• 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!

Will we way better off without any form of government?

Palandro

Banned
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
342
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think having a 'governent' is extremely destructive, and that we are really way beter off without any form of government. I understand this sounds absurd for a lot of people when they read this. But even any form of 'government' is logically impossible. Why? Because 'government' rest on 'authority' and "authority' is actually impossible. I am not referring to people who are an 'authority" in their field, but 'authority' that can use 'force" (e.g. police, military etc.)

Let's explore.
 
Last edited:
Any set of rules that govern human social behavior is a government. It requires people to determine those rules and people to enforce those rules. Once you have this, you have government. The more people you have, the larger the government tends to get.

So I would argue that it is not possible to have no government.
 
Anarchy doesn't work. Eventually someone picks up a gun. Government is a double edged sword, as its penchant is to continually expand and as it does so it will start encroaching upon rights and liberties. But without out it, someone else is going to encroach upon your rights and liberties. A free state requires a small and regulated government to maintain.
 
" It requires people to determine those rules and people to enforce those rules"

There is a lot to say about this, but isn't it very strange and illogical this? I mean why do you need people determine rules and enforce those rules? Do you not see something very wrong with this?
 
" It requires people to determine those rules and people to enforce those rules"

There is a lot to say about this, but isn't it very strange and illogical this? I mean why do you need people determine rules and enforce those rules? Do you not see something very wrong with this?

No. We need rules so that we can get along with each other. And we need someone to enforce them so that the stronger party can't just choose to ignore them. Otherwise, what stops me from taking what you have by force? We could fight it out and let the victor take the spoils, or we could agree on rules to abide by and you can keep your stuff and I can keep mine. And if I am bigger and stronger than you, you can nominate someone more my size to make sure that I abide by this rule, and we can agree on punishment if one of us doesn't.

And voila, you have government.
 
Last edited:
No. We need rules so that we can get along with each other. And we need someone to enforce them so that the stronger party can't just choose to ignore them.

And voila, you have government.

Here is the strange thing though. We 'need rules" because otherwise 'we' won't behave because of all kind of negative things people can do, stupidty, psychopathy, dumbness and so on, right?
 
Here is the strange thing though. We 'need rules" because otherwise 'we' won't behave, right?

Right. Except it's not strange at all. It is, in fact, an historical axiom.
 
Right. Except it's not strange at all. It is, in fact, an historical axiom.

Well, it is also an historical axiom that 'government' and the believe in 'authority" has caused enormous chaos & deaths.

But that aside for now.

Ok, so we agree that without 'government' we won't behave because of some things I mentioned, which means
they can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own.

But of what people does the 'government' exist? Well, the people in the 'government" are pulled from the same people who couldn't behave because of stupidity, psychopathy, anger, charachterfaults, whatever.In other words , it is a subset of the same people who can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
How the hell can that improve the situation? It doesn't it of course. It is extremely illogical.
 
Well, it is also an historical axiom that 'government' and the believe in 'authority" has caused enormous chaos & deaths.

But that aside for now.

Ok, so we agree that without 'government' we won't behave because of some things I mentioned, which means
they can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own.

But of what people does the 'government' exist? Well, the people in the 'government" are pulled from the same people who couldn't behave because of stupidity, psychopathy, anger, charachterfaults, whatever.In other words , it is a subset of the same people who can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
How the hell can that improve the situation? It doesn't it of course. It is extremely illogical.

Are you suggesting that two heads are not better than one? By cooperating together, your strengths can compliment my weaknesses and vice versa. So to it goes with government: When I do something wrong, the rules are there to make sure that I don't do it again. It doesn't prevent me from doing something wrong in the first place, it punishes me for doing something wrong, which is likely to prevent others from doing it. There is no future deterrence of misbehavior without established rules that can be enforced through government sanctioned punishment.

