True Debate: Mr. Invisible vs. X Factor

Mr. Invisible and X Factor will be engaging in a true debate. The topic is: "Is government needed?" X Factor will be arguing the position that government is needed. Mr. Invisible will argue the position that government is not needed. This debate will be more philosophical in nature. There will be 10 posts each consisting of 1 opening post, 8 posts to argue positions, and a concluding post. X Factor will make the first opening post. After the debate a poll will be created where users can vote on a winner.

Discussion thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/battl...-mr-invisible-vs-x-factor.html#post1061821069

Taking the position of pro government or, more accurately, pro existence of government, feels a little like a reverse debate for me. Usually my concerns are about government interference and overreach, and while those are certainly valid in my view, I have always acknowledged the very necessary role government plays in most societies. In fact, I would be hard pressed to imagine any society that doesn’t have some system of rules and people in place to make and enforce those rules.

The primary function of government is protection of its member citizens. Of course, protection is a very broad term that could extend beyond mere protection of the person’s body or property to include less tangible ideals of protection of opportunity or protecting equality. At its most basic, the purpose of government is protection from “illegal” harm for the individual and security for the nation. In order for a society of people to work and live peacefully together, there has to be some assurances that what you’ve worked to provide for yourself is legally yours and that there are a series of laws and rules that bring the collective weight, being much larger than the resources of any one individual, of the governing body to institute protective measure from outside aggression as well as take action against those who fail to abide by those rules. Of course, that’s not to say that there isn’t crime, there is, and people still suffer injury and lose property to lawbreakers, but it is understood that the actor is taking the risk that he could be caught and punished for infringing on the established rules.

There has to a body whose sole purpose it is to conduct business on behalf of its citizen members. A body that provides protection and safety, as much as possible, for the most people possible. Of course there is major disagreement on just what that business should include and government itself can be a problem, but it is not inherently bad or evil and can even accomplish quite laudable things that benefit the society. I think most of my right wing breathren would, at most, concede that government is a necessary evil. I say it's just necessary.

(One small procedural note. Mr. I, I have a tendency to edit and change things. Totally up to you but you might want to wait the 25 minutes, when I lose the ability to do that, before replying. And thanks for asking me to do this).

In this current day and era, we have government overreach in our lives on a regular basis. The government is there to protect us from 'terrorists' (usually of their own creation), criminals, and a number of other threats, or so the story goes.

Governments around the world and throughout human history have consistently built up and expanded their capacity to reach into the lives of ordinary citizens, just look at how the TSA pats down people who are simply trying to board a plane or how Obama has the power to detain US citizens under the 2012 NDAA. To combat these excesses of government, many people epouse the idea of limited goverment, however this is nothing but a fool's errand. Government consistently expands and while people may argue that we just need to keep
our eyes on the government to limit its expansion, the real question is do we ever actually truly keep an eye on government as to protect our freedoms. Sadly, the answer is a resounding no, something that we can personally bear witness to as we have seen the US government grow and expand to new disturbing heights in the 21st century.

Yet, we can go even further on a moral level. I think that my opponent would agree that I have no right to force someone to do something they do not want to under the threat of throwing them in a prison or to spend up larve sums of money and to force someone else to foot the bill. Yet this is what government does on a daily basis via taxes and the national debt, respectively. Why is it that such actions are wrong on an individual level but suddenly they become moral when one is in this bubble known as government?

Furthermore, the rule of law is not equally applied as there are one set of rules for those in government and another set for ordinary individuals. One need to look no further than the assassination of Anwar al Awlaki and how the Obama administration blatantly killed a US citizen, which violated the Constitution and yet no one was held accountable in the slightest. For some reason, I doubt that I could kill someone and then argue in court that I was just trying to protect my neighbors.

Goverment itself is unneeded as the power to change society and create a more just society does not lie within the halls of government, but lies within the people.

I agree that government expansion is a problem but the fact is, we live in a dangerous world. As illustrated by 9/11 and as recently as the terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon, there are people out there whose motivation is to kill as many of us as possible. To maintain the safety and security of US citizens, the government needs to thwart those who want to hurt us and to do that requires information. Since 9/11, the US government, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, have interrupted nearly 30 terrorist attacks plots. A list can be found here.

List of foiled Islamic terrorist plots in the post-9/11 United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without centralized government at both the state and federal level and agencies such as the the FBI, the CIA and numerous military organizations, who would have discovered these plans? What would have happened if our government hadn't investigated, discovered and stopped those plots?

Why should government have some power over it's citizens? Simply put, for the greater good. Government is basically a pooling of resources. As I mentioned in my opening, those resources enable the government to provide and maintain things that most individuals could not provide for themselves such as roads, schools, police protection (although I do not advocate that people rely solely on the police for individual protection) and nationally, a strong military to protect the nations resources from outside aggression and a Border Patrol to keep our borders secure.

Furthermore, in order for people to live securely and benefit from their labor, there has to be a system of laws and rules that everyone abides by and those who don't, suffer the consequences. You cannot even have "rights" without a way to enforce them. Without laws people would still be subject to coercion by those who had the most resources and could make rules that benefit only themselves as opposed to rules that benefit the majority of society as government attempts to do.

Regarding your example of Anwar al Awlaki, regardless of his citizenship, he was not some innocent victim that sought only survival for himself and those he identified with, his goal was the destruction of American lives.

“The death of Awlaki is a major blow to Al Qaeda’s most active operational affiliate,” President Obama said in remarks at a swearing-in ceremony for the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, outside Washington. Mr. Obama said the cleric had taken “the lead role in planning and directing the efforts to murder innocent Americans.”

Mr. Obama also called Mr. Awlaki “the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” — the first time the United States has publicly used that description of him. American officials say he inspired militants around the world and helped plan a number of terrorist plots, including the December 2009 attempt to blow up a jetliner bound for Detroit.

Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/w...s-killed-in-yemen.html?ref=anwaralawlaki&_r=0

This is exactly the type of person and threat to the US that our government should seek to eliminate. We didn't declare war on him, he declared war on us. He allied himself with our enemies and, in doing so, became our enemy we responded accordingly and, in doing so, potentially saved American lives.

Government itself is unneeded as the power to change society and create a more just society does not lie within the halls of government, but lies within the people.

Click to expand...

Nice words, Mr. Invisible, but a simple question to you would be by what mechanism does society make itself "more just" without government?

(Apologies for posting this so late. I'll try to be quicker in my responses. Just had a busy day today.)

