What is your view of government?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm trying to get an idea of how many true voluntaryists/anarcho capitalists we have around here.
If you think we should have government, please post why you think that.

I agree with all of the options. Why did you make it multiple choice?

 

[skinnyskittles1989]

Minimal government, in order to protect your basic rights and property, is necessary. Outside of that though, the law is only a scheme to make money, or redirect it into less deserving hands. The government shouldn't hold a monopoly on anything, so long as a private firm is willing to also supply the same good.

so you agree that the government shouldn't hold a monopoly on force either then?

 

[mport1]

Now that's freakin funny.

Seriously, I look for (and work toward) the day in mankind's future where the very concept of government is as alien and repugnant to people as the idea of burning witches at the stake or conducting human sacrifices to appease the gods.

Imagine a day when the monopoly of violence is broken.

Amen. It is still sad for me to see that even in libertarian circles, the government is held to be necessary and not seen for what it is. I was there at one point too and hopefully others will "see the light."

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Amen. It is still sad for me to see that even in libertarian circles, the government is held to be necessary and not seen for what it is. I was there at one point too and hopefully others will "see the light."

Maybe you should ask why it's in multiple choice format

 

[RevolutionSD]

Gradual privatization of infrastructure. Gov'ts only duty should be to protect against aggression.

Since government has completely failed to do this, and instead is a violent organization that goes around stealing money from people, how do you propose it would "protect against aggression"?

 

[mport1]

Minimal government, in order to protect your basic rights and property, is necessary. Outside of that though, the law is only a scheme to make money, or redirect it into less deserving hands. The government shouldn't hold a monopoly on anything, so long as a private firm is willing to also supply the same good.

Why put government in charge of protecting your property and rights when by its very nature it steals your property and infringes on your rights?

 

[amy31416]

Does Option #3 mean "No government would be good in an ideal world" or "No government would be ideal in the real world"?

Prior to reading this, I interpreted it as meaning no government only works in an ideal world. As long as people are flawed, I think it's relatively obvious that it can not work.

 

[The One]

It sucks.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Prior to reading this, I interpreted it as meaning no government only works in an ideal world. As long as people are flawed, I think it's relatively obvious that it can not work.

um yeah..but

In the absence of government, nothing wll stop ancaps from starting ancap societies, their success might spread and, eventually, influence the world. I think the absence of gov is the ideal that we should all be working towards.

amy, *hug* how's my honey muffin today?

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

No human being should be granted authority over another. Any idea to the contrary is simply a creeping remnant of Divine Right.

 

[mediahasyou]

Government needs to protect, not provide. Because that which it provides is stolen.

With that said: That Government is best, which governs least.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Government needs to protect, not provide. Because that which it provides is stolen.

With that said: That Government is best, which governs least.

hmm no. Government is not necessary. I think of government as a transition period to the eventual ideal of a stateless society.

 

[fr33domfightr]

hmm no. Government is not necessary. I think of government as a transition period to the eventual ideal of a stateless society.

I disagree with this, as I was trying to point out earlier in this thread.

If people were in a small group, I'm more inclined to agree with you, but in larger cities/countries, I don't think it would work.

Again, I equate NO government to NO law, that means lawlessness.

I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, with no consequences.

Again, let's say I want to kill someone. You say, "you shouldn't do that," I say, "why not, there's no government to stop me." I shoot the guy, now he's dead. Yes, you could come after me, but then you'd be acting as judge & jury. After all, I never hurt you, and there wasn't any law telling me there were consequences. Who gives you that authority over my actions?? Collectively, you and your neighbors might vote to have you come after me, but isn't that a loose form of government?? They're voting for you, to represent them, in a capacity of sheriff, to enforce an unwritten law, that murder is bad.

If everyone were moral and didn't hurt anyone else, nor infringe on others rights, we wouldn't need a government. Since this isn't the case today, it would seem a government should exist, mostly to protect our rights. As someone stated previously, be a protector, not provider.

Of course, today, our government has diverted from the authority that was granted to it. Those in government would even argue that they are the way they are, to protect us from ourselves!! This is the kind of crap I see everyday in California. I'm not kidding!! Our Democratic legislators want to criminalize our behaviour, to protect us. Typical nanny government.

We need to restore our republic.


FF

 

[fr33domfightr]

I understand where many are coming from though, as governments get corrupt.

Maybe, somehow in our constitution, we need to modify it in a way to try to clamp down on this tendency toward corruption.

I mean, if we have the system today that isn't what our forefathers had envisioned, something has gone wrong. We'll need to figure this out and try to implement the changes necessary to correct this.



FF

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I disagree with this, as I was trying to point out earlier in this thread.

If people were in a small group, I'm more inclined to agree with you, but in larger cities/countries, I don't think it would work.

Who said cities will stick? Cities were planned out by government anyway, not by the people.

Again, I equate NO government to NO law, that means lawlessness.

In your mind.

I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, with no consequences.

What makes you think that? I can tell that you never even researched anarchism.

