• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should government exist... at all?

Should government exist... at all?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 87.5%
  • No

    Votes: 6 12.5%

  • Total voters
    48
What problem is unable to be solved?

The "men with guns" problem, where the man with the men with guns (spears, swords, drones) imposes tyranny upon those who don't.

That was the model that preceded ours.

To answer the poll: Until we outgrow the need for government, no.

I co sider myself a "practical anarchist". "Without a king" is what should be striven towards. Its not realistic at this point, but that doesn't mean it ahouldnt be the goal.

Many people are followers. Most, probably. They are simply more comfortable being directed.

Took me a LONG time to get my head around that.
 
Dang it, my evil plot has been foiled! :twisted:
:lol: Carry on.


What problem is unable to be solved?
Human nature.

I find it interesting that everybody is letting you pin them down, but not asking the same in return. How about you? What, specifically, do YOU think?

For the record: As you are asking so many questions... ;)... incomplete opinions are acceptable. This is a discussion forum, not a final policy board.
 
:lol: Carry on.



Human nature.

I find it interesting that everybody is letting you pin them down, but not asking the same in return. How about you? What, specifically, do YOU think?

For the record: As you are asking so many questions... ;)... incomplete opinions are acceptable. This is a discussion forum, not a final policy board.

For my own part, I can't imagine any problem that requires for its solution the initiation of aggression against others. Naturally, there will always be those who choose to initiate aggression against others, so there will always be a need for people to be able to defend themselves, either directly or through an agent. Barring a single world government, there will always be groups of people who are in a state of anarchy with one another.
 
For my own part, I can't imagine any problem that requires for its solution the initiation of aggression against others. Naturally, there will always be those who choose to initiate aggression against others, so there will always be a need for people to be able to defend themselves, either directly or through an agent. Barring a single world government, there will always be groups of people who are in a state of anarchy with one another.
I'm not sure I follow when you say "state of anarchy with one another" when referring to different nations. (Ok, as I typed more, I realized I think I know what you mean, and the UN is an attempt at addressing that. [Note that I did not say successful attempt.])

As far as your other point, I don't buy into the notion that government is necessarily a form of aggression. It can be, especially when using places like North Korea as an extreme example, but I don't see it as automatically so. To me, that's just libertarian talking points and denial of reality, and is the reason libertarian philosophy and the Libertarian Party will always be marginalized. It sounds good, it looks good on paper, then swoosh!... back to the real world where real life humans with their wide varieties of real foibles, and degrees of individual selfishness, and competing self-interests reign... and the talking points ring hollow.
 
I'm not sure I follow when you say "state of anarchy with one another" when referring to different nations. (Ok, as I typed more, I realized I think I know what you mean, and the UN is an attempt at addressing that. [Note that I did not say successful attempt.])

Yes, that was my point exactly.

As far as your other point, I don't buy into the notion that government is necessarily a form of aggression. It can be, especially when using places like North Korea as an extreme example, but I don't see it as automatically so.

I suppose it doesn't have to be a form of aggression, and if that were the case I would have no issues with it at all.
 
It depends what you mean by government, should we have some sort of institutions to take care of common problems, absolutely.

Should there be an institution who's power is innate? No (be it government or private property).

I consider myself a philisophical anarchist, ALL sort of power must be justifiable.

But then why would an anarchist oppose privitization? Because handing power form accountably governments to unaccountable corporations makes things worse.
 
About this whole aggression thing, the whole concept of private property beyond possession is based on the threat of violence, you claim that peice of land over their is yours, (out of your direct possession), the only thing making it yours is the fact that you have cops with guns that will shot me if I do on that land, its a system based on violence.

Without that theat of state violence, that sort of property would be subject to the community at large.
 
Should government exist... at all?

It doesn't matter if it "should exist" or not. It is the nature of humans to make a government. There has always been some form of government and there will always be some form of government.
 
Given a small enough community, you could probably get by without a government. But that isn't the world we live in.
 
Given a small enough community, you could probably get by without a government. But that isn't the world we live in.

...zactly...to me it seems a matter of scale.

Four neighbors could come to a consensus and decide to pool resources and labor to make a road to the general store, 40 could even pull it off...but I cannot see 40,000 managing to do so.
 

As long as there are free elections, our particular form of government will have a chance of remaining free.
All private money should be the f*** out of elections. The "Citizens United" ruling is a very unfunny joke. We are sliding down a slippery slope towards a n actual (not behind the scenes) marriage between Business Intrests & Government. But while Fascism was Government controling Business what we are approching here is the opposite, Business controling the Government.
Hitler didn't start out attacking Poland, he worked up to it.Don't get all excited, I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler, just saying that when a group is dazzeled by BS from above, those above will go further until they no longer need the suport of the little people, then your in a dictatorship.
Not so wild, as you'd like to imagine. Just sayin'. :peace
It doesn't matter if it "should exist" or not. It is the nature of humans to make a government. There has always been some form of government and there will always be some form of government.
 
Back
Top Bottom