Xfactor, you completely and totally ignore the context in which I bought up Anwar al Awlaki. I stated that

Mr. Invisible said:

Furthermore, the rule of law is not equally applied as there are one set of rules for those in government and another set for ordinary individuals. One need to look no further than the assassination of Anwar al Awlaki and how the Obama administration blatantly killed a US citizen, which violated the Constitution and yet no one was held accountable in the slightest. For some reason, I doubt that I could kill someone and then argue in court that I was just trying to protect my neighbors.

Click to expand...

To this, you stated that

X Factor said:

I agree that government expansion is a problem but the fact is, we live in a dangerous world. As illustrated by 9/11 and as recently as the terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon, there are people out there whose motivation is to kill as many of us as possible. To maintain the safety and security of US citizens, the government needs to thwart those who want to hurt us and to do that requires information. Since 9/11, the US government, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, have interrupted nearly 30 terrorist attacks plots. A list can be found here.

List of foiled Islamic terrorist plots in the post-9/11 United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without centralized government at both the state and federal level and agencies such as the the FBI, the CIA and numerous military organizations, who would have discovered these plans? What would have happened if our government hadn't investigated, discovered and stopped those plots?

Click to expand...

My main point was the fact that there is a two-tiered justice system in which it is wrong for someone to do something on the individual level, but as soon as one is in this bubble called government, it is OK to do so. I also stated that the US government was often responsible for these foiled 'terrorism' plots.


Sources can be found here: The Corbett Report | The FBI Fosters, Funds and Equips American Terrorists



Also look here, here, here, and here. [Please admit, that second video is hilarious, isn't it?]

So many of the terrorist plots that have been foiled, have actually been orchestrated by the state itself.

You then state that

X Factor said:

Why should government have some power over it's citizens? Simply put, for the greater good. Government is basically a pooling of resources. As I mentioned in my opening, those resources enable the government to provide and maintain things that most individuals could not provide for themselves such as roads, schools, police protection (although I do not advocate that people rely solely on the police for individual protection) and nationally, a strong military to protect the nations resources from outside aggression and a Border Patrol to keep our borders secure.

Furthermore, in order for people to live securely and benefit from their labor, there has to be a system of laws and rules that everyone abides by and those who don't, suffer the consequences. You cannot even have "rights" without a way to enforce them. Without laws people would still be subject to coercion by those who had the most resources and could make rules that benefit only themselves as opposed to rules that benefit the majority of society as government attempts to do.

Click to expand...

You argue that the government should have some power over its citizens, but what are we to do when the government abuses that power such as creating a legal precedent by assassinating its own citizens?

From the International Business Times:

As we've seen today, it's a program under which U.S. citizens far removed from the battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process and on the basis of standards and evidence that are secret, Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Reuters.

Click to expand...

... every American knows that the U.S. is not engaged in an armed conflict in Yemen - not a real armed conflict. Nevertheless, President Obama placed an American citizen in Yemen on a kill list, Mary Ellen O’Connell wrote in a blog on CNN.

O’Connell argues that killing in war is justifiable morally and legally because of the extraordinary situation of real hostilities. However, when no such situation exists, killing a terrorist by order of the President sets a bad precedent. If the logic behind the killing of Awlaki is applied in a different context, terrorists inside the country can be targeted as well and this amounts to violation of law, she argued.

Click to expand...

The killing violates the Fifth Amendment, Francis Boyle, an expert in international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, said.

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, he argued, adding that the killing of Awlaki is a real body blow against the United States Constitution by the Obama administration---the murder and assassination of a U.S. citizen in gross violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Click to expand...

[Se also this and this.]

You then say

X Factor said:

Why should government have some power over it's citizens? Simply put, for the greater good. Government is basically a pooling of resources. As I mentioned in my opening, those resources enable the government to provide and maintain things that most individuals could not provide for themselves such as roads, schools, police protection (although I do not advocate that people rely solely on the police for individual protection) and nationally, a strong military to protect the nations resources from outside aggression and a Border Patrol to keep our borders secure.

Click to expand...

You argue that government is a pooling together of resources and essentially working together, but can't people do that own their own? For example, there are worker co-ops that work fine in which that is done. [Please note, I am not arguing for anarcho-communism.]

The "Who Will Build The Roads" question is quite foolish as it essentially assumes that people are too stupid to do such needed things as, well, building roads and has been answered time and time again. [Please note, I am not arguing for anarcho-capitalism.]

X Factor said:

Furthermore, in order for people to live securely and benefit from their labor, there has to be a system of laws and rules that everyone abides by and those who don't, suffer the consequences. You cannot even have "rights" without a way to enforce them. Without laws people would still be subject to coercion by those who had the most resources and could make rules that benefit only themselves as opposed to rules that benefit the majority of society as government attempts to do.

Click to expand...

You ignore the fact that just because there is no government doesn't mean that there are not laws. These laws would come via the rationale that we all possess as human beings. Indeed, there would be law in an anarchist society.



You then end with

X Factor said:

Nice words, Mr. Invisible, but a simple question to you would be by what mechanism does society make itself "more just" without government?

Click to expand...

Society would be more just without government as there would not exist a two-tiered justice system, as mentioned above, for starters.



(Take your time man, I'm on summer vacation, so I've got nothing to do.)

Mr. Invisible said:

Xfactor, you completely and totally ignore the context in which I bought up Anwar al Awlaki. I stated that


To this, you stated that



My main point was the fact that there is a two-tiered justice system in which it is wrong for someone to do something on the individual level, but as soon as one is in this bubble called government, it is OK to do so.

Click to expand...

Mr. I, if there is no government, there is no rule of law so while the government may do things that are "wrong", there isn't even so much as the concept of "wrong" without it.

I also stated that the US government was often responsible for these foiled 'terrorism' plots.


Sources can be found here: The Corbett Report | The FBI Fosters, Funds and Equips American Terrorists



Also look here, here, here, and here. [Please admit, that second video is hilarious, isn't it?]

So many of the terrorist plots that have been foiled, have actually been orchestrated by the state itself.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I have not seen all the videos you've linked, but I promise I will before our time is up. My understanding, in those cases, though, is that the would be terrorists absolutely believed that they were being given real explosives and their intent to use them to kill innocent people was very real. Given the choice between conspiring with other actual terrorists and unknowingly conspirng with the government, who wouldn't take the latter?

You then state that




You argue that the government should have some power over its citizens, but what are we to do when the government abuses that power such as creating a legal precedent by assassinating its own citizens?

