Nah. I do away with force.

An insurance policy like that would be dirt cheap. Anyone can afford it.

You don't do away with force, you privatise it.

Well, they won't secretly fund anything. I mentioned the whole audit thing. Anyone can go count the bullets and read the revenue and spending reports whenever they like.

Bad and dysfunctional government?

I just have to ask...just as a sort of aside...like take our differences to the sideline a moment....

Is their really anyone that thinks their government is good and functional?

Nah. I do away with force.

An insurance policy like that would be dirt cheap. Anyone can afford it.

You don't do away with force, you privatise it.

How's that?

You understand that a company that wants customers has to attract them right? Like...they have to offer something people want and are interested in trading for voluntarily.

You grasp that much right?

I mean...you understand the difference between someone choosing to buy a shirt is not the same as someone being forced to buy a shirt right?

You understand that a company that wants customers has to attract them right? Like...they have to offer something people want and are interested in trading for voluntarily.

You grasp that much right?

I mean...you understand the difference between someone choosing to buy a shirt is not the same as someone being forced to buy a shirt right?

You're changing the question, but I'll go with it: no, actually, a company doesn't have to attract customers in your world, any more than the mafia has to attract local small business owners to pay it protection money.

So you go to audit them. And they have guys with guns who turn you away. Or they just falsified the books. Or don't even bother keeping books.

As for your question, government is unavoidable. Whenever groups of people congregate some sort of structure will emerge to, well, govern our baser impulses and prevent human selfishness from causing catastrophic harm to the group. That is government. The larger the group of people, the more formalized and explicit that structure needs to be. A functional government is one that does more good than harm. There will always be waste/corruption/abuses of power, that is an unavoidable consequence of human nature. That is what made the concept of checks and balances in the US constitution so revolutionary, it accepted the fact that the government would be subject to abuse and built in safe guards. After 200 years those are being stretched pretty badly, but they haven't completely failed yet. That ability you were talking about to audit the "company's" books? That's what freedom of the press and transparency in government are supposed to be doing. Our task as informed citizens (a sad minority in many "developed" countries), is to try and find a system that will minimize the harm government can do (and it certainly can do great harm), and maximize the good that it does (keep people safe and healthy and prevent individuals from abusing personal power), because no matter what happens, we are going to end up with SOME kind of government.

Now, as to your point about force, you do have part of a point. If you said all governments ultimately resort to coercion to hold power I might agree with you. A society has to have some way to deal with those who simply will not refrain from harming others or who use force themselves to try and impose their will on others. In smaller communities there are options that do not involve force, exile and shunning spring to mind, but in the larger, global communities those aren't really an option because we have no place to exile anyone too and a large nation is too diverse for shunning to work. If you can come up with a means of coercion that can work on a global scale and that does not necessitate force you might be on to something.

Now... Wow, this is getting very long

Since a community of people unavoidably has to have some sort of mechanism in place to deal with malcontents and enable the citizens to be able to work together, our job is to try and conceive of a system that uses the minimum necessary level of coercion while allowing the maximum amount of personal freedom. THAT is the problem we should be wrestling with.

Well, I think I had more, but I've lost my train of thought. I'll just end by reiterating that a knack of government unavoidably leads to a tyrannical government as somebody will use force to impose their will, and without some institution to push back against that they will succeed.

You don't do away with force, you privatise it.

How's that?

But, sure I'll describe one way to keep a hypothetical armed biker gang from taking over my neighborhood.

Although I personally wouldn't worry much about it.

But...if I was concerned. I would want a decent insurance policy against such stuff.and would buy one from whatever company offers the best coverage for the best price.

If I was the insurance company...and I was concerned about it..i would want to hire armed guards or some such to roam around protecting the neighborhood I'm insuring. ..because it's a lot cheaper than paying out for policies if the neighborhood gets wrecked by tattoed musclemen on motorcycles with machine guns.

Let's just call them cops...since that's similar to what the government police are supposed to do.

