The only purpose of government should be to protect our natural rights. Anyone here disagree?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:he only purpose of government should be to protect our natural rights. Anyone here disagree?
I do. "Should" implies "can"
I do. How can government protect property rights by first violating them?
The only purpose of government should be to annihilate itself wherever it exists.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
I look forward to the day when the term government is a meme in which each individual carries with themselves as a reminder of self-governence while they operate in a possible (& most likley eventual) anarchist society or an alternative system not yet created. I think that would be an interesting purpose for government; a reminder of previous attempts, in history, to make government an external body that which rules over people capable of internal rule.
"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
Wow, anarchists post such enlightening comments. I am not asking if we should or should not have government. I am just asking if we do have government, is there any ethical justification for government above protecting our rights?
To suggest government should get involved in wealth redistribution violates protecting our rights. As such, a government cannot both protect our natural rights and engage in wealth redistribution. Not only that, but wealth redistribution is completely subjective. Whereas our rights are much more objective.
Spideynw:The only purpose of government should be to protect our natural rights. Anyone here disagree?
I disagree. The purpose of government is to produce security within which natural rights can be enjoyed. Protecting natural rights can only be the role of the holder of said rights.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Haha, sorry; I was just being honest :). I am first and foremost a student, not an anarchist per se. I don't think I know enough, for the moment, to claim myself a label other than libertarian.I mostly said that as it was an idea I found to be a more interesting post than what I was originally going to post:"I am first and foremost a student, so I am still fleshing out what I think government's sole purpose is. But since I'm libertarian, I obviously think government's purposes should be a lot less limited than what it is now."However, I can say I definitely against wealth distribution by the government, as well as regulation. *Edit: I would say the purpose of government should be overseeing and ensuring we can protect our rights, but I don't think it would work out if the government itself does it. Sort of like acting as a faculty for individuals to be able to protect their rights from one another.
Stranger: I disagree. The purpose of government is to produce security within which natural rights can be enjoyed. Protecting natural rights can only be the role of the holder of said rights.
"Produce security" is highly subjective.
Nitroadict:Haha, sorry; I was just being honest :).
Oh, I was not referring to you, just the first two posters.
Nitroadict:*Edit: I would say the purpose of government should be overseeing and ensuring we can protect our rights, but I don't think it would work out if the government itself does it. Sort of like acting as a faculty for individuals to be able to protect their rights from one another.
"Overseeing and ensuring we can protect our rights" is extremely vague and subjective though. How would lawmakers interpret that?
The only purpose of government should be to not exist.
Political Atheists Blog
Spideynw: "Produce security" is highly subjective.
So is government. That is why it must be produced by the market.
"Produce security" could be used to justify regulations and wealth redistribution. "Protecting our natural rights" could not be used to justify regulations or wealth redistribution.
Spideynw:"Produce security" could be used to justify regulations and wealth redistribution. "Protecting our natural rights" could not be used to justify regulations or wealth redistribution.
So what? The government doesn't need to justify anything it does in order to do it. It commands, you obey.
krazy kaju: The only purpose of government should be to not exist.
Another fabulous post by an anarchist. Again, this is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a government. Please open your own thread if you would like to discuss whether or not we should have a government. This thread assumes there is reason to have a government, and is asking what that purpose should be.
Well, we'd still need to make sure that "rights" is a strictly defined term. Most politicians view rights as positives and not negatives. I think it was Roosevelt who proposed a second bill of rights, which included minimum wages, health care, education, recreation, and freedom from monopolies. I highlight the last one because apparently the irony of an expanding government advocating freedom from monopolies seemed lost on him.
But yes I'll side with the others who have said the government cannot protect our natural rights since its very existence and subsistence through taxation must necessarily violate them.
Stranger:So what? The government doesn't need to justify anything it does in order to do it. It commands, you obey.
In the United States, the government is limited. As much as the president may like to shut down all the newspapers, he cannot.
Spideynw:In the United States, the government is limited. As much as the president may like to shut down all the newspapers, he cannot.
How did you go from the government to the president? The government is the president, the congress and the courts. If the whole government set out to shut down the newspapers, there would be nothing to stop them.
