Why is government necessary?

[Anarchon]

It seems that most debates here begin with the axiom that government is necessary. Is it legitimate to do so? If so, why? Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them. Thanks in advance for your participation.

 

[veritas1]

Uh, because the strong will tyrannize the weak for starters. The only reason you can't kill your neighbor and steal his property is because we have the edifice of government.

 

[Hawkeye10]

It seems that most debates here begin with the axiom that government is necessary. Is it legitimate to do so? If so, why? Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them. Thanks in advance for your participation.

Because collectives which have no governing in place rapidly fail, usually by falling to other people who are better organized.

Which is why you can be sure that America is in the process of falling to the New Chinese Empire.

Their government works, ours does not.

SAD

 

[Mithrae]

Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them.

Maybe if you'd started by giving your thoughts on a couple of the most blindingly obvious responses first, people might take you seriously. As it is it seems you either A) have never bothered research (or even think about) why most folk consider government necessary, or B) simply can't be bothered to present your thoughts and merely intend to say "Nah uh" to everything presented by others. Either way, it's not looking like a promising start.

 

[Carleen]

It seems that most debates here begin with the axiom that government is necessary. Is it legitimate to do so? If so, why? Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them. Thanks in advance for your participation.

Uh, how about the history of how our country began. I think that says it all.

 

[Anarchon]

Maybe if you'd started by giving your thoughts on a couple of the most blindingly obvious responses first, people might take you seriously. As it is it seems you either A) have never bothered research (or even think about) why most folk consider government necessary, or B) simply can't be bothered to present your thoughts and merely intend to say "Nah uh" to everything presented by others. Either way, it's not looking like a promising start.

My primary purpose here is to get as complete a compilation of reasons as is possible. It is not necessarily to debate them, though that might happen along the way. My main interest is to be able to consider them all, so I can be more secure in my own viewpoint. Others might benefit from this as well. If you don't care to list any, that's your choice.

 

[Deuce]

It seems that most debates here begin with the axiom that government is necessary. Is it legitimate to do so? If so, why? Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them. Thanks in advance for your participation.

Because in absence of a government, people with weapons will simply form one. And not the good kind.

 

[spud_meister]

It seems that most debates here begin with the axiom that government is necessary. Is it legitimate to do so? If so, why? Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them. Thanks in advance for your participation.

Because human history is hierarchical ever since we developed an agricultural surplus. There is no viable alternative to government.

 

[LincolnRossiter]

It seems that most debates here begin with the axiom that government is necessary. Is it legitimate to do so? If so, why? Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them. Thanks in advance for your participation.

I wonder if anyone's ever asked this question or published any works on this in the past. Surely there must be something in various religious, philosophical, and historical works.

I gave you a dick answer, but your OP is lazy as hell. Why don't you post some of the very well-known theories of government and give your opinion? You can start with ancient texts and even scripture (Hammurabi, the Bible, Confucius, Cicero, Plato) and work your way up through Augustine, Machiavelli, Martin Luther, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Burke, Weber, Marx, de Tocqueville, Hegel, Engels. Hell John Rawls and even Ayn Rand (whom I despise).

The basic answer is that men, in total, are incapable of true self-government. We'd cheat on contracts (which wouldn't be contracts proper within an external enforcement mechanism), we'd settle many, if not most, disputes with violence. The strong, savvy, and well-connected would prey on the weak. This happens even in relatively maturely governed countries. If you want to see what a world without legitimate, recognized government looks like, there are real-world examples to study in the world today. Look at the failed states of Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan--and even they have a semblance of national governance complemented by some local governance. It's still a mess. Look at Columbia outside areas controlled by the government and during its decades-long war with the FARC. Look at any region in any African nation in which civil governance has broken down. Even look medieval and feudal Europe. It's a non-stop bloodbath.

And let's be clear. Just as in gangs, terrorist organizations, the mafia, high school cheerleading, etc, some form of formal or informal hierarchy will develop and will serve many of the functions of government--the protection of members, the allocation of spoils, the settling of disputes, etc. It's just much, much more arbitrary, capricious, and unstable. Government, as we understand, is a necessary evil that acknowledges the human need for order and predictability.

 

[Visbek]

Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them.

Uh huh

Bird's eye view: Defend the nation and its citizens; provide public goods.