Again, let's say I want to kill someone. You say, "you shouldn't do that," I say, "why not, there's no government to stop me." I shoot the guy, now he's dead. Yes, you could come after me, but then you'd be acting as judge & jury. After all, I never hurt you, and there wasn't any law telling me there were consequences. Who gives you that authority over my actions?? Collectively, you and your neighbors might vote to have you come after me, but isn't that a loose form of government?? They're voting for you, to represent them, in a capacity of sheriff, to enforce an unwritten law that murder is bad.

If everyone were moral and didn't hurt anyone else, nor infringe on others rights, we wouldn't need a government. Since this isn't the case today, it would seem a government should exist, mostly to protect our rights. As someone stated previously, be a protector, not provider.

Of course, today, our government has diverted from the authority that was granted to it. Those in government would even argue that they are the way they are, to protect us from ourselves!! This is the kind of crap I see everyday in California. I'm not kidding!! Our Democratic legislators want to criminalize our behaviour, to protect us. Typical nanny government.

We need to restore our republic.


FF

blah blah blah.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

You do know that voluntary government can indeed exist, right? You do know that not everything is black & white without the exstence of the state, right? Well no, apparently you do not. Research the topic further, then get back to me. We don't have time for this.

 

[fr33domfightr]

Who said cities will stick? Cities were planned out by government anyway, not by the people.



In your mind.



What makes you think that? I can tell that you never even researched anarchism.



blah blah blah.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

You do know that voluntary government can indeed exist, right? You do know that not everything is black & white without the exstence of the state, right? Well no, apparently you do not. Research the topic further, then get back to me. We don't have time for this.

From dictionay.com:

"1. a state of society without government or law."


I see you're talking about something different.

"3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society."


It seems to me this talk Rothbard made is quite utopian, expecting everyone to cooperate with this system. I find it hard to fathom this working from what I've seen in Los Angeles. This system also implies LAW would exist, whereas I thought you ment lawlessness, per the primary definition of anarchy.


FF

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

From dictionay.com:

"1. a state of society without government or law."


I see you're talking about something different.

"3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society."


It seems to me this talk Rothbard made is quite utopian, expecting everyone to cooperate with this system. I find it hard to fathom this working from what I've seen in Los Angeles. This system also implies LAW would exist, whereas I thought you ment lawlessness, per the primary definition of anarchy.


FF

That's just his ideal outcome. What matters is not the chaos that you envision, what really matters is that true anarchists will get their chance to come together and form anarchist societies. These societies will grow in influence to eventually change the rest of the world. Libertarianism, for example, is only pretty new as a philosophy. All of the ancaps will meet up and will start their own society where everyone barters/trades with each other, blah blah blah. all that ancap stuff.

The people that violate others are just people that have been abused by the state, the brainwashed, that's why they act that way, it takes time for the chaos to settle down. Don't worry though, there is nothing saying you can't defend yourself. Things worked really good in the old "Wild West," for a long time there was no law whatsoever, and it worked. It wouldn't be chaotic all over the world. You cannot really predict a free market of people and ideas, people are capable of doing all kinds of unpredictable things. I do, however, know for a fact that there are MANY ancaps that are looking forward to starting ancap societies with other ancaps, that's what they fantasize about everyday, and I assure you that it will be worthwhile for them. It will be up to individuals if they wish to join or not.

I'm not an ancap btw. I don't like to limit myself like that.

 

[Kludge]

Since government has completely failed to do this, and instead is a violent organization that goes around stealing money from people, how do you propose it would "protect against aggression"?

Voluntary funding and frequent elections. A constitution that outlines what the gov't CAN do.

 

[mport1]

I disagree with this, as I was trying to point out earlier in this thread.

If people were in a small group, I'm more inclined to agree with you, but in larger cities/countries, I don't think it would work.

Again, I equate NO government to NO law, that means lawlessness.

I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, with no consequences.

Again, let's say I want to kill someone. You say, "you shouldn't do that," I say, "why not, there's no government to stop me." I shoot the guy, now he's dead. Yes, you could come after me, but then you'd be acting as judge & jury. After all, I never hurt you, and there wasn't any law telling me there were consequences. Who gives you that authority over my actions?? Collectively, you and your neighbors might vote to have you come after me, but isn't that a loose form of government?? They're voting for you, to represent them, in a capacity of sheriff, to enforce an unwritten law, that murder is bad.

If everyone were moral and didn't hurt anyone else, nor infringe on others rights, we wouldn't need a government. Since this isn't the case today, it would seem a government should exist, mostly to protect our rights. As someone stated previously, be a protector, not provider.

Of course, today, our government has diverted from the authority that was granted to it. Those in government would even argue that they are the way they are, to protect us from ourselves!! This is the kind of crap I see everyday in California. I'm not kidding!! Our Democratic legislators want to criminalize our behaviour, to protect us. Typical nanny government.

We need to restore our republic.


FF

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about anarchy. I suggest reading these two articles for a short preview http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html and http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html or this http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp