• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will we way better off without any form of government?

Fledermaus said:
I answered your original question in Post #92.
Click to expand...

ok thank you, there you wrote:

I have seen "no government" at work.

Real governments had to step in and try to feed the people and provide a modicum of services.

So, no.

But that isn't an answer to my question at all.

This is my question:

A legitimate democratic government has a legitimate authority that we as individuals do not have. It can use force where we as individuals should not..

If individuals do not have that authority, then where does that authority come from?

That is my question and no, it hasn't been answered in your posting #92.
 
lwf said:
Any set of rules that govern human social behavior is a government. It requires people to determine those rules and people to enforce those rules. Once you have this, you have government. The more people you have, the larger the government tends to get.

So I would argue that it is not possible to have no government.
Click to expand...

I agree. People give up some of their independence and some of their liberty to be protected by government. Without which you have no justice system, no protection except by your own hand or vigilante justice. Of course that is chaotic. Democratic government is meant to serve the people's collective best interest and works when the voters elect good representatives and remove them when they fail to do a good job. Problem is on both sides of the aisle that way too many voters are tied to party no matter what and are always looking at it as if "it's the other guys elected representative that is do a bad job and wasting our money"! We know its a lot of them and all are someones representative.
I have a few basic ethical, moral concerns, religious beliefs and socio-economic political philosophies that guide who I will or will not vote for. Everyone should. If you betray those I can't vote for you, unless you turn out to be the "lesser of two evils" and that becomes the tricky part.
My advice is to study the issues and the candidates and examine what they have done, what they say and do they do what they promise. Government is a necessity. Without it there would be rule of might.
 
and who really thinks the police makes you save?



it is all a myth!
 
Palandro said:
ok thank you, there you wrote:

I have seen "no government" at work.

Real governments had to step in and try to feed the people and provide a modicum of services.

So, no.

But that isn't an answer to my question at all.

This is my question:

A legitimate democratic government has a legitimate authority that we as individuals do not have. It can use force where we as individuals should not..

If individuals do not have that authority, then where does that authority come from?

That is my question and no, it hasn't been answered in your posting #92.
Click to expand...

Your ORIGINAL question was "Will we be better off without any form of government?"

The title of the thread.

I answered.

Post #92.

And others have discussed your other question.

Answers came many, understanding came not.
 
Palandro said:
"But at least there isn't as much of these things as there would be without a government where everyone does whatever they please."

That's the question then, eh?! But people are so indoctrinated with the believe that without 'government' there will be chaos.

But 'government' is by its nature immoral and hence, causes a lot of chaos. Lots of normal and good people do things they normally wouldn't think about doing, beause of believe in 'goverment' and 'authority". Like people shooting people, like stealing things that don't belong to them. kidnapping people, send people oversees to kill whole innocent families.If it wasn't for the believe in 'authority'(government) they would never do these things!

Another question, where does 'goverment' gets its 'authority' from?

Furthermore, the 'government' rules are enforced by 'police". But police is by deafult immoral and wrong.
( I am not referring to what is going on right now,I am talking just in general.)
Click to expand...

Here is the core of your problem.

"But 'government' is by its nature immoral and hence, causes a lot of chaos."

No. Chaos is the product of no rules or restrictions.
 
Integrityrespec said:
be protected by government.
Click to expand...

wait a minute?! protected by government?
But people who work for the 'government' are thiefs and thugs! They rob you of your money! They can kidnap people, they may kill people.
They force you into things you don't want. and on and on it goes.

protected by government is an oxymoron.

The creepy thing is that people 'accept' these things. Very strange indeed.
 
Fledermaus said:
Your ORIGINAL question was "Will we be better off without any form of government?"

The title of the thread.

I answered.

Post #92.

And others have discussed your other question.

Answers came many, understanding came not.
Click to expand...


true, that was the original question, but now I asked a different question and then you reacted with a reaction on a different answer,



But because it seem to be very difficult I wil ask it again:



If individuals do not have that authority, then where does that authority come from?
 
Some more truth

EbDkChQX0AE3JVR.jpg
 
Palandro said:
true, that was the original question, but now I asked a different question and then you reacted with a reaction on a different answer,



But because it seem to be very difficult I wil ask it again:



If individuals do not have that authority, then where does that authority come from?
Click to expand...

The whole.

The government unit. Be it tribe, clan, county, state, nation.

The structure that has evolved to contain chaos and promote the common good.
 
Fledermaus said:
The whole.

The government unit. Be it tribe, clan, county, state, nation.

The structure that has evolved to contain chaos and promote the common good.
Click to expand...

but that isn't an answer for my question:

If individuals do not have that authority, then where does that authority come from?
 
Palandro said:
but that isn't an answer for my question:

If individuals do not have that authority, then where does that authority come from?
Click to expand...

The whole.

The government unit. Be it tribe, clan, county, state, nation.

The structure that has evolved to contain chaos and promote the common good.

That is where the authority comes from.
 
Fledermaus said:
The whole.

The government unit. Be it tribe, clan, county, state, nation.

The structure that has evolved to contain chaos and promote the common good.

That is where the authority comes from.
Click to expand...

Well, we agree that those 'structures" come from people. There are people in those structures. But those people don't have the authority the 'government' has. So once again, if those people have no authority then were does the 'authority' of the 'government' comes from?
It can't come from the people, that is very clear now, right?
 
Palandro said:
Well, we agree that those 'structures" come from people. There are people in those structures. But those people don't have the authority the 'government' has. So once again, if those people have no authority then were does the 'authority' of the 'government' comes from?
It can't come from the people, that is very clear now, right?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

You just don't like the answer.
 
Fledermaus said:
an·ar·chy
/ˈanərkē/

noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

I have seen it.

Have you?
Click to expand...

Nope,

"The word anarchy was first used in 1539, meaning "an absence of government".[2] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his 1840 treatise What Is Property? to refer to anarchism, a new political philosophy which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations."

So, Aanrchy is not chaos by definition at all.
 
This is what it really means:

8MqropZ2kGqeMjOOucvaviW9eKz-zJ39d6M-Ze9scdD6jInPa9MbZLsMAXTEWB2cp37XzsYXpmUgakbGoANzw_hWjWoGnOBBg6NChg



see the difference?
 
Palandro said:
Nope,

"The word anarchy was first used in 1539, meaning "an absence of government".[2] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his 1840 treatise What Is Property? to refer to anarchism, a new political philosophy which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations."

So, Aanrchy is not chaos by definition at all.
Click to expand...

You are trying so hard not to answer the question.

Have you seen Anarchy and/or its results up close and personal?
 
Fledermaus said:
You are trying so hard not to answer the question.
Click to expand...

No, I am really not.

Have you seen Anarchy and/or its results up close and personal?
Click to expand...

Haven't you read? You can't see 'anarchy', and you are way too vague, and you still haven't answer my question yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom