Marko: So the only governement that could ever work is the governement that could never ever work? Figures. :)
So the only governement that could ever work is the governement that could never ever work? Figures. :)
Exactly! Unless you can come up with a better system for not forcing people to be subjected to laws they do not agree with.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
If everyone gets a veto then no legislation would ever get passed and we would have a useless institution...what's the point of it? Why not just impliment Anarchy?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: If everyone gets a veto then no legislation would ever get passed and we would have a useless institution...what's the point of it? Why not just impliment Anarchy?
The point is that society could not start another form of government, which the elites would try to do.
The elites would have no basis for legitimacy and those in an Anarchist society would violently resist them.
Spideynw:It is significant because it is binding to those that voted for it.
Exactly! Why 100%, why not any willing percent?
Spideynw:No. Because then government power gets established, and the minority will eventually get abused by it. If even 51% vote in favour of attacking another country, I guarantee you the other 49% will get dragged into it, against their will. But this does not take away the power from the 51% to go ahead and go to war, but the other countries cannot blame the entire state for it, which would include the 49% that were against it.
You are already doing that though, your system still doesn't bind the non-voters. By your own logic all non-voters and infants would be dragged in as well.
Spideynw:Well, if there ever were a time where you could get millions of people to agree on something, then you could figure it out at that point I guess.
They'd have to agree before we know that they agree.
Spideynw:Well, I think if you get into the meat of what an anarchist is, it is not simply someone who is opposed to government, it is someone opposed to government force.
Government is force.
Spideynw:No, it results in a free market. But I did describe a "government". I have come to the conclusion that people cannot exist without some form of government. And this form of government would satisfy that need.
But that assertion is tautological. People need government because people need government is what I'm getting out of your logic so far. I'm not saying people don't want to organize and form orderly societies, but rather that order is not the mother of liberty, but liberty is the mother of order in this case (I think I'm quoting Proudhoun... o_O) as individuals must be free to organize for their own survival in the first place. Thus, again, what you have just described is a free market because it fits each and every property of a free marke t(1. People own their persons in whole and the results of their persons (their property). 2. People are responsible for what they do with their persons and property. 3. People owe no debt inherent to each other in regards to their persons and property. These are just three properties that I would say you would need to have a free market at the minimum.). So, again, why are you trying to redefine the term government into something it's not (government does not necessarily mean state)?
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Laughing Man: The elites would have no basis for legitimacy and those in an Anarchist society would violently resist them.
The problem is that people will not stay anarchist. The basis for my reasoning is that HBO had a show about a western town that existed before it became a part of the U.S (I cannot remember the name of it). The show was based on a true story. The town was completely anarchist. No government whatsoever. Then the town "leaders" decided to create a city government, and the sheeple just followed in line and voted for officers for the new city government.
Morty:Government is force.
No, government and force are not synonyms.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
It seems to me, spidey, that you have restated the market anarchist position in a manner which those who are still infatuated with democracy would find acceptable. I can see how such a system might serve as a sort of transitional phase for such individuals. It is effectively a polycentric, democratically created legal order. But the polycentric nature of it makes all the difference.
It actually sort of reminds me of the "representative participatory democracy" in L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Spideynw:No, government and force are not synonyms.
Government is the territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making with the power to tax. Force is inherent in its conception.
Morty: Spideynw:No, government and force are not synonyms. Government is the territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making with the power to tax. Force is inherent in its conception.
I disagree; wouldn't government occur (in the form of self-government, and the interaction of the sovereign individual in said stateless society) regardless of the existience of The State, & it's de-centralized represenative institutions?
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
MacFall:It seems to me, spidey, that you have restated the market anarchist position in a manner which those who are still infatuated with democracy would find acceptable. I can see how such a system might serve as a sort of transitional phase for such individuals. It is effectively a polycentric, democratically created legal order. But the polycentric nature of it makes all the difference.
Ah, someone who gets it.
Juan:I think they are. If there's no force then all you have is contractual agreements, not government. The system you're describing is practical anarchy, or no-government.
In essence, yes it is anarchy, since the government could not function. But the problem I find with pure anarchy, as I have already stated, is that people will form a government eventually. This is why we need a true democracy, one ruled by absolute majority rule, a 100% majority, to be a check on any other form of government people may try to conceive. The purpose of said government would also be for people to show to others that they did vote on presented legislation, and that they were against it, and that implementing it would be tyranny.
Ok, now you are just wildly speculating about the behaviors of people you don't even know or have even been conceived. If the people became Anarchist and had access to infrastructure and natural capital then it would make no sense for them to give up all of their natural rights.
On a side note, why do you call them sheeple? Do you feel that all people are in fact "sheeple" and there is only a small minority who are in fact intelligent?
Laughing Man:On a side note, why do you call them sheeple? Do you feel that all people are in fact "sheeple" and there is only a small minority who are in fact intelligent?
Yes. My guess is ~1% of the population is acutally "intelligent".
Nitroadict:I disagree; wouldn't government occur (in the form of self-government, and the interaction of the sovereign individual in said stateless society) regardless of the existience of The State, & it's de-centralized represenative institutions?
I think we are just talking past each other here - I don't separate the conception of "State" and "government."
I am writing an essay about government, and I was wondering if anyone could point me to some articles and/or books that talk about government. Especially helpful would be if you could direct me to an article/essay/book about the history of governments.
Josh: I am writing an essay about government, and I was wondering if anyone could point me to some articles and/or books that talk about government. Especially helpful would be if you could direct me to an article/essay/book about the history of governments.
I would strongly recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe's book, The Myth of National Defense. Also, this is an essay of his which touches on the subject.
McFall, it is refreshing to see a left libertarian who is not totally repulsed by or averse to Hoppe.
Kudos to you.
Spideynw: I think all anarchists could agree with this form of government. After everything I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the only form of government that can "work" is a true democracy. In other words, everyone can vote and there is no "head of state". The other aspect of a "true democracy" is that legislation is only approved if every single voter votes yes for the legislation. If even one voter voted against the legislation, then the legislation would not pass. Lastly, anyone that did not get to vote on the legislation would not be bound by the legislation. Since no legislation would ever be passed, it would in essence null and void government power, completely. But, at least everyone could say they had a chance to vote.
I think all anarchists could agree with this form of government.
After everything I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the only form of government that can "work" is a true democracy. In other words, everyone can vote and there is no "head of state". The other aspect of a "true democracy" is that legislation is only approved if every single voter votes yes for the legislation. If even one voter voted against the legislation, then the legislation would not pass. Lastly, anyone that did not get to vote on the legislation would not be bound by the legislation.
Since no legislation would ever be passed, it would in essence null and void government power, completely. But, at least everyone could say they had a chance to vote.
Doesn't sound like a form of government to me if it cannot enforce edicts upon unwilling participants.
Morty: Nitroadict:I disagree; wouldn't government occur (in the form of self-government, and the interaction of the sovereign individual in said stateless society) regardless of the existience of The State, & it's de-centralized represenative institutions? I think we are just talking past each other here - I don't separate the conception of "State" and "government."
Perhaps, but shouldn't you seperate the two regardless? I don't see how Statism is required for self-government.
Juan:I thought self-government means that each individual governs himself only himself. So, in a sense, self-government is not government, but anarchy.
My point, more or less; self-government & Statism are not compatible.
miseskindaguy:Doesn't sound like a form of government to me if it cannot enforce edicts upon unwilling participants.
So you would say government is a person or group of people ruling over others?
Spideynw:After everything I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the only form of government that can "work" is a true democracy.
I'm reminded of Robert Paul Wolff's In Defense of Anarchy, which, while it is a terrible book about anarchy, is a great book about democratic forms of government. He concludes that Unanimous Direct Democracy (UDD), which is essentially what you're describing, is the only legitimate form of government, the only form where authority and autonomy coincide. He concludes that representative democracy and majoritarian democracy fall short of legitimacy. Alas, in his last section, when he talks about working anarchy, he does a poor job of descibing it, never mind arguing for it.
It's online here: http://www.ditext.com/wolff/anarchy.html or available through Amazon, among other places.
I don't think your form of government (or UDD) is something that's ever likley to come about in reality, but it does present a good way of discussing the legitmacy of government. And that's basically Wolff's argument: if no functional form of government is legitimate, anarchy is the only legitimate choice.
UDD would be quickly abandoned because if no decisions come to pass most people will find better things to do with their time.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Spideynw:So you would say government is a person or group of people ruling over others?
Government can be either a collection of individuals who rule or just one person ruling the many. However, if the government cannot enforce its ruling upon individuals who do not want to follow those rules then it ceases to be a government. Also, if in your pure democracy everyone agrees to a certain law, but one then later on decides to reverse course would he still be bound to the law?
macsnafu:I don't think your form of government (or UDD) is something that's ever likley to come about in reality,
Agreed.
miseskindaguy:Government can be either a collection of individuals who rule or just one person ruling the many. However, if the government cannot enforce its ruling upon individuals who do not want to follow those rules then it ceases to be a government.
Then by your definition, unanimous democracy is not a government. If it is not a government, then what is it? Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with you. In a UDD, there really would be no "government", since there would not be any government officials since no legislation would ever be approved. I guess a UDD would be the possibility of a government.
miseskindaguy:Also, if in your pure democracy everyone agrees to a certain law, but one then later on decides to reverse course would he still be bound to the law?
No, and the law would become null and void as well.
Spideynw:If it is not a government, then what is it?
There is no coercion or threat of violence apparent, so it is simply a social institution.
Spideynw:I guess a UDD would be the possibility of a government
If one, being a member of the UDD, has the power to veto a law for any reason then there would be no threat of the state emerging.
I fail to see how this form of government could sustain itself or what the benefits would be. It will either fall apart due to lack of force or it will succumb to it and cease to be free.
If there were no government what so ever the exact same thing could be accomplished. Those with voting fetishes could still create or join private voting institutions and vote to their hearts content. And of course no vote could apply to a non member.
But if a governmened people can arive at such a level of freedom, they will understand that choices are votes and democracy is inferior to Liberty.
Spideynw: Laughing Man: If everyone gets a veto then no legislation would ever get passed and we would have a useless institution...what's the point of it? Why not just impliment Anarchy? The point is that society could not start another form of government, which the elites would try to do.
Why on earth would the natural elites feel the need to form a new state? The only way a person could rise to position of an "elite" is through gaining respect for their actions and morals, as such there's every reason that the elites would be the first ones to resist the state. Especially when we take into account that the history of states is to oppress the natural elites and reward the less able with political power. One of the biggest forces in modern democracy is envy, hardly a trait that would be common amongst natural elites.
Even if we did grant that they had an incentive to, why do you assume they would be able to? And how can you assume that creating a state will retard this process as oppose to speed it up?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Spideynw: Laughing Man: The elites would have no basis for legitimacy and those in an Anarchist society would violently resist them. The problem is that people will not stay anarchist. The basis for my reasoning is that HBO had a show about a western town that existed before it became a part of the U.S (I cannot remember the name of it). The show was based on a true story. The town was completely anarchist. No government whatsoever. Then the town "leaders" decided to create a city government, and the sheeple just followed in line and voted for officers for the new city government.
What's your point? If people want statism that's exactly what they'll get.
Wilhelm Raschke: I fail to see how this form of government could sustain itself or what the benefits would be. It will either fall apart due to lack of force or it will succumb to it and cease to be free.
It couldn't be sustained, and the benefit would be to allow "normal" people to be introduced to liberty without having to quit their beloved democratic process cold-turkey. It would fall apart when people realize its uselessness.
GilesStratton:Even if we did grant that they had an incentive to, why do you assume they would be able to?
Watch the last few episodes of the HBO show Deadwood, which is based on a true story.
GilesStratton:And how can you assume that creating a state will retard this process as oppose to speed it up?
I could be wrong. Of course it is highly unlikely that a UDD or anarchy will ever be established.
liberty student: McFall, it is refreshing to see a left libertarian who is not totally repulsed by or averse to Hoppe. Kudos to you.
I don't limit myself intellectually as a follower of any particular brand of libertarianism. As Neal Peart put it, "I am nobody's disciple".
I am "left libertarian" in that I believe in market-based action toward revolution, and don't believe in political action. But I do have socially conservative beliefs, and I'm not a mutualist or a syndicalist or anything like that.
Only 1% of the population is "intelligent"...?
How are you an Anarchist if you think everyone is an idiot?
Divide and conquer?