From the International Business Times:



[Se also this and this.]

Click to expand...

He was not targeted because he was a citizen and was not killed while driving to work in the US. This also was not a criminal investigation where constitutional protections apply. He was a high value Al Quada target.

You then say



You argue that government is a pooling together of resources and essentially working together, but can't people do that own their own? For example, there are worker co-ops that work fine in which that is done. [Please note, I am not arguing for anarcho-communism.]*

The "Who Will Build The Roads" question is quite foolish as it essentially assumes that people are too stupid to do such needed things as, well, building roads and has been answered time and time again. [Please note, I am not arguing for anarcho-capitalism.]



You ignore the fact that just because there is no government doesn't mean that there are not laws. These laws would come via the rationale that we all possess as human beings. Indeed, there would be law in an anarchist society.



You then end with



Society would be more just without government as there would not exist a two-tiered justice system, as mentioned above, for starters.



(Take your time man, I'm on summer vacation, so I've got nothing to do.)

Click to expand...

You've given me a lot to look at and read, Mr. I. I wanted to get something posted, but I'll have to defer my comments on your links until I read them, which I'll try to do today.

I will leave you with this question. How can there be laws if there's nobody charged with enforcing them?

X Factor said:

Mr. I, if there is no government, there is no rule of law so while the government may do things that are "wrong", there isn't even so much as the concept of "wrong" without it.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

I will leave you with this question. How can there be laws if there's nobody charged with enforcing them?

Click to expand...

That is completely and totally wrong. There are concepts of right and wrong as we all have rights that cannot be infringed upon and we recognize that it is wrong when those rights are infringed upon by any outside force, government or otherwise. We have had concepts of right and wrong where then was no government and ways to enforce them. On the enforcement end, just look at biblical times where the people enforced the laws or, in American history, the Wild West, where people were voted into the position of sheriff and given the power to enforce laws. You do not need the government to enforce laws and on top of that, you still have not addressed my original point about there being a two-tiered justice system in which on the individual level certain acts are illegal, but as soon one becomes involved in government, those same acts are perfectly legitimized.

X Factor said:

Honestly, I have not seen all the videos you've linked, but I promise I will before our time is up. My understanding, in those cases, though, is that the would be terrorists absolutely believed that they were being given real explosives and their intent to use them to kill innocent people was very real. Given the choice between conspiring with other actual terrorists and unknowingly conspirng with the government, who wouldn't take the latter?

He was not targeted because he was a citizen and was not killed while driving to work in the US. This also was not a criminal investigation where constitutional protections apply. He was a high value Al Qaida target.

Click to expand...

In regards to the terrorism, you are ignoring the fact that the government itself was involved in creating the terrorism. From start to finish, the government was involved thus there was absolutely no threat of terrorism whatsoever. This only shows the hoax of the so-called War On Terror and how it is being used by the government to give itself more power. In addition to this, the government has considered false flag terrorism before, ever heard of Operation Northwoods?

Once again, you are ignoring my original point about the government infringing upon our rights. When the government infringes upon our rights or creates legal precedents to do so, the people really don't do anything and thus government is allowed to expand and continue infringing upon the rights of people.

Mr. Invisible said:

That is completely and totally wrong. There are concepts of right and wrong as we all have rights that cannot be infringed upon and we recognize that it is wrong when those rights are infringed upon by any outside force, government or otherwise.

Click to expand...

Sorry to have to burst your bubble, but the rights anyone has in any society is determined by the government. Do you doubt me? Look at other nations. Our lives are very different in the US than it would be in, say, Saudi Arabia because our founding document, the Constitution, laid out the rights people have in the US and, ideally, laws have to conform to the Constitution and protects our rights. Take the right of free speech. When I first joined DP I hadn't even heard much about hate speech laws and certainly hadn't ever seen anyone defend them. To me, the thought of punishing someone just for saying something, no matter how bad, was just so...well...foreign. At the same time, I'm sure people who grew up hearing that hate speech is wrong to even engage in and should be regulated, are floored at the idea that we give even the most vile speakers the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. My point is, free speech is not some inherent, universal right that everyone just agrees on how far it should go. It's parameters are defined individually by each nations government.

We have had concepts of right and wrong where then was no government and ways to enforce them.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between "rights" that have to be upheld by the rule of law and notions of moral right and wrong, although, most, if not all criminal laws do enforce a certain morality. We all can probably pretty much agree that murder is wrong, and criminal laws outlawing murder are a product of that understanding.

On the enforcement end, just look at biblical times where the people enforced the laws

Click to expand...

The term for that is vigilantism. You're advocating that people uphold their own personal undertanding of right and wrong? Do you not see the potential for a abuse there? Laws protect (again, ideally) those who cannot protect themselves and also prevent people from imposing their own personal notions of guilt and punishment on others.

or, in American history, the Wild West, where people were voted into the position of sheriff and given the power to enforce laws.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, elections, giving someone power to enforce laws. That sounds like government.

You do not need the government to enforce laws and on top of that, you still have not addressed my original point about there being a two-tiered justice system in which on the individual level certain acts are illegal, but as soon one becomes involved in government, those same acts are perfectly legitimized.

In regards to the terrorism, you are ignoring the fact that the government itself was involved in creating the terrorism. From start to finish, the government was involved thus there was absolutely no threat of terrorism whatsoever. This only shows the hoax of the so-called War On Terror and how it is being used by the government to give itself more power. In addition to this, the government has considered false flag terrorism before, ever heard of Operation Northwoods?

Once again, you are ignoring my original point about the government infringing upon our rights. When the government infringes upon our rights or creates legal precedents to do so, the people really don't do anything and thus government is allowed to expand and continue infringing upon the rights of people.

Click to expand...

Government may well infringe on our rights, I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is the rights we have or believe we have would mean exactly nothing if there's no way to define and enforce them.

Mr. I, I am not trying to ignore your original point at all. Maybe I'm just not understanding it, so let me try restating it. You're saying that government should be done away with because the government is permitted, legally, to act in ways that individuals are not? Is that your argument?

X Factor said:

Sorry to have to burst your bubble, but the rights anyone has in any society is determined by the government. Do you doubt me? Look at other nations. Our lives are very different in the US than it would be in, say, Saudi Arabia because our founding document, the Constitution, laid out the rights people have in the US and, ideally, laws have to conform to the Constitution and protects our rights. Take the right of free speech. When I first joined DP I hadn't even heard much about hate speech laws and certainly hadn't ever seen anyone defend them. To me, the thought of punishing someone just for saying something, no matter how bad, was just so...well...foreign. At the same time, I'm sure people who grew up hearing that hate speech is wrong to even engage in and should be regulated, are floored at the idea that we give even the most vile speakers the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. My point is, free speech is not some inherent, universal right that everyone just agrees on how far it should go. It's parameters are defined individually by each nations government.

Click to expand...

Completely and totally incorrect. According to John Locke, we have natural rights that cannot be deprived from us as "According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since they come from nature or from God, natural rights cannot be justly taken away without consent." In addition to this, according to John Rawls' veil of ignorance theory, we are in an "original position" in which we "do not know where they will fall in the social hierarchy in terms of race, class, sex, disability, and other relevant factors" and according to Rawls we will come up with the same rights (freedom of religion, speech and the like) as to ensure that we are all protected in this new society. Countries such as Saudi Arabia are viewed as repressive countries because their governments infringe on the natural rights of their citizenry. You mentioning this only actually helps my argument as do to the existence of government, we have the tyranny of the state in which government infringes more and more on our rights.

X Factor said:

The term for that is vigilantism. You're advocating that people uphold their own personal undertanding of right and wrong? Do you not see the potential for a abuse there? Laws protect (again, ideally) those who cannot protect themselves and also prevent people from imposing their own personal notions of guilt and punishment on others.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you there, there was a law that was laid down, in this case by a god, and the people enforced that law. That is not vigilantism when there is a law that is clearly laid down.

X Factor said:

Hmmmm, elections, giving someone power to enforce laws. That sounds like government.

Click to expand...

No, elections does not equal government. For example, look at elections in regards to a housing co-op. That doesn't mean that there is a government.

However this is my fault as I have clearly not defined what I mean by government/the state. When I define government, I am talking about the people who have the legal authority to initiate force over a given geographical area. This is not my definition as if you go into any comparative government political science textbook, you will find this definition or some variation of it.

X Factor said:

Mr. I, I am not trying to ignore your original point at all. Maybe I'm just not understanding it, so let me try restating it. You're saying that government should be done away with because the government is permitted, legally, to act in ways that individuals are not? Is that your argument?

Click to expand...

I am saying the government should be done away with as it is an oppressive force in society economically, politically, and socially. Now, I do think that there was a time for government, however, I think that time is now over.

Mr. Invisible said:

Completely and totally incorrect. According to John Locke, we have natural rights that cannot be deprived from us as "According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since they come from nature or from God, natural rights cannot be justly taken away without consent." In addition to this, according to John Rawls' veil of ignorance theory, we are in an "original position" in which we "do not know where they will fall in the social hierarchy in terms of race, class, sex, disability, and other relevant factors" and according to Rawls we will come up with the same rights (freedom of religion, speech and the like) as to ensure that we are all protected in this new society. Countries such as Saudi Arabia are viewed as repressive countries because their governments infringe on the natural rights of their citizenry. You mentioning this only actually helps my argument as do to the existence of government, we have the tyranny of the state in which government infringes more and more on our rights.

Click to expand...

Mr. I, this is all "pie in the sky" philosophical ponderings that may sound good, but have little connection to reality. You really believe that civil rights, social welfare programs, free education up through the 12th grade, etc. is something that we'd all just agree on? For rights to mean anything, there has to be first, an understanding of what they are and, second, a way to implement and enforce them.

We often make the mistake of seeing our rights and civil liberties as merely the absence of some kind of governmental action. We believe that we have free speech or freedom of religion when the government does nothing to impede those freedoms. But in reality, our rights depend heavily on active government – on positive government actions. In fact, the very existence of rights depends on government. In a very real way, rights and civil liberties are actually political constructs – creations of government. Formal rights do not exist until they are created by law or established in a constitution. We only have the right of free speech because it is guaranteed in our constitution. If we didn’t have our constitution, or if we didn’t have government, our civil liberties would literally not exist.

Click to expand...

Government is Good - Government as the Primary Protector of our Rights and Liberties

I should state, that, while there are some things I agree with in that article, there is plenty I don't. I do find this argument particularly strong, though.

In the preamble of the Constitution, the founding fathers did not say that in order to “secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity” they were going to abolish government; they said that they were going to “ordain and establish” a democratic constitutional government to do so.

Click to expand...

This is irrefutably true. This is the PreAmble to our Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

And what does the Constitution do but proceed to establish the governmental system by which all those laudable goals I've bolded are to potentially be reached.

I disagree with you there, there was a law that was laid down, in this case by a god, and the people enforced that law. That is not vigilantism when there is a law that is clearly laid down.

No, elections does not equal government. For example, look at elections in regards to a housing co-op. That doesn't mean that there is a government.

However this is my fault as I have clearly not defined what I mean by government/the state. When I define government, I am talking about the people who have the legal authority to initiate force over a given geographical area. This is not my definition as if you go into any comparative government political science textbook, you will find this definition or some variation of it.

I am saying the government should be done away with as it is an oppressive force in society economically, politically, and socially. Now, I do think that there was a time for government, however, I think that time is now over.

Click to expand...

I have no issue with your definition of government, although I don't believe it's quite complete. There is no denying the element of force and coercion inherent in government. I am not free to go take my neighbors property without their consent because the law prohibits it. If I own a business, I'm subject to follow regulations that I may not want to follow but I risk governmental force against me if I fail to. Can laws and regulations get ridiculous and even oppressive (to use your word)? Absolutely, but they can, and often are used to promote the safety and health of the collective citizens.

Now, to your main point, the government can do things it would be illegal for citizens to do, that's true. However, for the government to do these things, at least in the US, they must follow due process - while citizens are under no such obligation. If I want to search your house or put you in jail, I need a warrant. If I want you to make a statement that's usable against you in court, I need to give you your rights and I must operate within the confines of the law in obtaining it, otherwise I cannot use it. On the civil side, if I want to deprive you of your property (say by filing suit against you), I need to bring you to court and prove my case and you have a right to defend yourself against my lawsuit. The reality is that government, to be effective at all has to be able to operate in ways that citizens can't (if a citizen confines me against my will, for example, it's unlawful restraint or even kidnapping) but at the same time, government- ideally-sets a series of obstacles that benefit the citizen that must be overcome before government action can be taken.

I realize all that is very specific to the US government, but that's my point. Because of the Constitution and our government, the right to due process is one (among others) that's guaranteed to residents of the US. Without government, there would be no such guaranteed rights.

