would argue that government is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. Prof. Edward Stringhman, however, argues that government may not even be necessary at all.

To come to this conclusion, Prof. Stringham asks a few important questions. First, if something is really important, does it logically follow that government should provide it? Second, are markets capable of providing law enforcement and security in the modern world? Third, how are disputes currently settled between people of different countries?

Looking at the first question, it doesn't seem to be the case that important things must be provided by a government. For instance, think about food. Food is necessary for life, and yet, markets do an excellent job of providing food to consumers.

Even if you're convinced that markets can provide important things, you may think law enforcement and security are a special case that markets are incapable of providing in a modern world. However, markets already enforce private rules and provide security. Disney World, Las Vegas, and malls all have private rules that are enforced by private security.

Accepting the arguments above, you may still be skeptical about market's abilities to settle disputes between different systems of rules or law. This, in fact, was Ayn Rand's primary reason for advocating a minimal state. Current interactions in the real world provide examples as to how markets resolve these disputes. Think about an international soccer game or international trade. In both instances, individuals are interacting across state boundaries, and are only subject to the jurisdiction of their own territory. In these situations, these individuals contract with the arbiters such as a soccer league or a private court to resolve disputes.

Credits: This lecture was delivered in 2009 at the Metropolitan State College of Denver School of Business, as part of the Exploring Economic Freedom Lecture Series, directed by Prof. Alexandre Padilla. This video was produced and directed by Scott Houck, and edited by Adrienne Christy. Video production provided by the Educational Technology Center at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Video used by LearnLiberty.org with permission.

What a stupid bit of text...
So because food is provided for by the market (never mind such little governmental factors as the FDA and farming subsidies) it means government is not needed?
And because disney can enforce a set of self made rules it is fit to enforce the law? Even make the law?
And it should all be arbited like a game of soccer?
The guy asks the wrong questions so that he can give his intended answers.
But it doesn't touch on the reality of things where humans would become slaves to corporate governance.
Corporations are in it for the win.
At least a government is mostly in it for you.

[JusticeForYou]

At least a government is mostly in it for you.

Really

Governments are run by people, with the same failings as others...  When power is concentrated so is corruption. This is why our government worked best when it was limited in its powers... our system of states rights... balanced with Federal Powers maintained a balance. You can move between states, you can't abandon the Fed...

The Government has to much centralized power and has been corrupted. The funny thing is congress is giving the executive even more power not realizing where that leads.

But don't delude oneself, a 'candidate' for the people doesn't spend $1 Billion dollars to get elected to a $400,000 a year job.

Governments are necessary and natural however as noted below.