Now...as a concerned customer...i might wonder..."well, how do I know this insurance company won't use its 'cops' to take over the town itself?"

So, I choose an insurance company that allows third party audits of its warehouses and weapons and tanks or whatever else dumb crap it thinks is necessary. And if it looks a little like they are buying or building more than I'm comfortable with then I stop buying insurance from them. And so would anyone else.

Then it becomes sort of hard to have helicopters with lasers if you have no customers paying for it.

So, basically...everything works very similarly to how it does now. With the important difference being...it's paid for voluntarily. And if people don't like it...it doesn't get paid for.

Mr. Or Mrs. Lore...

Interesting thought regarding "finding the ratio of coercion to freedom."

That is exactly why I am interested in this topic.

But to the others, the strongly pro-state people.look, I am not going to spend a lot of energy debating how a free society would handle imaginary issue a,b,c,d,e, on through biker gangs or leprechauns or dragons or whatever imaginary threats can be invented.

I mean, we can play that game all day long for months. Back and forth.

But it's a mistake.

Work for your utopia ....if only there were just more laws. Only a few more layers of bureaucracy...we just need a few more rulers making decisions against the wishes of others and enforcing it with fancy laws and men in blue costumes.

Be happy or angry that your country traded one coercive entity for another.it's just weird to me that's all. It's also kind of selfish in a way. Everyone loves their democracy when it goes their way.

52%of a population just FORCED the other 48% to do something against their wishes. I think that's crap. I'm sorry that happened to you.

It doesn't have to be that way...in order to feel safe from imaginary gangs or insurance companies...or coffee shops...or whatever

Mr. Or Mrs. Lore...

Interesting thought regarding "finding the ratio of coercion to freedom."

That is exactly why I am interested in this topic.

But to the others, the strongly pro-state people.look, I am not going to spend a lot of energy debating how a free society would handle imaginary issue a,b,c,d,e, on through biker gangs or leprechauns or dragons or whatever imaginary threats can be invented.

I mean, we can play that game all day long for months. Back and forth.

But it's a mistake.

Work for your utopia ....if only there were just more laws. Only a few more layers of bureaucracy...we just need a few more rulers making decisions against the wishes of others and enforcing it with fancy laws and men in blue costumes.

Be happy or angry that your country traded one coercive entity for another.it's just weird to me that's all. It's also kind of selfish in a way. Everyone loves their democracy when it goes their way.

52%of a population just FORCED the other 48% to do something against their wishes. I think that's crap. I'm sorry that happened to you.

It doesn't have to be that way...in order to feel safe from imaginary gangs or insurance companies...or coffee shops...or whatever

2) Which countries in the world have the better standard of living, particularly for the poorest and the people from minority groups? Is it those with more and enforced laws, or with fewer and less enforced laws?

1-true and they seem to find their way into government office with amazing efficiency.

2-fewer and less enforced.

1) Violent and selfish people are not an imaginary problem. I have no idea how you have managed to persuade yourself that they are.

Exactly this. There HAS to be something in place to deal with 2 people wanting contradictory outcomes and both willing to use force themselves to make their desired outcome a reality. Your utopian society has to have some way to resolve that conflict. Without a third party that has the power to arbitrate and coerce both sides into accepting a judgement then it will simply come down to whichever one of the two is stronger wins. This is WHY anarchy can't work and inevitably would lead to tyranny, because human beings are, ultimately, not particularly nice in the long term.

You're the one who is living in fantasy land by thinking that governments are bad because they are governments and not because of the people running them. 52% of the British population just forced 48% to do something against their wishes? Would you rather it had been the other way around and 48% had forced the 52%? Because somebody was going to force somebody to do something against their will. Thinking that abolishing "government" will also abolish human nature is naive in the extreme and aptly demonstrated throughout history to not work. Ever read "Lord of the Flies"? (Good lord, high school English class was just useful).

1-true and they seem to find their way into government office with amazing efficiency.

2-fewer and less enforced.

1) You were saying it was an imaginary issue a few posts ago.