X Factor said:

Mr. I, this is all "pie in the sky" philosophical ponderings that may sound good, but have little connection to reality. You really believe that civil rights, social welfare programs, free education up through the 12th grade, etc. is something that we'd all just agree on? For rights to mean anything, there has to be first, an understanding of what they are and, second, a way to implement and enforce them.



Government is Good - Government as the Primary Protector of our Rights and Liberties

I should state, that, while there are some things I agree with in that article, there is plenty I don't. I do find this argument particularly strong, though.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

Without government, there would be no such guaranteed rights.

Click to expand...

We don’t need people to enforce our rights as they are not given to us from government, they are natural. You say that government needs to protect our rights when they are the very ones who are infringing upon them, from the First Amendment (see this as well) to the Fifth amendment.



We need look no further than the Patriot Act which Obama renewed, to the NDAA 2012 which Obama fights for, to show that government does not protect your rights.

In addition to this, those theories that I just mentioned actually help to form the basis of American government. For Locke, just look here, here, here, and here.

For philosophers more generally, look here as well.

X Factor said:

This is irrefutably true. This is the Preamble to our Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

And what does the Constitution do but proceed to establish the governmental system by which all those laudable goals I've bolded are to potentially be reached.

Click to expand...

OK. Here is an excerpt from the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Click to expand...

Now, while it does discuss establishing and re-establishing government, it also states that we have rights that are unalienable, meaning that they are inherent and thus cannot be taken away from us.

It also states that we have the duty to abolish government when they become destructive to the ends of life, liberty and happiness, albeit they intend for a new government to be established.

X Factor said:

Now, to your main point, the government can do things it would be illegal for citizens to do, that's true. However, for the government to do these things, at least in the US, they must follow due process - while citizens are under no such obligation.

Click to expand...

Just look back to my links regarding the US government’s violation of the Fifth Amendment as that shows that they do not need to follow due process for them to infringe upon your rights.

Mr. Invisible said:

We don’t need people to enforce our rights as they are not given to us from government, they are natural. You say that government needs to protect our rights when they are the very ones who are infringing upon them, from the First Amendment (see this as well) to the Fifth amendment.



We need look no further than the Patriot Act which Obama renewed, to the NDAA 2012 which Obama fights for, to show that government does not protect your rights.

In addition to this, those theories that I just mentioned actually help to form the basis of American government. For Locke, just look here, here, here, and here.

For philosophers more generally, look here as well.





OK. Here is an excerpt from the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript



Now, while it does discuss establishing and re-establishing government, it also states that we have rights that are unalienable, meaning that they are inherent and thus cannot be taken away from us.

It also states that we have the duty to abolish government when they become destructive to the ends of life, liberty and happiness, albeit they intend for a new government to be established.



Just look back to my links regarding the US government’s violation of the Fifth Amendment as that shows that they do not need to follow due process for them to infringe upon your rights.

Click to expand...

The concept of "natural rights' is by no means universally accepted, or at least, not to the degree you advocate. Still, lets say we can agree that humans do have certain inalienable rights. John Lock believed these to be the right to life, liberty and propery. Natural rights is a separate thing from legal rights and legal right are those granted by laws and the government. That legal right you have to travel within the US, for example, is created and maintained by the government. Without government, any legal right you can think of that you rely on would not exist. You tell me, what does a society without legal rights look like (and please, Mr. I, in your own words. If there's part of an article you want me to see that supports your argument, please quote that part and don't just link the whole thing).

X Factor said:

The concept of "natural rights' is by no means universally accepted, or at least, not to the degree you advocate. Still, lets say we can agree that humans do have certain inalienable rights. John Lock believed these to be the right to life, liberty and propery. Natural rights is a separate thing from legal rights and legal right are those granted by laws and the government. That legal right you have to travel within the US, for example, is created and maintained by the government. Without government, any legal right you can think of that you rely on would not exist. You tell me, what does a society without legal rights look like (and please, Mr. I, in your own words. If there's part of an article you want me to see that supports your argument, please quote that part and don't just link the whole thing).

Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, anarchists are not against the rule of law, but in the manner in which it is administered, which is through a top-down hierarchical structure in which laws are imposed upon the people.

In an anarchist society, you could have mainly 3 different ways (albeit these are off the top of my head)

1. Contractual law.

I think we can agree that on a local level, a town in Oklahoma can and does have different laws than a town in California or New Jersey. (Not massively different, but different nonetheless). In this, one would sign a contract to join a town in which they would agree to the town's laws and the corresponding punishments. Of course, the law itself would be agreed upon either based on the majority or unanimously.

2. Unanimous/Majority Consent

There could be a horizontal organizational structure in which the entire community comes together and agrees to create laws either based on unanimous vote or majority vote, with the caveat that there could be no laws infringing upon people's rights.


3. Private Firms

There could be a system "where private insurance agencies are the primary providers of crime control or 'law enforcement' services with legal institutions resembling the private arbitration services currently in existence." (Law and Anarchism « Attack the System)

Mr. Invisible said:

Contrary to popular belief, anarchists are not against the rule of law, but in the manner in which it is administered, which is through a top-down hierarchical structure in which laws are imposed upon the people.

In an anarchist society, you could have mainly 3 different ways (albeit these are off the top of my head)

1. Contractual law.

I think we can agree that on a local level, a town in Oklahoma can and does have different laws than a town in California or New Jersey. (Not massively different, but different nonetheless). In this, one would sign a contract to join a town in which they would agree to the town's laws and the corresponding punishments. Of course, the law itself would be agreed upon either based on the majority or unanimously.


2. Unanimous/Majority Consent

There could be a horizontal organizational structure in which the entire community comes together and agrees to create laws either based on unanimous vote or majority vote, with the caveat that there could be no laws infringing upon people's rights.


3. Private Firms

There could be a system "where private insurance agencies are the primary providers of crime control or 'law enforcement' services with legal institutions resembling the private arbitration services currently in existence." (Law and Anarchism « Attack the System)

Click to expand...

Do anarchists really believe these to be viable? I'm surprised you'd support majority rule like this. The thing is, you're not getting rid of government, you're just replacing it with another form. In your Contract model, for example, you'd still need people to enforce the contract (never mind the issues like how big the contract would have to be and what to do if someone doesn't sign, etc.). Every one of those ideas are just as corruptable as any government. Empower private insurance agencies to run the legal system? I can't even picture how that would work.

Mr. I, you cannot both say you think there should be no government and also claim to support a rule of law. You've seen the US government do things you disagree with, so instead of advocating for accountability within the system, you say there shouldn't be a system at all. If you're going to defend the notion that there should be no government at all, you have to accept what that means. No more taxes to fund national defense or border security. Those social welfare programs? Gone. Notions of equal rights under the law. Nope, because legal rights are granted by the government.

X Factor said:

Do anarchists really believe these to be viable? I'm surprised you'd support majority rule like this. The thing is, you're not getting rid of government, you're just replacing it with another form. In your Contract model, for example, you'd still need people to enforce the contract (never mind the issues like how big the contract would have to be and what to do if someone doesn't sign, etc.). Every one of those ideas are just as corruptable as any government. Empower private insurance agencies to run the legal system? I can't even picture how that would work.

Mr. I, you cannot both say you think there should be no government and also claim to support a rule of law. You've seen the US government do things you disagree with, so instead of advocating for accountability within the system, you say there shouldn't be a system at all. If you're going to defend the notion that there should be no government at all, you have to accept what that means. No more taxes to fund national defense or border security. Those social welfare programs? Gone. Notions of equal rights under the law. Nope, because legal rights are granted by the government.

Click to expand...

XFactor, my friend, we have already defined government as "that authority with the legitimate use of force over a given geographic area." Love it or lump it, that is the definition as defined in political science. This is the problem that I have with statists when I argue with them, I state the definition of the state in academic circles and then they try to change it as they see fit.

Thus, with the definition of the state that was given, yes, you can have no government and still have a legal system. It is not just anarchists that adopt the ideas that I have presented, there are also some libertarians, just look on the Ludwing Von Mises Institute.

You act as if I am trying to have it both ways, but I am not. I have never bought up anything about social welfare programs whatsoever.


Finally, you bring up an accountability system, but often those will not work. Just look in industry where the regulation trap occurs and you have people from, say, Goldman Sachs in positions where they have to regulate their former employer. It does not work.

The Corbett Report | Episode 227 – The Regulation Trap

Another example is the recent news that the NSA is spying on Americans. One person has offered an accountability solution, which is to pass a law.

The Mind Your Own Business Act


Yet the problem with this is that it ignores the fact that the federal government has violated the Constitution, the highest law in the land. If they are going to do that, then how do you think they will suddenly stop violating the law because a lesser (when compared to the Constitution) law was passed?

EDIT: You stated that there are problems with the systems that I mentioned, I agree as no system is perfect, however that does not mean that we should keep government just because the alternatives are not perfect. There will never be utopia. Yet this is another problem I have with statists in discussing this as they then pull the perfection card, without realizing that their own system is imperfect.

Mr. Invisible said:

XFactor, my friend, we have already defined government as "that authority with the legitimate use of force over a given geographic area." Love it or lump it, that is the definition as defined in political science. This is the problem that I have with statists when I argue with them, I state the definition of the state in academic circles and then they try to change it as they see fit.

Click to expand...

Suddenly I'm arguing with Mark Levin. I'm not seeking to change your definition at all, Mr. I. What I don't think you're seeing is that some use of force is necessary and legitimate. In fact those alternate systems you proposed would still require some "use of force". Take your contract idea. There would still be the necessity of enforcing the contract and having a means to do it.

Thus, with the definition of the state that was given, yes, you can have no government and still have a legal system. It is not just anarchists that adopt the ideas that I have presented, there are also some libertarians, just look on the Ludwing Von Mises Institute.

Click to expand...

Laws, legal rights, and their enforcement will always imply authority as well as the use of force (or at least the threat of it) which your own definition means government. If you see value to laws and legal rights then you're conceding the necessity of government.

You act as if I am trying to have it both ways, but I am not. I have never bought up anything about social welfare programs whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I know, I did. If you think social welfare programs, public education, regulations reducing water and air pollution, police and fire services (regardless of income) and border and national security are good things, then you have to see the value of government. What you cannot have both ways is to say that you can get rid of all vestiges of government yet somehow keep all the good things it does. If you want to argue the position that we should not have government, you need to do it realistically. It would mean total freedom, which sounds great but also means you're only entitled to what you can provide for yourself.

Finally, you bring up an accountability system, but often those will not work. Just look in industry where the regulation trap occurs and you have people from, say, Goldman Sachs in positions where they have to regulate their former employer. It does not work.

The Corbett Report | Episode 227 – The Regulation Trap

Another example is the recent news that the NSA is spying on Americans. One person has offered an accountability solution, which is to pass a law.

The Mind Your Own Business Act


Yet the problem with this is that it ignores the fact that the federal government has violated the Constitution, the highest law in the land. If they are going to do that, then how do you think they will suddenly stop violating the law because a lesser (when compared to the Constitution) law was passed?

EDIT: You stated that there are problems with the systems that I mentioned, I agree as no system is perfect, however that does not mean that we should keep government just because the alternatives are not perfect. There will never be utopia. Yet this is another problem I have with statists in discussing this as they then pull the perfection card, without realizing that their own system is imperfect.

Click to expand...

You've totally misread me if you've taken anything I've said to mean I think our government is perfect or that the government doesn't violate it's own established rules. Our Constitution has been whittled away probably since the first day after it became the law of the land and I most certainly do not agree with much of the expansion of government (not to mention the red tape that comes along with it). The thing is though, as I said earlier, the Constitution was never about zero government (if it was, it would be a much shorter document). Our forefathers wanted to, very wisely, limit federal power, not abolish it completely.

X Factor said:

Suddenly I'm arguing with Mark Levin. I'm not seeking to change your definition at all, Mr. I. *What I don't think you're seeing is that some use of force is necessary and legitimate. In fact those alternate systems you proposed would still require some "use of force". Take your contract idea. There would still be the necessity of enforcing the contract and having a means to do it.*

Click to expand...

Well, I never endorsed that idea [a contractual system], I was rather just tossing it out there. However, in the contractual system, it could be a situation where one agrees to the punishments as well (I know, it would be a long contract, but yeah....). Once again, I am not endorsing a contractual system.

Also, who is Mark Levin?

X Factor said:

Laws, legal rights, and their enforcement will always imply authority as well as the use of force (or at least the threat of it) which *your own definition means government. If you see value to laws and legal rights then you're conceding the necessity of government.*

Click to expand...

Please go back to law by private entity that I bought up earlier. Also, in our society we are consistently re-acting to occurrences, whereas in an anarchist society, people would mainly be focused on preventing problems in the first place. For example, if we know that people who have low educational levels usually go on to commit crime, then the solution would be to do our best to ensure that people don't have low levels of education.

