Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: "Government is a necessary evil"

  1. #1
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default "Government is a necessary evil"

    I'm gonna write down some thoughts that I'm ruminating, this isn't meant to be a set in stone type argument or to convince anyone, really, this is just me rambling. Make of it what you will.

    The quote in the title is, in my opinion, untenable.

    A while back when I called myself libertarian I used to believe this. Basically, if you believe this, however, you will inevitably start thinking politics and political action of elected officials is not something that should concern you. In other words, "government is a necessary evil" leads to have a passive attitude towards politics, ime. Because if government is evil, then why participate in something that is evil? The natural consequence of this is anarchism, and while I can respect Ancaps for at least being consistent in their ethical stance, I don't think that a "stateless society" is desireable or even possible.

    I also think the idea of "less government" is pretty vague. Less how? What I believe is desirable is "limited government" (through constitution), something like the American Bill of Rights which clearly says what the Federal government can - and can't do. There is no need for "less government" if government spending is spent on something necessary. Since the Us constitution was conceived as a social contract, I am aware this raises questions of the legitimacy of government from the standpoint of social contract theory but I don't wanna get into that here. I could write volumes on it and I just don't have the time to study it in depth, unfortunately.

    While I wouldn't say I defend a "strong state" I don't want a weak one either. It needs to be strong enough to defend its citizens from outside attack on their lives, liberty and property.

    Basically I think there is alot of confusion behind claiming that "government is a necessary evil". No, it is either a necessary good, or not necessary at all. Pick and choose.

    Thoughts? Do you agree/disagree? With what and why?
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 07-07-2018 at 01:59 PM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,471
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that there will always be a leader-type figure or a power-hungry figure that will want to have power over others. Even if you don't want that, you probably can't stop that. Because even if they don't have much power as an individual, they can convince others to join them to strengthen themselves and create collective power. So some of them are going to be smart and ambitious, and they'll be forming coalitions and alliances to hold a lot of power collectively. In modern days, that's usually called the "government". And sometimes, it's money that holds power.

    Most people are going to be fine with that, they want to be leaders, whatever, so they let them. Unless things don't work out so well. And then what? Then you'll need a system that can take down power that's not doing well and not doing a good job. That's called democracy, democracy is nothing more than letting some people have limited power, and if they fail and we're not happy with it, then we'll take them down and replace them with another power without resorting to any violence.

    In short, I don't think that removing or suppressing power, or removing the government altogether, is going to be the answer. It's about creating a system that can handle this power well and have a backup system when it fails. And that system is called democracy or democratic governance.

  3. #3
    كما في الأعلى كذلك في الأسفل Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,220
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default


  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,985
    Mentioned
    981 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's not evil but a centralized rule, which often is more effective than lesser centralized one to optimize the result in the interests of a socium/group. often this fits to longer time and higher interests of individs
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  5. #5
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,369
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Genghis Kha
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    795
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You coming of age? Serious question not trollin

  7. #7
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,453
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Coming from other idealisms, to me government is a "necessary evil". It is because we don't seem to have advanced much in terms of humanity in the last centuries, we can't self-administer ourselves and think of someone else's rights at the same time, we've been fed with a consumeristic ideology that makes it impossible for us to be independent in a true sense, it makes it impossible for us to think in ways that are not consumeristic.

    To obsess over security, safety, wars and violence, is a rather propagandistic way to incite fear and terror in a mass of people that is too bombarded by subliminal message to even think about/know what is going on. Wars today are economical, hardly physical, at least for us living in the enlightened side of the world, but this doesn't make things less damaging.

    Liberalism is an ambiguous term for me because I use it to design a certain Americanism that is revolved around the market and economy, but if this is the aim of an ideology, what's the good for people coming out of it? The good will be an economical one, and not for the lesser wheels of the chariot, but for the ones who ride on it. And it will be good as long as the chariot keeps moving and trading, otherwise we fall in the greatest ignominy, that of being "useless", as if we were tools.

