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

Sure, if you don’t want things like roads, bridges, water treatment plants, research, etc.

Basically if we got rid of all forms of government, laws, law enforcement, etc. it would be like “The Purge” 24/7.

Somalia didn’t have a government for about 15 years. Guess how that worked out for them.

josh1988 wrote:

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

Exactly!!!

But who is going to enforce the rule that you have "enforce the rule that what you do can't violate the rights of others."? And who is going to enforce that rule? And that rule? And so on?

The difficulty of guarding the guardians was first pointed out two thousand years ago by the Roman satirist Juvenal. When someone said the way to prevent adultery was to hire guards to watch your spouse, Juvenal asked, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Who will watch the watchers?" or "Who will guard the guardians?"

The American constitution solves this problem by having the guardians watch each other. This is done through the system of checks and balances. The idea is simple: Checks and balances, such as impeachment, the veto (and the veto over-ride), give each branch a way to check the power of the other branches. The Founders believed that such a system would give people driven by "insatiable avarice and ambition" an incentive to enforce the constitution's rules.

In other words, with checks and balances, you can have good government without good governors.

In the words of James Madison:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If angels were to govern men, no controls on government would be necessary.

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must

first enable the government to control the governed; and

in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Dr. Obvious wrote:

Somalia didn’t have a government for about 15 years. Guess how that worked out for them

Actually, this is not so clear. Looking at various measures of well-being, it appears the Somali government may have been so bad that not having a government actually made people better off in a lot of ways.

Here are two blog posts and an academic paper that give a flavor of the evidence:

This is a running message board. You have apparently mistaken it for a debate website. Sad. You'll have to look for extemp, or L -D elsewhere

"checks and balances"? That didn't go too well in the impeachment. That was all political. That's exactly what I mean.

The US constitution was only an ideal but it was immediately corrupted - for example, it permitted importation of slaves for 20 more years. Women could not vote. Nice guys, huh? Pursuit of happiness? Not if you were from Africa.

But the momentous thing it did was get rid of the control of the monarchy. Now we need to replace the current government with a non-political simple structure that allows everyone to pursue happiness.

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?

LOL, not a bad idea for a child but when you grow up you’ll understand better.

To have even a single rule requires government. I'm an anarchist and believe in moral relativism but what you're describing is more like a libertarian/minarchist type of system.

cfghjd wrote:

There are plenty of places around the world where people don't steal or harm one another. Even where I grew up in the 1/2 hour from New York City we never locked our door (except when the family went on vacation or Christmas holiday). There was never any crime or violence at all. In the inner cities it was different but that can change. In that

So there were never any crime or violence at all and it was so darn good your family had to lock the doors while on Christmas holiday or vacation. Sorry you just shot yourself on the foot there. If in fact it was that good, there was no reason to lock the house not even for vacation or holiday trips. Make up your mind brother or sister. You can't have it both ways in the argument.

Watch “Water World.”

It explains everything.

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?

Utopian idealism.

Well you can see how well it worked out in Somalia in the 1990's. Not much better in Yemen either. Even today it's not that great.

Not possible.

cfghjd wrote:

"The place you grew up was governed by local, state, and federal laws. So what's your point? "

I didn't say "There will be no enforcements of rights". On the contrary, enforcement of rights is the bedrock and the only thing the world needs.

The place where I grew up only had only a few police on duty at anytime. There was no crime because it didn't exist in the area.

I love when people use their unique and specific situation and use it as the example that would work for society as a whole.

In a world without leaders

Who'd start all the wars?

The world that your saving

Will always be yours

Kill the President

Listen to the voice of reason

Unify with that single line

Stop the man with the power

Of the government

A leader's not the center

Of democracy

In a world without leaders

Who'd make people starve?

The world that we're saving

Will always be ours

Everyone says

Well maybe I'll make a difference

Thinking they've got plenty of time

But you're squeezed

A little tighter everyday

Finished before you can commit a crime

In a world without leaders

Who'd start all the wars?

The world that your saving

Will always be yours

Kill the President

Listen to the voice of reason

Unify with that single line

Stop the man with the power

Of the government

A leader's not the center

Of democracy

America

All of your enemies

Come from within

But you lash out so

It is seen

Like some frightened child

In an angry world

Or the fall of Rome

Your demise comes

From your own hands

In a world without leaders

Who'd start all the wars?

The world that your saving

Will always be yours

In a world without leaders

We might have a chance

But we'll never see it

As long as there's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxudIpbKdjk

There have been plenty of places with no effective government. They're all terrible places to live....

pr100 wrote:

There have been plenty of places with no effective government. They're all terrible places to live....

Anarchist Catalonia was a pretty nice place to live.

There are other places in the world, both past and present, that I have read about that have functioned very well without government. I think, or rather know, the fact is most people have been brainwashed to accept ideas about the social world. I don't blame them. I have, too.