• Defend the nation
• Protect the citizens from criminal actions
• Provide civil forums to resolve conflicts
• Provide forums to determine which laws should be introduced, modified and/or removed
• Provide protection from various bad actors (e.g. food suppliers who care more about profits than product safety)
• Take out the trash (who gets that job in an anarchist collective...?)
• Build, maintain and provide infrastructure
• Provide public transit
• Provide education
• Provide medical care, or at least supervise standards of medical care
• Gather critical statistics, I could be here all day listing the stats a modern society needs to properly manage itself
• Provide safety nets, especially for the elderly, poor and disabled (including housing for the poor)
• Taking care of homeless populations
• Manage elections
• Provide a reasonably stable medium of exchange
• Regulate domestic and international trade
• Protect natural lands, preferably while providing access
• Regulate the exploitation of natural resources
• Design and enforce zoning laws
• Regulate and protect electricity grids
• Protect the environment

I'm sure I could think of more, but... you get the idea.

Not all of these work out great; the better the government, the better these functions are performed, obviously. That said, even with some bad governments, getting rid of government because they screw up is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I have pretty much zero confidence that any anarchist society could handle a fraction of these protective roles and/or provide these public goods. How do you stop someone from seizing swaths of pristine land in an anarchist state? You can't. How do you stop your neighbor from blasting music at top volume at 3AM in an anarchist state, when there is no one to call -- do you just grab a weapon and threaten them? How would an anarchist state stop polluters from dumping toxic waste? How does it manage a safety net, in a reliable and consistent manner? How does it regulate food supplies? How does it manage an electrical grid? How does it provide public transportation? Build a road? Decide where to build a road?

Governments suck. But with 7 billion humans on the planet, the alternative is a non-starter.

 

[Helix]

Why is government necessary?

because assholes turn society into chaos without it. also, warlords suck, and there's no way to vote against them.

 

[Bootz]

It seems that most debates here begin with the axiom that government is necessary. Is it legitimate to do so? If so, why? Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them. Thanks in advance for your participation.

Government is necessary so that the wealthy do not have to spend their own money to protect their own property. public police forces are a great example of this concept. The military is another. Eminent domain is another. government bonds are another.

 

[Bootz]

Uh, because the strong will tyrannize the weak for starters. The only reason you can't kill your neighbor and steal his property is because we have the edifice of government.

Ironic that Madison stated the purpose of government was to protect the wealthy elite from the tyranny of the masses.


The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I wonder if anyone's ever asked this question or published any works on this in the past. Surely there must be something in various religious, philosophical, and historical works.

I gave you a dick answer, but your OP is lazy as hell. Why don't you post some of the very well-known theories of government and give your opinion? You can start with ancient texts and even scripture (Hammurabi, the Bible, Confucius, Cicero, Plato) and work your way up through Augustine, Machiavelli, Martin Luther, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Burke, Weber, Marx, de Tocqueville, Hegel, Engels. Hell John Rawls and even Ayn Rand (whom I despise).

The basic answer is that men, in total, are incapable of true self-government. We'd cheat on contracts (which wouldn't be contracts proper within an external enforcement mechanism), we'd settle many, if not most, disputes with violence. The strong, savvy, and well-connected would prey on the weak. This happens even in relatively maturely governed countries. If you want to see what a world without legitimate, recognized government looks like, there are real-world examples to study in the world today. Look at the failed states of Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan--and even they have a semblance of national governance complemented by some local governance. It's still a mess. Look at Columbia outside areas controlled by the government and during its decades-long war with the FARC. Look at any region in any African nation in which civil governance has broken down. Even look medieval and feudal Europe. It's a non-stop bloodbath.

And let's be clear. Just as in gangs, terrorist organizations, the mafia, high school cheerleading, etc, some form of formal or informal hierarchy will develop and will serve many of the functions of government--the protection of members, the allocation of spoils, the settling of disputes, etc. It's just much, much more arbitrary, capricious, and unstable. Government, as we understand, is a necessary evil that acknowledges the human need for order and predictability.

Goddamn, did anyone tell you you're really good? :thumbs:

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Name one successful anarchist anything.
Not just country, even a neighborhood.

 

[Bootz]

Because collectives which have no governing in place rapidly fail, usually by falling to other people who are better organized.

Which is why you can be sure that America is in the process of falling to the New Chinese Empire.

Their government works, ours does not.

SAD

wrong of every count.


apply you concepts to 1861- 1865

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Ironic that Madison stated the purpose of government was to protect the wealthy elite from the tyranny of the masses.

Ironic that you persist in defining it as "tyranny" when the masses just want "enough", which is what most masses really want.
If they wanted more, there wouldn't be enough to go around by just taking it, so they'd still have to work to achieve it, and thus it stands to reason that if the masses truly wanted "more than enough", they'd do what was necessary.

What the masses want is security and enough.
Protecting the opulence of the minority is the stuff of kings and the mantra of totalitarians.
Madison's beliefs did not translate or even apply universally, he was speaking in reference to the purpose of the Senate.

He also went on to conclude that "the government ought to be so organized as to give a balance to it and protect one order of men from the predominating influence of the other."
Therefore while his antiquated notion of a senate that resembled a House of Lords may have prevailed at the time of the Constitutional Convention, eventually the Seventeenth Amendment transformed the Senate into a more accountable body.

There is no need to further enshrine a nobility class in this country.

 

[Bootz]

Ironic that you persist in defining it as "tyranny" when the masses just want "enough", which is what most masses really want.
If they wanted more, there wouldn't be enough to go around by just taking it, so they'd still have to work to achieve it, and thus it stands to reason that if the masses truly wanted "more than enough", they'd do what was necessary.

What the masses want is security and enough.
Protecting the opulence of the minority is the stuff of kings and the mantra of totalitarians.
Madison's beliefs did not translate or even apply universally, he was speaking in reference to the purpose of the Senate.

He also went on to conclude that "the government ought to be so organized as to give a balance to it and protect one order of men from the predominating influence of the other."
Therefore while his antiquated notion of a senate that resembled a House of Lords may have prevailed at the time of the Constitutional Convention, eventually the Seventeenth Amendment transformed the Senate into a more accountable body.

There is no need to further enshrine a nobility class in this country.

You are a good Marxist.

contemporaneously this philosophy was expressed by Jefferson.

dependence begets subservience and venality, kills the germ of virtue and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.


The Deliberate Agrarian: The Jeffersonian Solution(My N.Y. Times Op-Ed)


more interesting is the end of the quote that is almost always ignored

 

[beerftw]

It seems that most debates here begin with the axiom that government is necessary. Is it legitimate to do so? If so, why? Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them. Thanks in advance for your participation.

Because people are too stupid to govern themselves, if govt failed to exist someone would take it's place. Think of libya and syria where govt became absent in many areas, groups like isis or other rebels took control, and created a far worse govt.

I will put it this way from what I know from serving in the army, bad leadership is better than no leadership. Lack of govt is the same as no leadership, ad will likely lead to people killing eachother to run govt or killing eachother out of their own desire to ethnically cleanse.

 

[Bootz]

Because people are too stupid to govern themselves, if govt failed to exist someone would take it's place. Think of libya and syria where govt became absent in many areas, groups like isis or other rebels took control, and created a far worse govt.

I will put it this way from what I know from serving in the army, bad leadership is better than no leadership. Lack of govt is the same as no leadership, ad will likely lead to people killing eachother to run govt or killing eachother out of their own desire to ethnically cleanse.

GRuber is here

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You are a good Marxist.

contemporaneously this philosophy was expressed by Jefferson.

dependence be - - - SNIPPED

And you sir, are a good broad brush/broad sweeping generalization style dogmatic knee jerk reactionary.
You should by all means continue your search for the hidden marxists in this great nation of ours.

I grew up in a time where anybody who put in their hard work every week was able to afford a roof, adequate food, some means of transportation and was able to provide for a family. A family's health was provided for at an affordable rate.
A little more effort would yield the promise of higher education and advancement.

And yet here you stand, blindly flailing about, pronouncing anyone who doesn't plead fealty to the landed gentry a marxist.
Nobody takes you seriously, except for other equally radicalized fools.

Wally George died years ago.

Not even his children took him seriously.
(Rebecca de Mornay)

 

[enderpotato00]

It seems that most debates here begin with the axiom that government is necessary. Is it legitimate to do so? If so, why? Let's see every reason why (or why not) anyone believes that government is necessary, so we can all consider them. Thanks in advance for your participation.

While Anarchy isn't necessarily about chaos, it will turn chaotic.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

While Anarchy isn't necessarily about chaos, it will turn chaotic.

Always. It always does.
Further, no matter how big a bully you might be, there's always a bigger one who will lay you low, steal your assets, flatten your home and salt your land.

 

[Anarchon]

Uh, because the strong will tyrannize the weak for starters. The only reason you can't kill your neighbor and steal his property is because we have the edifice of government.

If this is the case, why make some people strong by placing them in government?

 

[Anarchon]

Uh, how about the history of how our country began. I think that says it all.

Because people didn't want to pay taxes? I think that's more in support for anarchy than government.