Yes, even all of us putting our heads together to establish the correct rules that allow us all to be free and happy still won't create a Utopian paradise where everyone gets along perfectly. It will, however, be preferable to an every man for himself scenario. There will still be massive amounts of stupidity, psychopathy, anger, and tragedy even with a large government. But at least there isn't as much of these things as there would be without a government where everyone does whatever they please.
 
"But at least there isn't as much of these things as there would be without a government where everyone does whatever they please."

That's the question then, eh?! But people are so indoctrinated with the believe that without 'government' there will be chaos.

But 'government' is by its nature immoral and hence, causes a lot of chaos. Lots of normal and good people do things they normally wouldn't think about doing, beause of believe in 'goverment' and 'authority". Like people shooting people, like stealing things that don't belong to them. kidnapping people, send people oversees to kill whole innocent families.If it wasn't for the believe in 'authority'(government) they would never do these things!

Another question, where does 'goverment' gets its 'authority' from?

Furthermore, the 'government' rules are enforced by 'police". But police is by deafult immoral and wrong.
( I am not referring to what is going on right now,I am talking just in general.)
 
" It requires people to determine those rules and people to enforce those rules"

There is a lot to say about this, but isn't it very strange and illogical this? I mean why do you need people determine rules and enforce those rules? Do you not see something very wrong with this?

Humans have done this naturally since the dawn of time...determined rules and acceptable behavior. In tribes, in naturally hierarchical structures.

How much of other higher animal behavior and social orders do you see as 'illogical?'

Why do you think that prehistoric peoples created rules and rewarded good behavior and punished bad? (Hint: the answer has been produced by anthropologists and sociologists and evolutionary biologists for years, decades)


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Here is the strange thing though. We 'need rules" because otherwise 'we' won't behave because of all kind of negative things people can do, stupidty, psychopathy, dumbness and so on, right?

Nope, that actually isnt the correct answer.


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Nope, that actually isnt the correct answer.

Ok, can you explain and what is the correct answer, according to you?

And btw I am not talking about no rules, I am talking about no rulers ( government, authority)

That is a big difference.

You see, it is very strange where 'government/authority' gets it 'authority" from.

if you look into it, 'government/authority' is an illusion, a myth, a superstition if you will.
It can't really exist except in people's head, and that makes for a very dangerous situation.
 
Last edited:
Ok, can you explain and what is the correct answer, according to you?

And btw I am not talking about no rules, I am talking about no rulers ( government, authority)

That is a big difference.

You see, it is very strange where 'government/authority' gets it 'authority" from.

if you look into it, 'government/authority' is an illusion, a myth, a superstition if you will.
It can't really exist except in people's head, and that makes for a very dangerous situation.

This is pretty basic: what good are rules/laws if no one enforces them? Obviously, even with rules/laws, people still break them. And leadership, dominance and submission, are natural characteristics for many species. Where did a bull elk get his 'authority' from? Or a male lion? Or a wild stallion? These are inherent in some species (most social species) and found in different levels among individuals.

We, as a social hierarchical species, developed rules and laws in order to protect the group and help ensure its survival. Humans are naturally tribal (social) and hierarchies develop naturally according to human characteristics. Rules were developed to prevent internal conflict and violence (from theft, rape, assault, etc) that would cause stress and reduce breeding and affect use of resources. Humans had to hunt as a group and forage as a group and fight outsiders as a group. They had to maintain a cohesive unit in order to survive.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Last edited:
"But at least there isn't as much of these things as there would be without a government where everyone does whatever they please."

That's the question then, eh?! But people are so indoctrinated with the believe that without 'government' there will be chaos.

But 'government' is by its nature immoral and hence, causes a lot of chaos. Lots of normal and good people do things they normally wouldn't think about doing, beause of believe in 'goverment' and 'authority". Like people shooting people, like stealing things that don't belong to them. kidnapping people, send people oversees to kill whole innocent families.If it wasn't for the believe in 'authority'(government) they would never do these things!

Another question, where does 'goverment' gets its 'authority' from?