    Gvmnt is not "necessarily good, otherwise it's bad", that's a reather dualistic view that badly applies to the laws of compromise of which the relationships among citizens (=politics) is made of. There are good and bad gvmnts, probably the best gvnmt we can look after is one where the values of democracy, a word that contains a good deal of sociality, are respected and applied. That seems to be lacking in a good part of our beloved state of things, today.

  8. #8
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    It is because we don't seem to have advanced much in terms of humanity in the last centuries
    Why do you say that? Have you not seen statistics on the decrease of violence and wars over the last few centuries? Also, statistics show that violence is on the decrease in most places in the world. There are places where it is rising or steady, but that is concentrated in the area between Africa and the Middle East.

    So I am not sure what you mean by "in terms of humanity", but if you mean our modern conception that each individual has worth and individual rights, this is something that didn't exist before the last few centuries. Before the birth of humanism in renaissance Europe, there was no concept of "human rights" and "individual worth", I think you would find the ideas of Pagan antiquity as well as medieval Christianity and Islam very alien to your mindset.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    Gvmnt is not "necessarily good, otherwise it's bad", that's a reather dualistic view that badly applies to the laws of compromise of which the relationships among citizens (=politics) is made of. There are good and bad gvmnts, probably the best gvnmt we can look after is one where the values of democracy, a word that contains a good deal of sociality, are respected and applied. That seems to be lacking in a good part of our beloved state of things, today.
    Why is one government good and another bad? Why is democracy preferable to any other system?

    Just...why.
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 07-08-2018 at 06:53 PM.

  9. #9
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    statistical decreases in violence is one of those things that can be illusory; for example had hitler won ww2 we might live a less violent world today, but it would be wrong to call that an advance. well its an advance in a certain direction, but what happens with these statistical metrics is they beg the question on whether the direction is the right one. certainly all else being equal less violence is usually good, but it is never so simple. I certainly would not like be painted as someone suggesting violence for its own sake is an absolute good, but I would say these "the world" is getting better is a matter of perspective, because it essentially finds its conclusion in priveleging the statistic of choice. in other words, under almost any circumstances I can make a case for humanity having advanced. If for no other reason we've advanced in time. Technology, which is essentially what it all comes back to, is the metric of today. Technology is an advancement but the question becomes is it a human advancement or are we simply the same apes in more complex vehicles. I think this is why things like MAD via nuclear apocolypse are even possible. When our means outstrip our ability to discern proper ends the equilibrium is unbalanced to an extent that ultimately, should it result in self anihilation, would be looked back upon as a total blind alley by future generations (if there are any)... judged from that perspective it is easy to see how all this "advancement" may not be all that we think it is. Although if we simply cabin our terminology to say "we have advanced technologically" and "bureaucratically" to a point where violence is suppressed for the time being.. well such a statement would be far more accurate. It could just as easily be progress toward the police state however, where the metrics on paper supercede the reality and that "peace" becomes a kind of death not by nuclear holocaust but by spiritual. The problem is the only true form of "advance" is wholeness, but people are quick to proclaim their preferred form of one sidedness an advancement. that one sidedness inevitably produces its opposite and then wholeness is true, hence it is fair to say that time itself makes the case for advancing, but it always goes back to what is meant by advancing. people as always are working different sides of the puzzle, but there is always the shadow side of whatever spirit of the times dominates