Fred Furash: Well, we'd still need to make sure that "rights" is a strictly defined term. Most politicians view rights as positives and not negatives. I think it was Roosevelt who proposed a second bill of rights, which included minimum wages, health care, education, recreation, and freedom from monopolies. I highlight the last one because apparently the irony of an expanding government advocating freedom from monopolies seemed lost on him.
Roosevelt was obviously an idiot. The "rights" he proposed were not natural rights, and he obviously did not understand natural rights.
Fred Furash: But yes I'll side with the others who have said the government cannot protect our natural rights since its very existence and subsistence through taxation must necessarily violate them.
Alright, so the question then is how can society exist, in harmony, without a government to mediate? How do you protect the minority from the majority or vise versa the majority from the minority?
Spideynw:Alright, so the question then is how can society exist, in harmony, without a government to mediate? How do you protect the minority from the majority or vise versa the majority from the minority?
Military strategy estimates that it generally takes a 3:1 advantage for the attacker in order for an attack to be successful. All that a minority needs to be protected is the willingness to mount a solid defense, and no one will see it as beneficial to attack them. Of course, if a majority is not powerful enough to attack a minority, then a minority attack on a majority is even less likely to succeed.
Stranger: How did you go from the government to the president? The government is the president, the congress and the courts. If the whole government set out to shut down the newspapers, there would be nothing to stop them.
I never said the president was the government.
Regardless, Congress could submit legislation making newspapers illegal, the president could decide to not veto the legislation, and the supreme court could decide to uphold the law. The 50 state governments could decide to not challenge the act. All of this is extremely unlikely.
However, in an anarchist society, one section of society could decide to start a government, and could decide to use force to make everyone become a part of that government. So how does this make anarchy more stable than a society with a government?
Spideynw:However, in an anarchist society, one section of society could decide to start a government, and could decide to use force to make everyone become a part of that government. So how does this make anarchy more stable than a society with a government?
They could do that of course. Humans have free will. There is nothing stopping them from doing anything. However, if they did do that, then they would face the consequences of their action, which would mean retaliation by those people who did not want to be subjected to their rule. And so the costs of doing this would greatly exceed the benefits of doing it. Assuming once again that humans are rational and self-interested, it would therefore be unprofitable to use force in order to establish a government.
Stranger: Military strategy estimates that it generally takes a 3:1 advantage for the attacker in order for an attack to be successful. All that a minority needs to be protected is the willingness to mount a solid defense, and no one will see it as beneficial to attack them. Of course, if a majority is not powerful enough to attack a minority, then a minority attack on a majority is even less likely to succeed.
My question is how do you ensure a society remains free of government? For example, I was watching an HBO special about an old western town, based on a true story. I cannot remember the name of it though. Anyways, the town started out without a government. Eventually, however, the town leaders decided to hold elections for a mayor, sheriff, and other government offices. The people in the town went ahead and voted.
I just do not think a world devoid of governments is possible. So if we have to have them, I think we should try to limit them as much as we can. I think the best way to do this is to define their actual purpose, so that lawmakers have an easy time understanding what laws should be enacted and what the purpose of the laws should be.
In the U.S., because the founding fathers never actually defined what the purpose of the government was, lawmakers have simply decided that laws should be for the purpose of controlling us, as reflected in regulations, traffic laws, etc.
Stranger:Assuming once again that humans are rational and self-interested, it would therefore be unprofitable to use force in order to establish a government.
As stated above, I doubt force would even be used. Most people are sheeple. They just fall in line with the leaders.
Through the use of Private Defense Agencies, and unless you can theoretically explain to me otherwise, security is a service providable by the market. If you contend that the market can better provide every other good and service, then why not security? Indeed, a monopoly on security, such as that maintained by most governments, would be far more dangerous to minorities, than if minorities were well armed. To quote someone from somewhere: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner. Anarchy is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." I recommend you read some of Rothbard on this (something i've been meaning to do more of myself).
Spideynw: However, in an anarchist society, one section of society could decide to start a government, and could decide to use force to make everyone become a part of that government. So how does this make anarchy more stable than a society with a government?
Right, and how exactly would someone force you to become part of their government in the presence of a free market for security, and a well armed populace? I don't see that happening. I've even suggested having the free markets take care of security at home, and a national volunteer army of some sort taking care of threats from abroad. Even if the army were to be taken over by some sort of radical anti-rights fervor and decide to set up a totalitarian regime, they would still have to destroy every single PDA and somehow disarm all the populace.
Spideynw:Again, this is not a discussion about whether or not we should have a government. Please open your own thread if you would like to discuss whether or not we should have a government. This thread assumes there is reason to have a government, and is asking what that purpose should be.
Here's how I usually phrase it: "IF government has any legitimate purpose, then that purpose is to protect individual rights" I say individual rights, not natural rights, but that is implied.
The problem with this idea, if anyone really wants to carry it further, is that I seriously doubt that's why governments were historically created. Instead governments were originally created as a way of enhancing the power of some people over other people. I think over time, people decided that since this powerful organization already exists, it should do something more useful, like protect its citizens. And only in more recent human history has the idea of governments protecting rights come up and been stated explicitly.
The other problem with the idea of government depends upon how it is defined. If a government is an organization that has a monopoly on the use of force in a geographical area, then the idea of government is fundamentally flawed, because it initially exists by violating the rights of everyone in that area, even if it is only a limited, minarchist government that is actually trying to protect rights.
The answer, then, is either that government has no legitimate purposes, because it is a fundamentally illegitimate organization, or our concept of government must be redefined that allows the creation of a government that is legitimate.
As an anarchist, I lean towards the first answer, but if anyone wants to try to redefine 'government', I'm open to the idea. Maybe we CAN have our cake and eat it, too.
Spideynw:My question is how do you ensure a society remains free of government? For example, I was watching an HBO special about an old western town, based on a true story. I cannot remember the name of it though. Anyways, the town started out without a government. Eventually, however, the town leaders decided to hold elections for a mayor, sheriff, and other government offices. The people in the town went ahead and voted. I just do not think a world devoid of governments is possible. So if we have to have them, I think we should try to limit them as much as we can. I think the best way to do this is to define their actual purpose, so that lawmakers have an easy time understanding what laws should be enacted and what the purpose of the laws should be. In the U.S., because the founding fathers never actually defined what the purpose of the government was, lawmakers have simply decided that laws should be for the purpose of controlling us, as reflected in regulations, traffic laws, etc.
I think you err in two ways here. First of all, the only way anarchy could come about is through some sort of almost universal understanding of freedom and economics. Once/if this were achieved, and without this I do not see anarchy occuring, I do not see why this knowledge would not be passed on through generations. But yes I agree, the theory is very hard to implement, and for all practical reasons it seems to make sense to strive for minarchism, from where the jump to anarchy is far less.
Secondly, I think it is not mis-understanding, but the lobbying by special interest groups that has created most of the incentives for lawmakers to regulate the market, and this is something that I do not see as a curable problem of democratic government.
Spideynw: As stated above, I doubt force would even be used. Most people are sheeple. They just fall in line with the leaders.
The question therefore does not concern the people, but the leaders. Why do leaders fall in line?
Spideynw:Anyways, the town started out without a government. Eventually, however, the town leaders decided to hold elections for a mayor, sheriff, and other government offices. The people in the town went ahead and voted.
So where did the town leaders come from? Sounds like they decided to have a government, and used the old fake choice trick. Like when you ask the child if he wants to take a bath first, or brush his teeth first. "Ok, brats - you're getting a Sheriff. Do you want tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum?"
How does this prove that not having governments is impossible?
Fred Furash:First of all, the only way anarchy could come about is through some sort of almost universal understanding of freedom and economics.
This is why I think our efforts would better be focused on limiting government, since I do not see this ever happening (a universal understanding of freedom).
macsnafu: As an anarchist, I lean towards the first answer, but if anyone wants to try to redefine 'government', I'm open to the idea. Maybe we CAN have our cake and eat it, too.
Redefining government, now that's an interesting idea. If government's only function were to protect individual's natural rights, it might be feasible that it could live off donations, but then we still face the problem of wealthy individuals or corporations "donating" more than others, and perhaps gaining more "security" than others. In other words I still think corruption would be a problem, and in the absence of free market alternatives the problem wouldn't fix itself...
Any ideas other than donations?
I think if you word things like this, you're likely to confuse yourself and others. Governments don't exist for normative reasons any more than trees do. They weren't put in place by (in)justice or abstract systems of ethics, they were put in place by tangible forces.
I think a better question to ask is: "If we create this 'government' in order to protect 'natural rights', will it have the effects we desire?"
Or in more neoclassical terms: "Is the institution of government incentive-compatible with the protection of natural rights?"
JAlanKatz:How does this prove that not having governments is impossible?
It does not prove it is impossible. However, given the apathy of mankind, I myself do not think it will ever happen.
Fred Furash:Redefining government, now that's an interesting idea. If government's only function were to protect individual's natural rights, it might be feasible that it could live off donations, but then we still face the problem of wealthy individuals or corporations "donating" more than others, and perhaps gaining more "security" than others. In other words I still think corruption would be a problem, and in the absence of free market alternatives the problem wouldn't fix itself...Any ideas other than donations?
Hence why people want to be wealthy... You can't call something corrupt simply because X pays more for getting more. It's good to be rich, we all know that.
P.S. Being protected is not a right.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Wait... Why does either have a vested interest in exploiting one another without an organization for "society"?
Niccolò:Hence why people want to be wealthy... You can't call something corrupt simply because X pays more for getting more. It's good to be rich, we all know that.
Let me re-phrase that. When I said some people getting more security, I was actually implying that they would be ensuring *less* security for others. In other words, I bribe you to look the other way while I do such and such, and since governments would have a monopoly on force, there is nobody else you could turn to.
Niccolò:Wait... Why does either have a vested interest in exploiting one another without an organization for "society"?
What I should have asked, is how do we ensure society does not create a government? It may be possible that one day enough people will understand the importance of freedom to get rid of government. However, even if this were to happen, as time goes by, my guess is people would forget the importance of freedom, and revert back to a government.
Fred Furash:Redefining government, now that's an interesting idea. If government's only function were to protect individual's natural rights, it might be feasible that it could live off donations,
You're not being radical enough. If we redefine "government" as an organization that protects individual rights, then why would we need to hang on to the geographical monopoly idea? "governments" could be businesses, i.e. PDA's, and then there could be 'competing governments', in spite of Rand's ridicule of the idea.
Of course, such a redefinition IS pretty radical, and probably would take a long time to gain acceptance, if ever.
Spideynw: What I should have asked, is how do we ensure society does not create a government? It may be possible that one day enough people will understand the importance of freedom to get rid of government. However, even if this were to happen, as time goes by, my guess is people would forget the importance of freedom, and revert back to a government.
It would help to understand the answer to that problem when you realise that "society" never created governments, they were present ever since tribal leaders took command of primitive peoples. Governments were created by wealthy and powerful people, not society. Society only complied because it saw government as both inevitable and necessary. Show to society that the absense of government results in more freedom, higher standards of living, less wars, etc. and suddenly you have a lot of vested interest against the creation of government. It may be true that posterity would forget the benefits of freedom, but I doubt they would forget the very tangible benefits of higher living standards, which when historically compared to periods of statism should be much higher. Your question should be phrased more like "How do we ensure the leader of one PDA doesn't decide to create his own government." but then the explanation to that seems evident enough - competition with other PDAs.
macsnafu: You're not being radical enough. If we redefine "government" as an organization that protects individual rights, then why would we need to hang on to the geographical monopoly idea? "governments" could be businesses, i.e. PDA's, and then there could be 'competing governments', in spite of Rand's ridicule of the idea. Of course, such a redefinition IS pretty radical, and probably would take a long time to gain acceptance, if ever.
At that point in time though, the government simply becomes a business like any other, unless we use the word "government" to differentiate between the service of security and all others. But then another word would probably work better, since government means literally to govern, but when it only provides security to protect natural rights, it wouldn't be governing anyone anymore in the normal sense of the word. But then I suppose that it what redefining is about, lol.
Fred Furash:At that point in time though, the government simply becomes a business like any other, unless we use the word "government" to differentiate between the service of security and all others. But then another word would probably work better, since government means literally to govern, but when it only provides security to protect natural rights, it wouldn't be governing anyone anymore in the normal sense of the word. But then I suppose that it what redefining is about, lol.
Yes, I think we'd call that a security firm. It seems to me that what separates government from a security firm, besides being able to expand into any other field that it wishes, is the ability to literally set prices - i.e. to tax. Competing security firms can't do this.