2) What are your examples here? I know you're not a fan of Somalia being cited here, but how about most of the rest of Africa? Now I don't deny there are countries with many laws, well enforced, that don't take very good care of the people I mentioned, but there are also many that do. That variety does not exist, as far as I know, in the most lawless countries in the world, but perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise.

Side note: I wonder if the 3 of us are the only ones still reading this topic. I, personally, am actually enjoying the discussion.

Though I do think it might be winding down.

1- I said that roving gangs of mohawk wearing greasy assed fury road villains are fictional. So are despotic and tyrannical insurance companies. Try to keep up.

2- one example ...even though in the end it failed monstrously was the united states. It began as a min-archistic society with very few laws and no central government.

You might be aware of the example. You however might not be aware of a detail. That up until the early 1960s poverty was reducing at a rate of about 1% per year. Then when the welfare state came along and decided that helping the poor is now the realm of the government...well... poverty rates have stagnated and then began climbing ever since.

That's one little example.

So...i guess it's your turn...

Have any examples of a coercive central government with enough laws and guns pointed at its citizenry to create a glowing paradise?

Side note: I wonder if the 3 of us are the only ones still reading this topic. I, personally, am actually enjoying the discussion.

Though I do think it might be winding down.

Just us, I think we broke it.

2-fewer and less enforced.

Can you give a few examples of those you consider to fall into that category?

Side note: I wonder if the 3 of us are the only ones still reading this topic. I, personally, am actually enjoying the discussion.

Though I do think it might be winding down.

Just us, I think we broke it.

I disagree, I suspect there are more reading and also interested (like myself). I may disagree with much of what is being said and think that, at best, it's idealistic thinking without a true grounding in the reality of human nature but love that this has been a healthy and interesting discussion without ad hominem attacks while still presenting opposing ideas and viewpoints.

And these are pretty scary times. Check out the embedded video containing a collage of horror stories from just this last week. That's why "people" can't be trusted to do the right thing. It's just so much easier to do the wrong thing.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/muslim-attacked-with-crowbar-while-driving-in-alleged-post-brexit-hate-crime-a3284446.html

Gave one already. If you are genuinely curious I can point you towards some reading material or a video or something. But I'm not particularly I'm the mood to be the world's Google. Nothing against you. It's just that there isn't much going on in the genuine curiosity department and it seems the topic is more to do with people belittling my position without thinking a whole lot.

There hasn't been any " I doubt that would work, but it's an interesting idea."

There's been a fair share of " but what about the inevitable hordes like in fury road".

Or that's its delusional and asinine to think there can't be a peaceful society without a coercive government.

Actually...now that I wrote it out. I guess it's just really clear that it isn't even really a discussion.

Y'all can do whatever you want. But I'm done with examples.its not necessary.

The bottom line is I'm not interested in using force to get what I think is right. And some of these guys are.

I find that distasteful.but whatever...just an opinion. I also like the color orange but I'm not going to find examples of orange being better for people than blue.

Your right...people can't be trusted to do the right thing...so I'm saying lets not have a system that gives untrustworthy people unimaginable power.

1- I said ...are fictional. So are despotic and tyrannical insurance companies. Try to keep up.

No, actually, they aren't. An insurance company that you have paid into for 50 years dropping your coverage once you get sick, actually happened. An insurance company that hides the fact that your policy is virtually worthless and won't cover any significant expenses behind piles of red tape and bueracracy, actually happened. An insurance company that refuses to pay for the treatment for your collapsed lung because you didn't get the procedure approved in advance, actually happened. An insurance company that classified pregnancy as a disease and dropped a woman's coverage when she became pregnant, actually happened. It has only been government regulation that prevents those sorts of abuses.

Let's move away from insurance companies, however. Back in the old west, the federal government didn't have much power. Mining companies would basically control local mining towns. They would print their own money, and pay their workers in that. Company script could only be spent in company owned stores, and the company controlled the prices in those stores, forcing the workers to basically give back all of their pay if they wanted to survive and keeping them in virtual slavery. There was nothing the workers could do about it, if they protested, they starved or were beaten to death by company thugs. Only as the west became more connected to the rest of the country could law enforcement and the government do anything about it.

A few years ago, WalMart tried to start paying their employees with Walmart gift cards instead of US currency.

2- one example ...even though in the end it failed monstrously was the united states. It began as a min-archistic society with very few laws and no central government.

And the Articles of Confederation failed spectacularly. The very first crisis to face the fledgling nation caused the nation to completely fall apart and the independent states to almost go to war with each other. An outcome that England and most of Europe expected. It was only when they wrote the current constitution with a much stronger central government that that the U.S.A. was able to survive as a nation.

You might be aware of the example. You however might not be aware of a detail. That up until the early 1960s poverty was reducing at a rate of about 1% per year. Then when the welfare state came along and decided that helping the poor is now the realm of the government...well... poverty rates have stagnated and then began climbing ever since.

You might want to brush up on your history. Poverty in the US skyrocketed in the depression because unregulated banks were allowed to play stock market roulette with people's savings (the same thing that almost happened under Bush). It was Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's (things like unemployment benefits, social security, a significant stimulus package, and so on) that dramatically reduced poverty. It was only as the programs and institutions created then began to be circumvented, repealed, countermanded, or what have you that things started getting worse again.

Have any examples of a coercive central government with enough laws and guns pointed at its citizenry to create a glowing paradise?

None of us have said anything about a glowing paradise. It's you that seems to somehow think that human nature can be changed by wishing it so. All Mazzo and I have said is that we are stuck with human nature and our only option is to try and create a system that creates the best possible balance. Your the one that is ignoring the realities of existence.

So, let's say you do abolish government. Then the members of Westboro Baptist Church decide that, since there are no longer any laws or regulation, they are going to grab some torches and rope and go lynch all the gays they can find. In your fantasy utopia, who stops them and how? You still haven't answered that question.

Your right...people can't be trusted to do the right thing...so I'm saying lets not have a system that gives untrustworthy people unimaginable power.

How do you stop them from just seizing that power by force?

You guys have got to stop using fiction to sayy position is crap.

Lord of the flies now? Really?

Whats next?... dr. Suess?

So, what? Without governments you don't think anyone would ever try to murder anyone else?

People starved during the depression because they were allowed to playarket roulette...

Your words.

Allowed.

By the government protecting big business.allowed... very interesting.

Still I'm glad we have some common ground.

The state allows and protects unethical business... keeps them afloat long past their expiration date. Protects the owners of the corporations. Makes it so they are not liable for their immoral actions.

I'm glad these things have been addressed in the almost hundred years of increasing government control.

*Knock knock..

Oh, someone's at the door...I'll get it.

Oh hi 2008 . Glad you could join us...whose that with you? Oh...a financial crisis. But..huh.thats wierd.

Also..lord of the flies? Really? Can we stop trying to use fictional work as examples of why it's better to point guns at people to solve social problems?

They were allowed by a LACK of government regulation. After the market crash laws were passed that made it illegal for banks to engage in that kind of behavior and the nation prospered because of it. In the '80s and '90s, those laws were gradually repealed. Once the government was no longer regulating the banks another market crash was pretty much inevitable because they went right back to the dishonest practices that caused the first one.

A lack of action is a type of "allowing".

And you STILL haven't said how, in your idealized utopia, conflicts would get resolved.

Your the one that keeps bring the concept of some utopian paradise into the discussion. The rest of us recognize that such a thing is impossible and are arguing about how to make the REAL world better.

You guys have got to stop using fiction to sayy position is crap.

Lord of the flies now? Really?

Whats next?... dr. Suess?

You ask for examples of it working: the western world. Nobody here is calling it a glowing paradise (there's a logical fallacy in your request for en example of a paradise, I don't know which one), but despite all its faults it's actually a pretty **** fine place to live, especially compared to the rest of human history.

Are you saying that until the 1960s America was anarchistic?