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

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?

A common argument against communism is "People don't act that way/are greedy, so it could never work". Libertarians will make this claim and then turn around and say that their society could work as long as no one violated the rights of others. So no, society could not work without government, unless you think that humans would not steal or harm others.

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

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

cfghjd wrote:

The only rule should be "Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of anyone else".

Who sets this rule?

Who defines this rule?

Who interprets this rule?

Who enforces this rule?

Who judges if this rule has been violated?

Who determines punishment for violating this rule?

Who enforces the punishment?

Who determines when the punishment has been served?

The problem is, and has always been, that our government is "by/for the people," but is anything but.

There are US Senators who've been in office going on 60 years.

The US Presidency is geared for billionaires.

The only thing our government actually does is benefit billionaires and corporations.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The answer to all the below questions is:

A consensus of the best current information available. It works like a speed limit on a road is calculated - all the factors are known and the professional traffic engineers make the rule. The rule is subject to change if conditions warrant.

Who sets this rule?

Who defines this rule?

Who interprets this rule?

Who enforces this rule?

Who judges if this rule has been violated?

Who determines punishment for violating this rule?

Who enforces the punishment?

Who determines when the punishment has been served?

Good governance is wise, like the pear tree in Chinese lore.

But the State is a different entity....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Enemy,_the_State

https://famguardian.org/Publications/OurEnemyTheState/OurEnemyTheState-byAlbertJKnock.pdf

The presidency is not geared for billionaires. The government does also serve the people rightfully in some respects. But it can definably get out of control. In fact it causes unhappiness. This is proven by a simple study of history. No so long ago some states wouldn't allow interracial marriages for example, That's why I asked the original question.

Even libertarians would say that government needs to exist for the purpose of contract enforcement. I would be happy with way less government, but the market breaks down if there is no one to ensure that all involved parties do what they agree to do in terms of providing a good/service or paying for said good/service.

cfghjd wrote:

The answer to all the below questions is:

A consensus of the best current information available. It works like a speed limit on a road is calculated - all the factors are known and the professional traffic engineers make the rule. The rule is subject to change if conditions warrant.

Who sets this rule?

Who defines this rule?

Who interprets this rule?

Who enforces this rule?

Who judges if this rule has been violated?

Who determines punishment for violating this rule?

Who enforces the punishment?

Who determines when the punishment has been served?

So, in other words we have a full time bureaucracy employed to create regulations along with a change mechanism under which the bureaucrats can be ordered by a higher authority to alter the regulations. Presumably there are other bureaucrats enforcing the regulations and a further set of bureaucrats determining the punishments for violating the regulations. All this to be funded by a tithe on the citizens. Sure, it doesn't sound like government at all.

If you get rid of government, then be prepared to be ruled by the mob with the most guns (take the tribal regions of the Afghanistan / Pakistan border as an example, where warlords enforce Sharia law and there is little in the way of centralized government). There needs to be checks and balances to keep the bad actors in line and to enforce instances where individuals harm others.

"Even libertarians would say that government needs to exist for the purpose of contract enforcement."

Libertarians aren't the final word. In contracts, many parties do abide by the contract, if only to keep a good reputation. In business a bad reputation can cause a business failure or at least prevent some sales. In cases where parties do not abide, and many certainly do not, there will be enforcement. I'm not saying to get rid of all rules; I'm saying the government as we know it does more hard then good and should be abolished.

"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.

Ridiculous thread. The abolition of government and a return to "the state of nature" would promptly lead to total economic collapse and millions of deaths.

cfghjd wrote:

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.

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

No, b/c: a) greed; and b) psychological disorders. Society needs a strong and fair justice system to regulate and protect against greed and crazy.

Anarchism is epistemologically wrong. A government is a monopoly on the use of physical force which exists by virtue of one person or group being stronger than everyone else in the given territory. In any human society, there is ALWAYS a biggest fish, and therefore someone who is in a position to make the rules that everyone else has to live by. If there is no generally accepted government in an area, there are factions struggling for control, i.e. civil war, and there is a different "government" in each of the sub-territories that the various factions control. There never has been, and never will be, a society with no government, because it is impossible to achieve by definition. If you and I are stranded together on an island, and I'm bigger and stronger than you, then I'm the governor, and I make the rules; even if I grant you your freedom, you are only free because I allow you to be so under my enlightened governance. There is no such thing as anarchy or "no government," and anarchists are discrediting freedom with their foolishness.

"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.

"someone who is in a position to make the rules that everyone else has to live by."

What I'm saying is people should have the power to enforce the basic rule "Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of anyone else". That's what the modern democratic "governments" aspire to do but the are highly political and therefore harmful.

Librarytarian wrote:

Libertarians will make this claim and then turn around and say that their society could work as long as no one violated the rights of others.

This is simply not true. There has been quite a bit of attention by libertarians (and others) to the question of how and whether you can have governance -- enforcement of rights -- without government -- a centralized hierarchy that punishes the wicked. It is now clear that people have a variety of ways of enforcing rights besides government. It is not clear which of these methods is best.