Do you believe in "government?"

Yes, government is necessary because people can not rule themselves, and even if there is anarchy or some form of societal state of being where there is no government, one will eventually form and take over anyway, as there are always going to be parties and groups which vie for power.

youtube.com/watch?v=d0dOD6bWv8A
youtube.com/watch?v=HaMR6xK0E-s

Why are you such a hypocrite? I guess in such a society you would be offed because it takes a true dumb fucks like you to admit a Communist government is evil in the same god damn comment.

>Government is simply part of a natural process. It's how we organize ourselves, it's how we're wired.
>Most social animals follow some sort of hierarchy, and we're no different.

You assume hierarchy or social organization can only be government. But these are everywhere and exist primarily NOT due to the government's influence, which is usually more destructive than supportive of them. Markets and exchanges, where levels of employees and employers coordinate production are highly organized and hierarchical. So are families and social groups.

People naturally organize and create rules to govern groups of themselves. But that is NOT "government" per se. It is not THE STATE, not political government. Businesses do not own their employees like slaves how govts own citizens. They can't arbitrarily take their money or threaten them w/o justification.

Many complex social and economic networks humans tend to create are for the most part non-aggressive and non-governmental. Over human history the last few thousand of years- the trend is to move further and further from government as a source of advancement and prosperity, although government itself has enhanced its power in the mean time.

Would the internet no longer work without govt? Would people not farm, build, sell and invent? Would voluntary agreements of mutual benefit (contracts) be invalid?

The answer is no. The world will spin without government. Actually in the long-run we would be far much better overall. Human history will continue to see a rising standard of living and level of individual liberty and technological advancement without government.

With government, however, human civilization is at best impeded- as restriction and intrusion enters nearly all aspects of life. At worst, though, civilization is increasingly in peril of sudden, complete annihilation, as govt's unjust authority has resulted in it acquiring a power to extinguish all life on Earth with a push of a button.

If smart people had more children and dumb people had fewer children, we would easily achieve a society with 132+ IQ... Make it a reality folks and start pumping out kids.

You guys are nieve and silly for thinking this. Studies have shown hardened criminals have a higher IQ on average. Perhaps high IQ with high morality would allow little government.

>People naturally organize and create rules to GOVERN groups of themselves. But that is NOT "government" per se.

I see no distinction. The literal definition of government is "a person or persons that govern".

Even the most primitive of social hierarchies have someone who makes the rules of that society and supporters to enforce them.

For example, the chief of a tribe might have the final say in a given affair, but he might preside over a council that advises him in matters of the tribe or controls/organizes the different basic functions that a society needs to survive and thrive like food production and defense.

Big government, state government is just the logical conclusion; As nations get larger, so too, must the groups that govern and organize.

The issue isn't that government is inherently evil, it's not. It's merely that it consists of people. Corruption is a part of human nature on all levels of society. It's just more apparent in government because the people in charge make decisions that affect larger groups in often negative ways.

Government is hierarchy organization + the use of force. You suggest that organization will exist without government. You're suggesting a world without violence then. You're delusional.

Or you're suggesting a world where violence exists but is not monopolized by a state. That would be a state of constant war.

>Many complex social and economic networks humans tend to create are for the most part non-aggressive and non-governmental.

What are some examples?

Only if they're led by Donald Trump.

>government is necessary because people can not rule themselves

You sound like Obama.

I got married the past year....Huge event, dozens of vendors and over 150 guests, thousands of hours of planning and coordination involved. So many things to potentially go wrong yet everything went great, everyone even got shitfaced- and still... everything ended up fine. Managers managed and employees obeyed and guests followed the pre-determined rules and conditions. Anyone bordering on out of line were adjusted by people close to them. A groomsmen who smoked weed against my wishes, got bitched at, apologized, and we moved one without further issue. How is this not people "ruling" themselves? Around $50,000 circulated around between all payments/services being exchanged and all the gifts given/received and there was no theft. Lots of sex was had pretty much by most people that night, don't think there was any rape. No one got ripped off or cheated. Government didn't help with any of this shit. It only gave things to work around, like raising the costs and prompting efforts to avoid taxes via using cash tips, or by restricting product options with things like liquor laws requiring extra time/cost for special distributors. Anyways, the point is it happened in spite of govt, not because of it, and is a microcosm of how the world in general is as well. Solid principles like free will, voluntary exchange, etc all work on a small scale, and there is no reason they cannot on larger ones. In fact, they have and they do. It is only fear and ignorance of people like you who prevent it from expanding to include larger areas and populations.

>Government is hierarchy organization + the use of force. You suggest that organization will exist without government.

No, sir. That is a strawman for anarcho-capitalism you've made. An-Cap defines government as involving the INITIATION of force, not the use of force alone. An-Cap condones violence where it is employed justifiably. Why do you think an-caps always own tons of guns? An-Caps greatly value and respect violence.

The ability to pose and execute violent actions is fundamental to the theory of liberty in that it is what allows individuals to protect and maintain their freedom and their wealth. The caveat is that violence and force must be used with justification.

Government, is defined by NOT having proper justification in its use of violence. An individual is not justified in taking part of your income, neither is government.

Nothing governments can do- whether its having elections with voting or allowing free movement of people across borders can change the fact that they INITIATE violence upon people against their will. It necessarily and by definition violates the non-aggression principle, essentially because all governments collect taxes to operate and enforce laws created based on arbitrary basis, and they use the threat of violence to make these activities happen. If taxes were voluntary, and obeying laws against owning a certain kind of plant was optional, what would the entity involved in them even be? Just a charity that makes suggestions. It is when the charity comes for your "donation" with a gun, and dictates your behavior against your will, just because you were born in a certain geographical area, that it then becomes a government.

Govt = initiation of violence on innocent persons.

bump for rebuttal

Problem is when malevolence enters the equation. There is a bunch of that in the larger scale.

youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE

(original essay is better btw)

>>Many complex social and economic networks humans tend to create are for the most part non-aggressive and non-governmental.
>What are some examples?

For a pure example of it you would look for any business that doesn't primarily cater to government needs (military/bureaucracy/legal and financial services to deal with government laws) and that isn't heavily affected by government regulations. Most major human cooperative efforts involve companies with govt contracts like the ones Lockheed Martin enjoys, or govt patent protections that big pharmaceutical and electronics corporations benefit from. Others change drastically like how gun laws force firearm companies to constantly respond to and work around them. These all pervert these industries to the point they're nothing like they would be in a free market.

Better examples might be sports and art industries that are more free of govt intrusion. Athletes and teams and fans all interact and billions of dollars are involved. Art gets made and reviewed and appraised, auctioned, re-made, etc all without government. But even still they're affected, like when public funds are used to build stadiums or government schools control most which sports kids are taught. Or when art becomes subjected to govt enforced patents and licenses for selling and making it. You can't really say things like shitty pop music and retarded events like the superbowl would exist the way they do without govt.

To really see humans interact freely and coordinate productively you could look on smaller scales, like with small charities and social organizations/clubs. These have worked well and have solved problems without govt, like golf clubs with racial policies changing them due to social pressures and perceptions not gov't laws. Many tiny charities like food pantries or voluntary fire depts improved lives before getting big enough to attract govt funding/control.

Live without the government? is that even possible? I mean really, without the government who's boots will I lick? Who will tell me what group of people to hate?

You can also look at the trends within industries/organizations currently in place- you can see how the least govt influenced ones function and produce most effectively and the most influenced are the worst.

The military-industrial and pharmaceutical industries are incredibly inefficient and counter-productive- dysfunctional military jets, drugs with side effects worse than what they cure, and astronomical prices with no competitors. There is a lot of waste, competition and being informed are discouraged, and it makes a select few filthy rich.

But look to more free parts of these industries- drug categories like aspirin or cholesterol medications which because they are generic and less restricted, tend to have products highly effective and safe relative to very low cost. It's definitely better than the companies with govt funded research selling patented monoclonal antibodies with small benefits and huge prices. Small private surgical facilities that are funded purely on a cash for procedure basis, tend to have better outcomes, more satisfied patients, with lower prices than the big corporate hospitals heavily depending on and subservient to government.