  10. #10
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    statistical decreases in violence is one of those things that can be illusory; for example had hitler won ww2 we might live a less violent world today, but it would be wrong to call that an advance. well its an advance in a certain direction, but what happens with these statistical metrics is they beg the question on whether the direction is the right one. certainly all else being equal less violence is usually good, but it is never so simple. I certainly would not like be painted as someone suggesting violence for its own sake is an absolute good, but I would say these "the world" is getting better is a matter of perspective, because it essentially finds its conclusion in priveleging the statistic of choice. in other words, under almost any circumstances I can make a case for humanity having advanced. If for no other reason we've advanced in time. Technology, which is essentially what it all comes back to, is the metric of today. Technology is an advancement but the question becomes is it a human advancement or are we simply the same apes in more complex vehicles. I think this is why things like MAD via nuclear apocolypse are even possible. When our means outstrip our ability to discern proper ends the equilibrium is unbalanced to an extent that ultimately, should it result in self anihilation, would be looked back upon as a total blind alley by future generations (if there are any)... judged from that perspective it is easy to see how all this "advancement" may not be all that we think it is. Although if we simply cabin our terminology to say "we have advanced technologically" and "bureaucratically" to a point where violence is suppressed for the time being.. well such a statement would be far more accurate. It could just as easily be progress toward the police state however, where the metrics on paper supercede the reality and that "peace" becomes a kind of death not by nuclear holocaust but by spiritual. The problem is the only true form of "advance" is wholeness, but people are quick to proclaim their preferred form of one sidedness an advancement. that one sidedness inevitably produces its opposite and then wholeness is true, hence it is fair to say that time itself makes the case for advancing, but it always goes back to what is meant by advancing
    Yes, I agree with your general idea about statistics not reflecting the whole picture, I just wasn't sure how @ooo meant her statement.

    I think what's lacking in our society is wisdom and a quest for inner truths. Our society is focused on technology, and other external factors, but it is caught in the grinding gears of its own single minded momentum, not realizing modern science, while it has brought it us many things just cannot address certain types of questions such as those related to meaning and to purpose which we ask ourselves as humans.

  11. #11
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    You coming of age? Serious question not trollin
    We're all getting older as time unfolds, the trick is to enjoy each stage of life as it comes, I think. It's weird how you seem to be saying that as a value judgement.

    Not sure why you would ask this but there's my answer to your serious question.

  12. #12
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,453
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    Why do you say that? Have you not seen statistics on the decrease of violence and wars over the last few centuries? Also, statistics show that violence is on the decrease in most places in the world. There are places where it is rising or steady, but that is concentrated in the area between Africa and the Middle East.
    because violence is not just physical, if you can destroy a country just by sending it bankrupt, that's no much different than killing its people. it's kind of more unsettling because we're continuously told we're nothing without money, while at least, once, we would have been nothing without our own lives, which seems a more reasoned start. wars still exist more than ever, but maybe you don't know of them? a good deal of the wars world wide have our contribution, the fact that we chose not to make them on our territory doesn't mean they're not there... our money make them, and we in our safety spot are now most sensitive to these kinds of economic "wars".

    So I am not sure what you mean by "in terms of humanity", but if you mean our modern conception that each individual has worth and individual rights, this is something that didn't exist before the last few centuries. Before the birth of humanism in renaissance Europe, there was no concept of "human rights" and "individual worth", I think you would find the ideas of Pagan antiquity as well as medieval Christianity and Islam very alien to your mindset.
    let's not compare antiquity to today so shallowly please, there was a totally different world once, it's not fair to draw such hasty comparisons.

    Why is one government good and another bad? Why is democracy preferable to any other system?

    Just...why.
    because a bad government favors the state and who controls it, a good one favors the citizens and their human rights. democracy should obviously grant the second one, but it's as utopic as saying "anarchy".

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    795
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fist bump isnt that the truth.

    Just asked because people think about these things when they enter into awareness as well as their first citizen agency at the same time and see the system for all its benefits and flaws.
    When idealism meets whats really going on.

    I used to sit in what was once ancient glacial till, smoothed to sandy soil by lapping ancient lakes, with a thin crust of nutrient rich organic duff topped with semi arid grassland species and understood that the two inch thick soil took ten thousand years to form. Countless frozen winters and the same blazing hot summers, wild shifts from -25 degrees celsius to +40 in the span of a handful of months. I understood that the developing suburbia would forever, in this ecosystem, change the landscape for another 10,000 years and feel the loss in exchange for material comfort and prosperity, as is the way of the world.

    Now I cut down trees that stood since before Lief Erickson discovered Greenland.

    My point is, your values and perspectives evolve, or de-evolve as time goes on.

    Sub-tee parodied: today’s liberals are tomorrow’s conservatives.

  14. #14
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    because violence is not just physical, if you can destroy a country just by sending it bankrupt, that's no much different than killing its people. it's kind of more unsettling because we're continuously told we're nothing without money, while at least, once, we would have been nothing without our own lives, which seems a more reasoned start. wars still exist more than ever, but maybe you don't know of them? a good deal of the wars world wide have our contribution, the fact that we chose not to make them on our territory doesn't mean they're not there... our money make them, and we in our safety spot are now most sensitive to these kinds of economic "wars".


    let's not compare antiquity to today so shallowly please, there was a totally different world once, it's not fair to draw such hasty comparisons.


    because a bad government favors the state and who controls it, a good one favors the citizens and their human rights. democracy should obviously grant the second one, but it's as utopic as saying "anarchy".
    I don't even know how to debate a post like this.

    None of what you write is based on reason or fact. It is frankly incoherent.

    Try to organize your own thoughts better. Give examples of what you mean. Don't be so vague and ambigous when saying I am drawing hasty comparisons about antiquity, but refute my statement correctly.

    Not trying to be mean or hostile btw. I am just saying I cannot debate your post because it is not making a coherent argument in the first place, frankly I have this issue with your posts on here generally speaking.
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 07-08-2018 at 08:01 PM.

  15. #15
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,453
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    I don't even know how to debate a post like this.

    None of what you write is based on reason or fact. It is frankly incoherent.
    If you don't understand something it doesn't mean it's nonsense.

    I don't really see much incoherence in what I say (maybe with your statistics?), I think it's more incoherent to want to divide the world in "what we have now is the best otherwise it wouldn't be so". Just for instance most european countries have access to free instruction and free health care, while a 18% ca. of the US population can't access an health insurance and there are freaking high rates to access an university, and just to talk about statistics, US universities are often top-ranked worldwide.. (guess who makes those stats?), and in here... we use to have a laugh at the level of said instruction. So is this the best possible?

    I think this was a good example of how the money make the world go round, but maybe I just suck at expressing myself : )

  16. #16
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ooo I had written you a long reply but I lost my internet connection for a minute and it seems it was lost when I tried to preview.

    Anyways, I never said "what we have now is the best..." if that's what you're implying. I just wanted to point out that violence has gone down over the last few centuries, I didn't say things were perfect or even better, "better" is subjective anyways.

    I gather from what you're writing that you have a problem with the way capitalism governs the world. Ok, but what do you want to replace the current system with?

  17. #17
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,453
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    @ooo I had written you a long reply but I lost my internet connection for a minute and it seems it was lost when I tried to preview.
    better lol

    Anyways, I never said "what we have now is the best..." if that's what you're implying. I just wanted to point out that violence has gone down over the last few centuries, I didn't say things were perfect or even better, "better" is subjective anyways.
    Basically I think there is alot of confusion behind claiming that "government is a necessary evil". No, it is either a necessary good, or not necessary at all. Pick and choose.

    I interpret this as "what we have is all good and well otherwise we wouldn't need it/have it.", or am I making it wrong? If that's the case, no, I don't agree, and that's the black and white picture I was talking about. We might need a gvmnt freely elected by everyone that administers the public good, helps everyone when in need, spreads the knowledge and the resources equally according to the needs, and we might need a law system to grant each one a fair treatment. This is a democracy, ok, but no government can really democracy as on paper. Each country has its innate corruption, each system has its sickened parts; some countries work better than others, some countries are more human than others, but there's no ultimate democracy, rather shady phantoms of it. So to me, given our own inability to survive alone, there might be no better alternative than a government, but that won't make it good.

    I gather from what you're writing that you have a problem with the way capitalism governs the world. Ok, but what do you want to replace the current system with?
    awareness would be a good thing.

  18. #18
    كما في الأعلى كذلك في الأسفل Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,220
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    I had written you a long reply but I lost my internet connection for a minute and it seems it was lost when I tried to preview.
    This is why I write long replies in Notepad.

  19. #19
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    Basically I think there is alot of confusion behind claiming that "government is a necessary evil". No, it is either a necessary good, or not necessary at all. Pick and choose.

    I interpret this as "what we have is all good and well otherwise we wouldn't need it/have it.", or am I making it wrong?
    Yes, you're interpreting it wrong.

    Are you aware of the way many libertarians claim "government is a necessary evil"? They don't like government, don't even believe in it as a result, but still believe it should exist because it's the lesser of two evils between government and anarchy.

    All I'm saying is that if we're going to have government we might as well strive for one we believe in. This poses alot of problems of course, like not everyone agreeing to a "social contract", the government seeming perfect on paper but having many flaws in practice (like you said).

    Besides, as I wrote in my OP, this isn't meant to be some dogmatic declaration in stone. I was just re-examining my own former stance as government being a "necessary evil" since I used to beleive that. Now, I don't know what I would label myself politically and it doesn't even matter to me much. Others can label me, lol. They are free to.

  20. #20
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,453
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post
    Yes, you're interpreting it wrong.

    Are you aware of the way many libertarians claim "government is a necessary evil"? They don't like government, don't even believe in it as a result, but still believe it should exist because it's the lesser of two evils between government and anarchy.

    All I'm saying is that if we're going to have government we might as well strive for one we believe in. This poses alot of problems of course, like not everyone agreeing to a "social contract", the government seeming perfect on paper but having many flaws in practice (like you said).

    Besides, as I wrote in my OP, this isn't meant to be some dogmatic declaration in stone. I was just re-examining my own former stance as government being a "necessary evil" since I used to beleive that. Now, I don't know what I would label myself politically and it doesn't even matter to me much. Others can label me, lol. They are free to.
    Ah okay, no I was not aware of who was saying such a thing, but I doubt the libertarians like Adam Smith could have aimed at some kind of anarchism, the idea behind that liberalism, in fact, was an economic freedom, laissez faire, the state doesn't have to control one's individual trades. That's why I'm critical of that kind of liberalism, not because of the idea per se, but because they used money as their biggest fuel, and we can see the effects of this mindset everywhere today.

  21. #21
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,989
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Flip the question around and imagine the absence of government.

    You will have complete chaos, at least for a short time, until people reorganised themselves into some kind of tribal groups with a more primitive form of order. Anarchy is just a transitionary state towards more order. So the question itself is stupid. So long as we are an intelligent and social species we will probably always have some form of government. We need laws as a means to resolve disputes and organise ourselves. Whom will execute this and how?

    So we are back to where we started...

  22. #22
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,989
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Btw, so much Fi in this thread.

  23. #23
    falsehope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    ILE ENTp-Ti
    Posts
    440
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well "evil" is very general and it's nonsense, better is to put in in specific context, so for example, government who aboses people freedoms is evil. Therefore, the Russian, Chinese, and most of Central American governments would be very evil.

  24. #24
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spermatozoa View Post
    Flip the question around and imagine the absence of government.

    You will have complete chaos, at least for a short time, until people reorganised themselves into some kind of tribal groups with a more primitive form of order. Anarchy is just a transitionary state towards more order. So the question itself is stupid. So long as we are an intelligent and social species we will probably always have some form of government. We need laws as a means to resolve disputes and organise ourselves. Whom will execute this and how?

    So we are back to where we started...
    There are different anarchist theories and different anarcho-capitalist ones within anarchism.

    Initially these theories began with Gustave de Molinari, late 19th century Belgian economist who envisioned a society functioning entirely on voluntary transactions.

    Austrian school economist Murray Rothbard took de Molinari's ideas about a complety voluntary system and synthesized it with other ideas, namely John Locke's homesteading principle as the basis for the non-aggression principle (NAP) which is based a on deontological ethics, the idea that actions are right or wrong in themselves. To Rothbard any violation of private property broke this philosophical principle, therefore he argued, the state is inherently unethical since it relies on taxation to support itself.

    So any teleological or consequentalist (teleology is the meta-ethical prinicple that the results of actions are what make an action good or evil, unlike deontology which says actions are virtous or evil in themselves) about society being chaotic or even completely messed up isn't taken into account for Rothbard since the important thing is the NAP.

    Chicago school economist David D. Friedman came up with an ancap system based on consequentialist arguments rather than deoontology. He argues that by slowly privatizing everything from airwaves to the courts to police down to the law itself, this would not lead to a chaotic result. He also argues against any kind of violent revolution to bring it about, since in his view the state would not be overturned, but would gradually wither away as people have less of a need for its services.

    I'm not saying I agree with any of this. This is just to show you that if you find yourself arguing with an ancap theorist, the problem in their view isn't so simple. I pretty much agree with you that by getting rid of the political powers that-be that this would simply create a void for another power to take over, even if it is some private company. In other words, I do believe Nozick's argument about how an anarcho-capitalist society as Rothbard envisions it would lead to some private government via Adam Smith's invisible hand. I don't think this is a desirable outcome as we don't know what such a government would look like. Could be very evil. Or not.

    Btw this is what total privatization looks like:



    As you can see, one corporation seems to be the power in this city almost like a private government. I don't know what to make of this.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,471
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well the problem with some "really rich private corporation" ruling over everything, is no different than some really rich king ruling over everything. We'd just go back to feudalism.

    In fact we really are going back to feudalism, since the people with the most money and economic power right now are the land-owners and bankers.

    Adam Smith didn't envision some anarcho-capitalist libertarian dream land when he talked about the "invisible hand", he envisioned a capitalist economic system that is managed under fair rules. That's why he wrote his book "Wealth of Nations", and not "Wealth of Individuals". He wanted to know how to make nations richer.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    795
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avebury View Post

    Btw this is what total privatization looks like:





    As you can see, one corporation seems to be the power in this city almost like a private government. I don't know what to make of this.


    government provides and covers a lot more then just jobs and growth. education, health care, infrastructure, transportation, rule of law ect.

  27. #27
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post

    Adam Smith didn't envision some anarcho-capitalist libertarian dream land when he talked about the "invisible hand", he envisioned a capitalist economic system that is managed under fair rules. That's why he wrote his book "Wealth of Nations", and not "Wealth of Individuals". He wanted to know how to make nations richer.
    I am completely aware of this, I was actually citing Nozick and not Adam Smith. Nozick used the argument of the "invisible hand of the market" in a diffrent context than Adam Smith did, even though the meaning was essentially the same. Where Adam Smith used it to refer to the way in which the market tends to regulate itself within the framework set by government of regulations and anti-trust laws, Robert Nozick conceived of an anarcho-capitalist society where different private agencies would enforce law. Nozick argued that the most succesful one of these agencies would ultimately get everyone to follow its code of enforcement and would create a monopoly, which would make it into a state. This was basically referred to as an "invisible hand" argument for the creation of the state, rather than social contract (constitution). If I recall correctly Nozick called it the "immaculate conception of the state" (because it was born without force but through voluntary processes?).
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 07-09-2018 at 06:28 PM.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    795
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Totally private cities might have been what most cities used to be, like Petra.

    Gurgeon seems fragile and almost totally dependent on foreign corporate interests--> borrowed time.

  29. #29
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Titus Gebel has written a very interesting article on the private city idea.

    https://fee.org/articles/private-cit...th-to-liberty/

    Will the threat of competition bring sufficient protection to the residents? Consider this: the Principality of Monaco is a constitutional monarchy. It concedes zero political participation rights for residents without Monegasque citizenship — some 80 percent of the population, including myself. Nevertheless, there are far more applicants for residency than the small housing market of this tiny place (two square kilometers) may take.Why is this so? Three reasons: there are no direct taxes in Monaco for individuals; it is extremely secure; and the government leaves you alone. If Monaco changed this, people would just move away to other jurisdictions. Thus, despite the prince’s formal position of great power, competition with other jurisdictions — not separation of powers, not a constitution, and not voting — ensures the residents' freedom.
    Accordingly, there is also no need for parliaments. Rather, such representative bodies are a constant danger to liberty, since special interest groups inevitably hijack and mutate them into self-service stores for the political class. Unfortunately, the rule of law does not provide adequate protection against this tendency in contemporary Western societies. If laws or constitutions are standing in the way, they will be quickly modified or interpreted in a politically convenient way.
    The bolded is especialy true, imo. What we are seeing with corporations lobby for their interests which is precisely what the Left hates, is, according to the article a result of parliamentary action. I think he might be right. Bastiat also believed universal suffrage opened up government to pressure from special interests because now everyone has their say in public affairs and everyone wants it their way (conflicting interests).

    These ideas are tempting, especially with the rise of tech firms in our society, governments are susceptible to being bought out by special interests that lobby for power. Whereas in a system of private cities open to competition, there can still be abuses of power but if a given city is owned by a private firm they will want to keep people there so it stimulates the economy, whereas the inhabitants themselves will choose the place they want to live, if possible. If people move out of a city, that will be a loss for the firm that runs it. While the good old social contract/constitutional models of the day worked out fairly well for some time, with the advent of new technology it is time for something more adapted to the age we live in.
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 07-09-2018 at 06:14 PM.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    795
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah I was looking for ways that would be of benefit.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    795
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sounds like city-state- where a certain technology becomes the covenant resource in a given area and another technology in another. This could be in bio-engineering, communications. Sounds like competition would be fierce between each firm, not sure how that totally helps society as a whole, especially when all the reasons people organize are taken into account beyond basic needs, survival and prosperity.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,471
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that to make concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" the be-all and end-all is to miss the point. Perhaps we could say that things like freedom are emergent properties of collective rational intelligence.

    I think that there will always be some people who are more powerful than you, for whatever the reason. There will always be people who wish to or can dominate and impose themselves upon you. So to counter that, we have banded together to create collective power and say "No! You can not have power over me! That is unjust!" or something like that. So concepts like freedom and liberty are really just the result of concepts like human rights, which are the results of a collective rational effort and intelligence. "Give me freedom or give me death" is an expression of that thought, but freedom is not the goal. "I will not let you violate my freedom" is another way of saying, "I do not approve of your power".

    So libertarians just want to ignore the whole process, and think that things like liberty and freedom were just naturally "there" from the start and that they're God-given, inalienable rights, and take it for granted people fought for those rights, and that those rights precede freedom and liberty. Concepts like freedom and liberty emerged from those rights.

  33. #33
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,111
    Mentioned
    186 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    What if nothing works and we should all go live on a fucking boat?
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  34. #34
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    6,006
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitta View Post
    What if nothing works and we should all go live on a fucking boat?
    Yay, Pirates!

    Yo Ho Ho, matey.

  35. #35
    Haikus Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,352
    Mentioned
    299 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Evil is never necessary. If you consider something to be less than perfect, you should work to make it better, ideally by not harming others. If you desire there to be no government, there is little you can realistically do within your own society, although you could move to a place with little or no government such as Antarctica or the Western Sahara.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •