Can't we have a world with out "government"?

Without government there isn't law and order. There's no chain of command. Everyone is on their own, if you want something you can just kill someone else and take it from them with no repercussions. People created government to have stability, without it everything is chaos.

"Without government there isn't law and order." That's not true at all. It depends first of all on the culture. In some cultures there is very little violation of people's rights (e.g, crime) . Rules will be needed and enforced by this does not automatically mean government. You reply is part of the problem - the majority have fallacious thinking then impose their will through voting.

Quite honestly, the US system of government is one of the best that has ever been conceived. With its checks and balances to ensure that one individual does not have too much power. It is not perfect, but no government is. A complete lack of government (anarchy) is fraught with problems. Your hippy dippy idealism that people can function peacefully if left to their own devices is flawed. It sounds like you are upset that you can't buy beer, cigarettes or drugs. Those laws were put into place because of generations of experience of dealing with societal problems when those items were not regulated. Unfortunately one only has to look at history to understand that those affect far more than just the consumer.

Not that I am giving all governance a free pass, as most of the world's greatest atrocities have been committed by governments. I am reminded of the words of Ben Stein when referring to the ethnic cleansing committed by the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, Empirical Japan and Mao Zedong:

Genocide is done by governments and academic lunatics and ideologues looking for equality and a racial super state - and they do it on purpose.

How stupid! "Government" is nothing more than institutionalized majority rule, democratically derived, constitutionally vetted. To reduce "government" is just saying we should erase what we collectively decided to do in the past. Its like saying, "Forget all the problem solutions we came up with in the past." Then we can start all over, learning the hard way, and making corrections ...re-growing government. Those who oppose "government" need to live on some deserted island by themselves. Once you get a bunch of people together, government happens. Its not ideal, its not simple, its intrusive, ...all of that, but its what "we" people do in order to get along. We never have enough money nor political persuasiveness to do anything "right" , so there is going to be friction. Grown-ups (formerly respected as "citizens") and their elected politicians work on polishing off those rough spots. Its an evolving process. But we can't afford "do-overs".

Cope.

cfghjd wrote:

I think people can live their lives without government. All government is simply "rules" but these rules are political. Many rules unfairly benefit or harm others. This should not be. The only rule should be "Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of anyone else". Once this is the rule the number of rules decreases substantially and the world can become prosperous, peaceful, healthy and happy. For example, once import/export duties are done away with others who found it difficult to impossible to trade can do so. A person in Africa can sell their, say root crops, in the US. A person in the US can sell their running shoes to Africa without the menace of duties and worthless regulations. So, is this possible, a world without government?

Go read some political philosophy and get back to me. Read Locke, read Plato, read Hobbs,

cfghjd wrote:

It's rules that matter, not "government", You can call it whatever but what I propose is no political input - the rules are based on the best current information.

My neighbor Dan violated my rights by stealing my hammer. When I polled the rest of the people on my street, Bob said Dan should be put to death, Sally said Dan should simply give me the hammer back, and Phil said that because Dan is going through a rough patch, Dan should get to keep it. What am I to do?

"My neighbor Dan violated my rights by stealing my hammer. When I polled the rest of the people on my street, Bob said Dan should be put to death, Sally said Dan should simply give me the hammer back, and Phil said that because Dan is going through a rough patch, Dan should get to keep it. What am I to do? "

First of all, once all the political element is removed violation of rights will fall dramatically. In large part because people will be happier without "government" interference. Happier people are far more likely not to violate other's rights.

Violations of rights can be fairly dealt with. In your example, the hammer must be returned or paid for. How to deal with the offenders is a specialty for professionals. The goal is to getting offenders not offend again. Obviously that's what many countries claim to try to do but it comes with all the politics mixed in and the results are often the opposite of which would be preferred.

I agree, he should give me my hammer back, and possibly compensate me in some way for its absence. Now how do we enforce that? Who are these professionals you mention above? How do we as a community decide which punishments are "just?" Who is the arbiter of consequences for violating those rights? At the end of the day you're going to have a group of people (either in their entirety or a representative section) making these "rules" you seem to think are self-evident. Congratulations, you've just invented government.

Politics (at the level you're thinking about) is just another word for "opinions." In my example, Bob has different politics than Sally. We'll always have disagreements on how structure government, but in a complex enough society, you're always going to have some sort of central administrative/enforcement authority.

"Congratulations, you've just invented government."

I didn't say no government is not government. I said you can call it whatever. The difference is the political component. In a political system judges, who deal with violators, are elected. They can be elected by people who have no idea on how to successfully deal with people who violates others rights. In a non-political system the "judges" are unbiased professionals who function to get violators to not violate again. As I said before, happiness is the result when pollical government does not interfere with people.

cfghjd wrote:

"Sure, it doesn't sound like government at all."