So to see human capability to function well free of government you have to know how to look, have to see what government hasn't yet perverted or what people have found ways to escape it. Those areas don't cause people to suffer without government they are actually the true primary source of our rising standard of living. Most of why we live so comfortably traces to private people were able to act freely and independently from government, not people following its rules or chasing its incentives. Driniking water access is better thanks to privately developed technologies like new sanitation methods, and people learning more about hygiene and illnesses, companies competing in filters and bottled water, not because the government mandated certain size toilets and makes threats about rationing.

Can I get a tl;dr plz?

>sports and art industries that are more free of govt intrusion
>non-aggressive
Are you actively retarded, or is it just a hobby?

Even the sport and art industries see regulation. Organizers of such events have been indicted for fraud and other similar charges. The Olympics, being international events, require huge amounts of funding and cooperation between governments for the sake of security.

Art, as utterly subjective as that term is, is also subject to regulation, even if it's much looser.

For example, loli hentai is banned or censored in many countries for breaking obscenity laws, yet it'd be hard to argue that such things are without at least some artistic merit.

As for your last point, there is a big difference between a society and an organization. The principal reason being scale. It's common sense that the more people there are in a given group, the more conflict will arise.

A close, tight knit group of like-minded people will obviously function and achieve goals with more efficiency than a large group of relative strangers.

But even small groups like that require hierarchy, people to oversee, plan, manage and coordinate the rest of the group. as i explained in All that is are patterns and ceaseless repetitions. Every stage of human interaction sees conflict. Most are resolved in mutually beneficial ways. Many are not.

Insurance companies. If you are a criminal noone will take you and you will be un-covered and can be shot.

Works like this, people 1 and 2 have insurance. Person one steals from person two. Person 2 tells their insurance and the insurance pays for the stolen goods, and launches an investigation. The investigation leads then to person one. If it is proven that it is person one, the insurance of person one will pay for the stolen goods, and the investigation costs. Person ones insurance either raises their rates or drops person one. Person one never should have done a crime and is now dangerously uncovered. The insurance companies have lots of competition to make sure they are providing a good service

Hail the free market

>All that is are patterns and ceaseless repetitions.

If you want to put it that way sure... that's all capitalism is:
private property, voluntary trades, common medium of exchange and price system arising from buying and selling in the marketplace. Those are the only ingredients you need.

Every single consumer good you make use of in your daily life is a product of human coordination and cooperation via markets, uncoerced and undirected by a central authority.

You're a hypocrite until you goinnawoods and live like this guy:
youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA

Cred Forums is packed with trump supporters that can't see past the left vs right paradigm, so the consensus for this place is probably "yes"

How does making use of tools and items that others have manufactured make me a hypocrite?

>Every single consumer good you make use of in your daily life is a product of human coordination and cooperation via markets, uncoerced and undirected by a central authority.

So you're telling me that no goods are ever regulated by central authorities?

>muh human nature
Kys

>Even the sport and art industries see regulation.
>Art also subject to regulation, censorship

You're right, it's difficult if not impossible to find even individual businesses free of govt interference, much less entire industries. So it takes an open mind and a high awareness of government's influence on the world to recognize where it is absent and appreciate how it is better. You might have to settle for general phenomena like crowd sourcing or less official groups.

Gofundme probably more directly helps people than any govt assisted charity with tons of overhead and great lack of control by the donors.

And a private institute like Mises.org, (whether you agree with the content or not), does have an incredible track record of how profoundly it affects its students and the amount of knowledge it transfers to them.

Genomics labs like 23andme have at least improved awareness of genetics in medicine and improve research in genetics. They succeeded because it was commercial and unregulated, just a mail order saliva test without govt regulation and without govt filtered result interpretations. People just got their genes reported, cheap, easy.

Or social media, like forums...where people discuss like we are right now. Who was ever prompted to discuss and research philosophical shit like this in a state funded college, or by highly state controlled mainstream media? None, they come and argue these ideas because of voluntary private innovations by people starting websites, operating forums, even like Cred Forums. This forum now has actual influence on the world, and it's cured a lot of ignorance over the years.

