Is No Government Possible?

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Frosty

How so? Surely if humans are so imperfect that they will do evil things under anarchy, we wouldn't dare take a group of these people and give them the violent, monopolistic powers of a government.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals. Have you ever been held literally at gunpoint? Knifepoint? Ever been in a situation where you weren't sure that you'd survive the next sixty seconds?

Until you have, perhaps you should tone down the use of the word 'violent' as you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't understand what the word really means.

[Kitty.]

Originally Posted by Frosty

It occur occur naturally through trade. People are going to tend towards using something that has the traits that make something a desirablel currency. It's not a case of getting 6 billion people into a polling booth and having them "decide" that way.

I am very doubtful about that happening lol. There would always be quite a few people who wouldn't agree.

[MichWolverineFreak]

I think it would be pretty cool, but there would be a ton of people fighting, and the country would be dividing into minorities, sexualities, political differences, and other stuff. I dont think it would be a country, more like warring city states. Still, unlimited freedom, right?

[MichWolverineFreak]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals. Have you ever been held literally at gunpoint? Knifepoint? Ever been in a situation where you weren't sure that you'd survive the next sixty seconds?

Until you have, perhaps you should tone down the use of the word 'violent' as you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't understand what the word really means.

Ive been held at gunpoint under normal government. My cities so effed up that I could walk within a mile of my high school and get shot up.
Without an economy, the poverty could turn people into animals. "The greatest crime in the world is poverty." I forgot where I heard that... Gandhi, I think.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Frosty

What?

What I'm getting from you is that not only can we function without a government, but 2010 would be the same if we never had a government to begin with. We'd still have running water, electricity, computers, affordable cars, etc. One of the main reasons why a Lamborghini is expensive is because it's hand-built. I can say that if we didn't have a government, then we wouldn't have the technology like we do now to build products at a fast race to keep up with the demand of a product. But I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that we both have some sort of bias. Just because the government is the government doesn't mean that corruption would end and we'd still be the first to the moon and all that jazz. You're neglecting the potential results that if we had no government, maybe things wouldn't actually be that good. What if the founding fathers didn't want to create a government, but eventually a government was formed anyways because of conflicts? At the same time, what if everything goes better than planned and we actually form a well established country without a form of government? At this point, we've always had a form of government and we can no way tell if we would be able to function as a society or not. Ultimately, if we had no government...would we have the technology and resources to power the technology to build products at a fast an inexpensive rate?

Originally Posted by Frosty

And the government also in effect subsidised slavery by monopolising the provision of "justice" and forcefully returning slaves to their "owners". I also recall reading recently about a case back during segregation when a train company was fined by the government for not putting blacks in a seperate carraige. There's the free market being racist alright .

And I said that it wasn't just the government. Getting rid of the government was not going to get rid of slavery, based on what was happening back then. Again, it's everyone involved...not just the government.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals.

Right, so we should put dumb, panicky animals in the position of monopolistic power implied by government?

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Have you ever been held literally at gunpoint? Knifepoint? Ever been in a situation where you weren't sure that you'd survive the next sixty seconds?

Until you have, perhaps you should tone down the use of the word 'violent' as you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't understand what the word really means.

I'm going to keep stating the truth, that government is an inherently violent and immoral institution. I'm not gonna censor myself just because you get upset at the implication you advocate an idealogy which boils down to "we should have an armed gang threaten everyone with violence".

Originally Posted by Kitty.

I am very doubtful about that happening lol. There would always be quite a few people who wouldn't agree.

What possible incentive would there be for a few people to say "lol screw your gold bullshit, we're trading in goldfish huuuurrrrr duuuurrrr"?

Originally Posted by MichWolverineFreak

I think it would be pretty cool, but there would be a ton of people fighting

I don't know about you or the people you know, but I'm not currently holding myself back from going on a violent rampage just because big brother says not to.

Originally Posted by MichWolverineFreak

and the country would be dividing into minorities, sexualities, political differences, and other stuff.

There might be a few rednecks from the deep south making communities where no gays and blacks are allowed for all I know, but I'm sure these people don't tend to live in places said minorities are gonna want to go anyway. Not to mention throughout history it's been government enforcing things like racial segregation.

Originally Posted by MichWolverineFreak

Ive been held at gunpoint under normal government. My cities so effed up that I could walk within a mile of my high school and get shot up.

Probably no thanks to the government's war on drugs i.e. their multi-billion dollar subsidy program to organised crime.