X Factor said:

I know, I did. If you think social welfare programs, public education, regulations reducing water and air pollution, police and fire services (regardless of income) and border and national security are good things, then you have to see the value of government. *What you cannot have both ways is to say that you can get rid of all vestiges of government yet somehow keep all the good things it does. If you want to argue the position that we should not have government, you need to do it realistically. It would mean total freedom, which sounds great but also means you're only entitled to what you can provide for yourself.

Click to expand...

Actually no, as you could still have communities working together. I think we can both agree that certain things should always be owned in common, such as roads, schools, hospitals and the like. Schools would still be owned in common and thus people would still be able to get a good education, as we could still uphold the same standards.

In regards to regulations, please go back to the regulation trap that I mentioned earlier.

X Factor said:

You've totally misread me if you've taken anything I've said to mean I think our government is perfect or that the government doesn't violate it's own established rules. Our Constitution has been whittled away probably since the first day after it became the law of the land and I most certainly do not agree with much of the expansion of government (not to mention the red tape that comes along with it). The thing is though, as I said earlier, the Constitution was never about zero government (if it was, it would be a much shorter document). Our forefathers wanted to, very wisely, limit federal power, not abolish it completely.*

Click to expand...

We can agree that government does have problems, but like I said earlier, the idea of limited government is a fool's errand as government constantly expands.


BTW, you still have yet to discuss the topic I have bought up previously: How government upholds a two-tiered justice system, in which there one type of law for the elites and another type of law for the people.


Side note: Liking the Spaceman Spiff avatar.

Mr. Invisible said:

Well, I never endorsed that idea [a contractual system], I was rather just tossing it out there. However, in the contractual system, it could be a situation where one agrees to the punishments as well (I know, it would be a long contract, but yeah....). Once again, I am not endorsing a contractual system.

Click to expand...

I know, that's just the one that sticks in my mind most. Even if one agrees to the punishments ahead of time, Mr. I, there would still need to be people who have the authority to carry them out.

Also, who is Mark Levin?

Click to expand...

Radio talk show host and author. Uses the term statist frequently.

Please go back to law by private entity that I bought up earlier. Also, in our society we are consistently re-acting to occurrences, whereas in an anarchist society, people would mainly be focused on preventing problems in the first place. For example, if we know that people who have low educational levels usually go on to commit crime, then the solution would be to do our best to ensure that people don't have low levels of education.

Click to expand...

Why do you assume that every "anarchist" will be on the same page with your collectivist ideas? If you're going to do away with government completely, you have to realize that everyone will play by their own set of rules and that they're all equally valid.

Actually no, as you could still have communities working together. I think we can both agree that certain things should always be owned in common, such as roads, schools, hospitals and the like. Schools would still be owned in common and thus people would still be able to get a good education, as we could still uphold the same standards.

Click to expand...

No, I don't agree that would necessarily be the case and I don't know why you would assume it would work that way. Without the government to define legal rights there are no legal rights to anything. The only "right" would be to care for yourself in whichever way necessary. It's completely unrealistic to think that doing away with government means that everything will work exactly as if government were still there.

In regards to regulations, please go back to the regulation trap that I mentioned earlier.




We can agree that government does have problems, but like I said earlier, the idea of limited government is a fool's errand as government constantly expands.


BTW, you still have yet to discuss the topic I have bought up previously: How government upholds a two-tiered justice system, in which there one type of law for the elites and another type of law for the people.

Click to expand...

Maybe I just never fully understood. You're saying that those in authority are able to legally act in ways that individuals can't. I think that unavoidable. There has to be some threat of force for there to be enforcement. If there's no government or legal rights (which are conferred by the government) there'll be much more than just a two tiered system. There'll still be "elites" and, without government, they'll be a lot more directly in control.

Side note: Liking the Spaceman Spiff avatar.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It's a reminder to not take things so seriously.

X Factor said:

I know, that's just the one that sticks in my mind most. Even if one agrees to the punishments ahead of time, Mr. I, there would still -need to be people who have the authority to carry them out.

Click to expand...

I agree and thus we can look at the private justice system that I bought up earlier.

X Factor said:

Radio talk show host and author. Uses the term statist frequently.

Click to expand...

Ah, alright!

X Factor said:

Why do you assume that every "anarchist" will be on the same page with your collectivist ideas? If you're going to do away with government completely, you have to realize that everyone will play by their own set of rules and that they're all equally valid.

Click to expand...

Babe, anarchism is also called libertarian socialism. Anarchism is extremely pro-working class and anarchists are a big fan of collectivism in the sense of helping each other out and working with each other to, while still maintaining individual freedoms. For example, in an anarchist society, the means of production would be owned by the workers.

X Factor said:

No, I don't agree that would necessarily be the case and I don't know why you would assume it would work that way. Without the government to define legal rights there are no legal rights to anything. The only "right" would be to care for yourself in whichever way necessary. It's completely unrealistic to think that doing away with government means that everything will work exactly as if government were still there.

Click to expand...

See my above response. Also, I am not saying that things would work exactly as if government were there, they would work differently. Perhaps even better as the workers would own the means of production.

X Factor said:

Maybe I just never fully understood. You're saying that those in authority are able to legally act in ways that individuals can't. I think that unavoidable. There has to be some threat of force for there to be enforcement. If there's no government or legal rights (which are conferred by the government) there'll be much more than just a two tiered system. There'll still be "elites" and, without government, they'll be a lot more directly in control.

Click to expand...

No, there would not be elites as the social, political, and economic systems that maintain those elites would be dismantled. Please keep in mind that anarchism is also anti-capitalist. Please do not tell me that capitalism gave me this or that as that notion is completely and utterly false. It was human ingenuity and creativity as well as human labor which created these things.

X Factor said:

Thanks. It's a reminder to not take things so seriously.

Click to expand...

Of course, we should never take things too seriously.

Mr. Invisible said:

I agree and thus we can look at the private justice system that I bought up earlier.



Ah, alright!




Babe, anarchism is also called libertarian socialism. Anarchism is extremely pro-working class and anarchists are a big fan of collectivism in the sense of helping each other out and working with each other to, while still maintaining individual freedoms. For example, in an anarchist society, the means of production would be owned by the workers.




See my above response. Also, I am not saying that things would work exactly as if government were there, they would work differently. Perhaps even better as the workers would own the means of production.




No, there would not be elites as the social, political, and economic systems that maintain those elites would be dismantled. Please keep in mind that anarchism is also anti-capitalist. Please do not tell me that capitalism gave me this or that as that notion is completely and utterly false. It was human ingenuity and creativity as well as human labor which created these things.




Of course, we should never take things too seriously.

Click to expand...

Actually, without government (I'm talking about truly no government, not just replacing it with another type) capitalism and the free market would thrive, which I think would actually have been one of your stronger arguments. Good thing you don't believe in that kind of thing. As far as the benefits of capitalism, that's a whole other debate.

Now, onto my closing;

As I said in my opening, the purpose of government is protection from “illegal” harm for the individual and security for the nation. The world is a dangerous place, as was brought home to us on 9/11/2001 The federal government is the reason we have the FBI, CIA, ATF, Border Patrol, Customs and the military. What would our country be without those? Would we be secure in our possessions or feel relatively safe to travel within our own borders? Of course it's not perfect. No government can assure perfect safety (and we probably wouldn't want to live under a government that could provide such security), but the collective resources make it possible to maintain agencies charged with the protection of our nation and her people.

The government also establishes the legal rights and remedies of it's member citizens. To do away with government is to do away with those rights. Without legal rights, a society becomes, essentially, a free for all survival of the fittest competition. You can have land and possessions so long as you can obtain them and keep hold of them. Remember that no government means no government for everybody and Mr. I defined government this way;

Mr. Invisible said:

When I define government, I am talking about the people who have the legal authority to initiate force over a given geographical area.

Click to expand...

By his own definition, if you take away government, you take away authority and if there's no authority, there is nothing to compel anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing something. You may want to create some collectivist anti capitalist commune but you cannot compel me or anyone to participate. Neither can you compel me to pay taxes, comply with safety regulations or make me refrain from going next door with a shotgun to obtain what I want. Using Mr. I's own definition, the minute legal authority to initiate force - say by arresting someone or depriving them of their freedom by imprisoning them - is conferred on someone, it falls into the definition of government.

This is the PreAmble to our Constitution

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

The Constitution establishes a system of government, our system of government, it does not abolish it. The first step to attaining zero government would be say the entire Constitution has no more relevancy or applicability. Are we prepared to say that?


Thank you Mr. I for asking me to do this. Apologies for the delays in my replies. For everyone else, please vote in the poll to come after Mr. I's last post. I have no idea if it will be a public one, but I promise that neither Mr. I nor I will get our feelings hurt by the votes or the results. We understand the poll is about our arguments, not about us personally.

X Factor said:

Actually, without government (I'm talking about truly no government, not just replacing it with another type) capitalism and the free market would thrive, which I think would actually have been one of your stronger arguments. Good thing you don't believe in that kind of thing. As far as the benefits of capitalism, that's a whole other debate.

Now, onto my closing;

As I said in my opening, the purpose of government is protection from “illegal” harm for the individual and security for the nation. The world is a dangerous place, as was brought home to us on 9/11/2001 The federal government is the reason we have the FBI, CIA, ATF, Border Patrol, Customs and the military. What would our country be without those? Would we be secure in our possessions or feel relatively safe to travel within our own borders? Of course it's not perfect. No government can assure perfect safety (and we probably wouldn't want to live under a government that could provide such security), but the collective resources make it possible to maintain agencies charged with the protection of our nation and her people.

The government also establishes the legal rights and remedies of it's member citizens. To do away with government is to do away with those rights. Without legal rights, a society becomes, essentially, a free for all survival of the fittest competition. You can have land and possessions so long as you can obtain them and keep hold of them. Remember that no government means no government for everybody and Mr. I defined government this way;



By his own definition, if you take away government, you take away authority and if there's no authority, there is nothing to compel anyone to do anything or to refrain from doing something. You may want to create some collectivist anti capitalist commune but you cannot compel me or anyone to participate. Neither can you compel me to pay taxes, comply with safety regulations or make me refrain from going next door with a shotgun to obtain what I want. Using Mr. I's own definition, the minute legal authority to initiate force - say by arresting someone or depriving them of their freedom by imprisoning them - is conferred on someone, it falls into the definition of government.

This is the PreAmble to our Constitution

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

The Constitution establishes a system of government, our system of government, it does not abolish it. The first step to attaining zero government would be say the entire Constitution has no more relevancy or applicability. Are we prepared to say that?


Thank you Mr. I for asking me to do this. Apologies for the delays in my replies. For everyone else, please vote in the poll to come after Mr. I's last post. I have no idea if it will be a public one, but I promise that neither Mr. I nor I will get our feelings hurt by the votes or the results. We understand the poll is about our arguments, not about us personally.

Click to expand...

While I greatly enjoyed debating Xfactor, I must still continue my argument for libertarian socialism. While I do understand his wanting for a government, I find it to be quite needless. Government states that you give up your power via such things as 'tacit consent,' 'consent of the governed,' or 'implicit consent.' All of this is nonsense as something is either consensual, meaning that it is voluntary, or it is non-consensual, meaning that something has been forced upon you. Now, I am in no way arguing that we have never needed government, but rather that we have now come to a point where humanity is intelligent enough that we no longer need something to coerce us into working together.

The current system of hierarchical structure has failed us and was set up to fail us, the average person. The current system has only led to people fighting amongst one another to get to the top. As George Carlin said "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." Libertarian socialism, however, is more than just dismantling government. It is also about dismantling all systems of institutionalized oppression, whether it be institutionalized racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, and the like. Libertarian socialists are dedicated to dismantling the kyriarchy.

The state has and is used to oppress the many for the benefit of the few. The current system does not work. We know this because the government consistently rules in the favor of elites at the expense of the many. Just look at the bailouts. We claim to be a free market capitalist nation, but as soon as things turned sour, the very companies that created the crisis ran to the government for help, their books of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand in hand.

The government has the ability to give itself powers that we, as its subjects, never have. (Example: Counterfeiting) The government also has the power to quite literally make up what powers it has. For example, Obama's assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki who was legally speaking an American citizen at the time of his death, creates a precedent where the government has effectively given itself the power to assassinate citizens as long as they have labeled them terrorists first.

Now some may say that if we just limit government, there will be no problems. However, the fact of the matter is that history has shown us that government always expands. no matter the situation. One only need to look at the constitution of any government and the actual powers that the government wields.

We all want freedom and in order for us to truly be free, the kyriarchy, including the state, must be done away with.

Thank you both for participating in the debate. With the closing posts being made this thread is officially concluded. Everyone, feel free to discuss the debate here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/battl...scussion-thread-mr-invisible-vs-x-factor.html