If you take away roles people have in society with traces of government, the activities left might not seem impressive or be highly regarded in the mainstream. But evaluate what they actually do, they do it extremely well and make all the government-affiliated enterprises look completely dysfunctional in comparison.

We seem to have different definitions about what constitutes a government.

What do you think of what I said in ?

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Yes, one that is actually controlled by it's people and subjected to very strict regulation and transparency. Government and anything it does should always be open for criticism by it's people so it can be improved and changed to cope with the times. There's simply no room for corruption in highest levels of goverment.

Private sector should always be put on a leash and harsh regulation because that allows the people - the government to actually point it's resources towards the what "customers" want instead of the endless seek for growth, cost efficiency and profit. unbridled capitalism will only get us all killed through economical, social and environmental instability and damages. Corporations and their owners need to be held accountable for the "externalities".

youtube.com/watch?v=vjw0s09zvz0

A necessary evil. It's a ridiculous thing when you go out of the box and think about it, but we're too intertwined to get it of off our backs.

...

Government does the job its supposed to.

Provide a peaceful avenue for settling disputes without tribalism and piracy.

And for the most part it excels at that very well. I support having a government.

Law isn't about about right or wrong, its about stability.

fellow travelers check this out

Nope, they all suck

>So you're telling me that no goods are ever regulated by central authorities?

I think the point is that even when government is setting the bread prices, rationing it, dictating how it's made, mandating its sale, etc....at the end of the day the bread-maker chose to get out of bed in the morning to make it.

Ultimately even with the most statist-controlled things, at some level of production he exercised free will and voluntary control of it, and had to connect with people also conducting themselves freely to some extent. The stones of the oven were dug up and bought by someone who chose them, the flour was milled such a speed and method per someone's intentional action, the horses to harvest it were bred and sheltered and fed a chosen way. Every step had its own separate production lineage and every participant had to learn from people choosing how to teach it.

The contributing elements of production trace back near-infinitely and at some point always involve people with aspirations making free choices to harvest, transport or process raw nature-provided materials, and to exchange them voluntarily for mutual benefit, in order to attain personal goals. Eventually all of it originates from free will.

So even for something as basic as bread, government control and regulation can never extend totally to every ounce of pressure in the hands of the person kneading the dough, or every prior case of voluntary and individualized contribution by a freely acting person. It is irrefutable that people first existed and acted freely before governments ever existed.

Government could never have 100% control over and rightfully deserve full credit for inducing production unless it self-initiated it using only non-human robots. Anything else, would be taking over progress and contributions from someone whose freedom to have goals and to make choices brought it to that point. Government run "production" is ALWAYS parasitic, and never a net contribution of wealth.

>Law isn't about about right or wrong, its about stability.

Solitary confinement in prison
>stable

Drug induced comas for everyone
>Very stable

Mass nuclear extinction
>Most stable of all

You're an utter idiot.

The totalitarianism you apparently seek is actually not stable, not even at all.... when leaders getting executed, political dissidents dragged off to labor camps, arbitrary dysfunctional govt management of production, wars are constantly on the brink of being waged internally and externally. Mass starvation and continuous political persecution, genocide, that all sounds REAL fucking stable. The irony is if you were present for it, you'd never really be appreciate it that way, thanks to being force fed state-run media propaganda all the time. Even if you did, what could you do? Openly acknowledging it would get you dragged to the gulag too. Right and wrong be damned, right? It's about stability- and you're not helping!

The more government control, the worse people's rights are violated, the more harm to the standard of living, and the less stable things are ultimately. Once you recognize the problem is not in spite of government but because of it, due to its very nature, then you realize the single best solution and the only one completely acceptable is to have no government at all.

The government isn't immune, hence why it it should be limited. It has less potential to do grand amounts of damage if it does the necessities. Even the framers of The Constitution knew that their form of government wasn't immune to corruption and can and will turn into something tyrannical, which is why they had other precautions in it due to peoples inherent rights.