Originally Posted by MichWolverineFreak

Without an economy, the poverty could turn people into animals. "The greatest crime in the world is poverty." I forgot where I heard that... Gandhi, I think.

How does no government imply no economy?

Originally Posted by Brandon

What I'm getting from you is that not only can we function without a government, but 2010 would be the same if we never had a government to begin with. We'd still have running water, electricity, computers, affordable cars, etc. One of the main reasons why a Lamborghini is expensive is because it's hand-built. I can say that if we didn't have a government, then we wouldn't have the technology like we do now to build products at a fast race to keep up with the demand of a product. But I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that we both have some sort of bias. Just because the government is the government doesn't mean that corruption would end and we'd still be the first to the moon and all that jazz. You're neglecting the potential results that if we had no government, maybe things wouldn't actually be that good. What if the founding fathers didn't want to create a government, but eventually a government was formed anyways because of conflicts? At the same time, what if everything goes better than planned and we actually form a well established country without a form of government? At this point, we've always had a form of government and we can no way tell if we would be able to function as a society or not. Ultimately, if we had no government...would we have the technology and resources to power the technology to build products at a fast an inexpensive rate?

The vast majority of technological progress and capital accumulation is through the private sector. And as for that which isn't, read up a little on the broken window fallacy. Then you've got the masses of government intervention actively discouraging technological innovation and particularly capital accumulation. I can say without a doubt that without government meddling in the economy we would be far wealthier and more productive as a whole.

Originally Posted by Brandon

And I said that it wasn't just the government. Getting rid of the government was not going to get rid of slavery, based on what was happening back then. Again, it's everyone involved...not just the government.

Maybe if everyone supports slavery you're unfortunately gonna get it government or not, but in a more realistic scenerio, where you have people for and against it, it doesn't help matters when you've got a monopolistic provider of "justice" that is more than happy to subsidise the slave owners by enforcing their "ownership".

[Alrex]

Originally Posted by Frosty

I dunno about you, but the reason I'm not out on a killing/raping spree right now isn't just because the government is telling me not to.
Also;
>Implying only a government can protect person and property

I usually wouldn't reference TV shows, but a really good example would be the show "Lost"

You can't live without a form of leader or else people will start dying

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Alrex

I usually wouldn't reference TV shows, but a really good example would be the show "Lost"

You can't live without a form of leader or else people will start dying[/color]

It's probably a good thing you wouldn't usually reference fictional programs, because they generally are made for entertainment purposes as opposed to presenting an objective assessment of anarcho-capitalism or some other idealogy.

[Kitty.]

Originally Posted by Frosty

What possible incentive would there be for a few people to say "lol screw your gold bullshit, we're trading in goldfish huuuurrrrr duuuurrrr"?

Goldfish? Who would trade goldfish?
I'm talking about real currency. There is roughly 186 different types of currency in the world. If you honestly think that you can get the majority of the world to decide on 1 currency, then good luck with that. People are going to want to keep their own currency. I know for a fact that I would want to keep mine.
And gold? You think that everyone in the world would suddenly go back to trading gold and silver? I know I wouldn't and I know tons of people who wouldn't.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Kitty.

Goldfish? Who would trade goldfish?
I'm talking about real currency. There is roughly 186 different types of currency in the world. If you honestly think that you can get the majority of the world to decide on 1 currency, then good luck with that. People are going to want to keep their own currency. I know for a fact that I would want to keep mine.
And gold? You think that everyone in the world would suddenly go back to trading gold and silver? I know I wouldn't and I know tons of people who wouldn't.

Well if everyone decides to stick with the previously state backed currencies that's their choice too. I think it's interesting to note that this happened with the Iraqi Swiss Dinar. People kept using it after the government began using another currency, and it actually functioned far better as it was immune to the inflation plaguing the new currency because the government was no longer inflating it's supply.

[Kitty.]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Well if everyone decides to stick with the previously state backed currencies that's their choice too. I think it's interesting to note that this happened with the Iraqi Swiss Dinar. People kept using it after the government began using another currency, and it actually functioned far better as it was immune to the inflation plaguing the new currency because the government was no longer inflating it's supply.

Most people will chose to stick with their own currency so world currency will be impossible. Well if there isn't a government, then inflation and things like that will not be a factor.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Kitty.

Most people will chose to stick with their own currency so world currency will be impossible. Well if there isn't a government, then inflation and things like that will not be a factor.

Well even if they do all just stick with their current currencies, we're essentially where we are now minus inflation.