You are saying the exact opposite of what I mean yet the facts remain the same! It's rules that matter, not "government", You can call it whatever but what I propose is no political input - the rules are based on the best current information. Should we quarantine people with the COVID-19? The consensus of top doctors say yes. That's the rule. Should we put duties on steel imports? Top economists say no. That's the rule. Obviously US steel executives would say no. The politics are out. The best practices are in.

Who is responsible for the quarantining?

Who designates them as responsible?

Every time you say "it's not government... it's rules"

You are reinforcing the need for (some) government.

josh1988 wrote:

Who is going to enforce the rule that what you do can't violate the rights of others?

Yup.

And who is going to define what rights others have?

cfghjd wrote:

"Congratulations, you've just invented government."

I didn't say no government is not government. I said you can call it whatever. The difference is the political component. In a political system judges, who deal with violators, are elected. They can be elected by people who have no idea on how to successfully deal with people who violates others rights. In a non-political system the "judges" are unbiased professionals who function to get violators to not violate again. As I said before, happiness is the result when pollical government does not interfere with people.

I have a distinct feeling I'm being trolled, but I can't resist: who are the unbiased professionals who ensure violators don't violate again? Who chooses them? What are their qualifications? If no one chooses them, how do they attain their positions?

In your examples, you keep insisting that consensus of experts will dictate rules policy. Since not everyone has the same opinion, wouldn't that quickly become a tyranny of the majority? Is there an avenue for a dissenting (and possible more "correct") opinion to be heard? Again, who arbitrates such deliberations? Do the people get to choose these individuals, or are they self-selected?

cfghjd wrote:

As I said before, happiness is the result when political government does not interfere with people.

What exactly is political government? You talk of politics as if it is some sort of abstract concept. In reality it is opinions as to what is best for society. Keynesian versus monetarist economic theory, single payer versus private health care, tax on consumption versus tax on income, globalism versus isolationism , religious values versus humanistic values, first past the post or proportional representation. We all as individuals have opinions on each of these, that's not going to disappear if you get declare politics no longer exists.

I'm not a troll. I'm serious. To answer your questions. The people who will make the determinations of violation and remedies are professionals and experts in the field. These are people whose expertise is noted to be the current best. This, by the way, is how some policies are created in the US. However, what I propose by "no government" is that all determinations are made by these experts.

There may be dissenting points of view that can factor in but the reality is, as I noted before, once government is out, violations fall dramatically because now people can exercise their total right of freedom. It was only several ago or so that same sex people's marriages were not legal because something like "studies have shown that these marriages will cause a break down of society". That was political government. The no government line is "Marry who you want and be happy!" We will protect your right to do so against others who seek to violate it.

Go live in an African country run by a dictator, instead of a government of and by the people. Report back on how things are working out for the people there. I’m curious if everyone’s right are being respected.

You can get rid of about 80% of government in your life if you:

-- pay for your medical care using cash

-- don't accept Social Security

-- avoid any type of support or reliance on the military (a tough one)

-- don't call public safety (police or fire)

-- decline public primary, secondary, and post-secondary education, and don't accept services from persons educated in these systems (another tough one)

-- don't drive on public roads, or use any publicly regulated conveyance.

If you also stayed out of public parks, didn't use libraries, and raised your own food you would eliminate another 5-10% of government intevention in your life.

drbop wrote:

You can get rid of about 80% of government in your life if you:

-- pay for your medical care using cash

-- don't accept Social Security

-- avoid any type of support or reliance on the military (a tough one)

-- don't call public safety (police or fire)

-- decline public primary, secondary, and post-secondary education, and don't accept services from persons educated in these systems (another tough one)

-- don't drive on public roads, or use any publicly regulated conveyance.

If you also stayed out of public parks, didn't use libraries, and raised your own food you would eliminate another 5-10% of government intevention in your life.

Does this also come with a refund on taxes I paid?

"Go live in an African country run by a dictator, instead of a government of and by the people."

It's mindsets like that totally miss the point and use their masses to vote in people who continue to violate the rights of all. Obviously living in African dictatorship is far worse then the US or Europe but the US and Europe are still very far from being free!

Starting out with a bookmark on seventeenth-century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes, he said life in the "state of nature" would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This remark was made with regard to the exact same topic examined in this thread topic.

Without government there would be no laws and people could do whatever

they wanted. Even if people tried to develop informal rules, there would be no way to

guarantee enforcement of those rules.

My personal example of "life without government" comes from the other day when someone crashed into a light pole and inadvertently shut off power at the peak of rush hour. Power outages included the stoplights up and down the streets and electricity in nearby plazas. The state of nature existed when there were no functioning stoplights and lines of cars each believing it was their turn to go. Everyone was in a hurry and you had to assert yourself when going through the intersection. A simple task such as turning left became physical and stressful. It was pure chaos.

In a world without government we would dissolve from general order to extremely radical behavior and even primitive forms of tribalism. But there are other more practical questions such as "less government", "restricted government" and increased civil liberties (if there is such a thing).