Government is no more moral or immoral than a computer program. Is it nothing more than a set of instructions that we require everyone to abide by. It gets its authority from the will of the people who choose to abide by these rules.

Furthermore, the 'government' rules are enforced by 'police". But police is by deafult immoral and wrong.
( I am not referring to what is going on right now,I am talking just in general.)

The institution of law enforcement is not immoral by default. It is, in fact, moral by default. It only becomes immoral when the laws that it enforces are immoral, or when the humans enforcing them behave immorally.

Let's have a thought experiment:
You, Lursa, and I are the sole members of a closed society without any form of government. We live within walking distance of each other.

How do you propose that we get along? Where does my property end and yours begin? Where am I allowed to gather my food from? If the only source of fresh water is on land that Lursa claims, how do you propose you and I should get access to it? If I claim land that has the only trees in this closed society, how are you and Lursa going to get the wood you need to repair your homes?
 
Government is no more moral or immoral than a computer program. Is it nothing more than a set of instructions that we require everyone to abide by. It gets its authority from the will of the people who choose to abide by these rules.

Well,just exploring.Maybe I can write better that the 'belief' in a 'government' makes people behave immoral.
And they sure do.'Government' by itself can not exist, one of the reasons it can not exist is that "It gets its authority from the will of the people who choose to abide by these rules."
"Government' can use force, that is what makes 'government." Therein lies the problem.



"The institution of law enforcement is not immoral by default. It is, in fact, moral by default."

No, it really is immoral by default.
 

Attachments

  • good-cop-bad-cop.jpg
    good-cop-bad-cop.jpg
    87.3 KB · Views: 34
Last edited:
There is also another thing with regards to 'police'.

Psycho and sociopaths gravitate towards these kinds of jobs, hence there will be lots and lots and lots of very sick and disturbed individuals in the police force. Those people will abuse their 'power". Just look at the internet how police behaves.(Just google 'police brutality") , and these are no exceptions, oh no!.
 
I think having a 'governent' is extremely destructive, and that we are really way beter off without any form of government. I understand this sounds absurd for a lot of people when they read this. But even any form of 'government' is logically impossible. Why? Because 'government' rest on 'authority' and "authority' is actually impossible. I am not referring to people who are an 'authority" in their field, but 'authority' that can use 'force" (e.g. police, military etc.)

Let's explore.

Not if the use of English gets like the OP title. Senseless.
 
How would you call a group that ask you for your money,because they have build something and they need money now, but when you refuses to give that money, they will come to you and get into your house and steal things that are yours. Or, worse, they will kidnap you?

Come on, there is a name for that.
 
Well, it is also an historical axiom that 'government' and the believe in 'authority" has caused enormous chaos & deaths.

But that aside for now.

Ok, so we agree that without 'government' we won't behave because of some things I mentioned, which means
they can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own.

But of what people does the 'government' exist? Well, the people in the 'government" are pulled from the same people who couldn't behave because of stupidity, psychopathy, anger, charachterfaults, whatever.In other words , it is a subset of the same people who can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
How the hell can that improve the situation? It doesn't it of course. It is extremely illogical.

The situation can be improved by not voting for psychopaths, for example.
 
The situation can be improved by not voting for psychopaths, for example.


What I think you , and others , are looking for is an all omnipotent . pure,good, flawless etc "government". That will NEVER exist.
It is very clear that that is a non-existent entity.



One day we have to accept that wat we call "government' is a deeply criminal organisation.
There is no way around it.
 
Last edited:
What I think you , and others , are looking for is an all omnipotent . pure,good, flawless etc "government". That will NEVER exist.
It is very clear that that is a non-existent entity.



One day we have to accept that wat we call "government' is a deeply criminal organisation.
There is no way around it.

In democracies governments are neither 'flawless' nor 'deeply criminal'. I am sorry, there is no way around it, one day you will have to accept that you are being very, very silly.
 
Back
Top Bottom