NationStates Jolt Archive

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?

None.

It would take more than some 15 year-old on the internet. I would have to be shown, without a doubt, that the government does nothing to protect my interests or security. Probably an act of God.

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?

So, the alternative would be having no government and living without any hierarchical bounds? There's really nothing that would drive me to accept that.

It would take you getting rid of that little picture in your sig to convince me to become completely anti-government

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?
I offer a counterquestion:

What would it take to convince you that it is not government which is as flawed as you think it is (tho there are flaws), but most flaws come from the people who run it?

It would take you getting rid of that little picture in your sig to convince me to become completely anti-government
Don't diss Vash the Stampede!

proof

even kids on the playground play by rules
its the way all social animals operate

so it would take a large scale long term experiment in anarchy. something more than a few doomed villages in spain before the civil war.

if a country the size of say ..... cuba.. went truly anarchic and lasted as long as .....the 3rd reich.... then id say it was possible.

nothing less would convince me.

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?
Nothing

I offer a counterquestion:
Don't diss Vash the Stampede!
I didn't know what that was until you pointed it out. I like it now. :)

All you'd have to do is give me £200. That is all.

I offer a counterquestion:

What would it take to convince you that it is not government which is as flawed as you think it is (tho there are flaws), but most flaws come from the people who run it?

Interesting. That is similar to my own belief.

People are bad, for whatever reason.
The government is run by people.
So the government will be bad.

What would it take to convince you that it is not government which is as flawed as you think it is (tho there are flaws), but most flaws come from the people who run it?

Government is a form of organization. Some forms of organization presumably work better than others. Are you suggesting that Stalin would have been just as bad if he had to win reëlections?

I think you are missing the point. Government isn't bad because there are inherent evils within the structure, but because men are flawed and bring the evil with them.

So you're saying that Stalin would have been able to kill so many people if the USSR had been a democracy?

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?

Your main problem is that you're arguing on an internet forum. Most people like to stick to their views and it usually takes some serious real life events to change them. Even if you come up with some irrefutable evidence that all governments are corrupt, many people would dismiss it as bs.

So you're saying that Stalin would have been able to kill so many people if the USSR had been a democracy?
No I'm not saying that. I'm on your side. I just think you have put the horse before the cart.

All I'm saying is that Government (as a concept) is not bad. But the people in government are. Government is a product of people and reflects the flaws of humanity. Really it is too late at night and I have had a long day. Hopefully someone else can explain it better then me

Your main problem is that you're arguing on an internet forum. Most people like to stick to their views and it usually takes some serious real life events to change them. Even if you come up with some irrefutable evidence that all governments are corrupt, many people would dismiss it as bs.

I have to do my best, though.

Your alternative is much, much worse and hardly realistic whether you believe or not.

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?

Truckload upon truckload of glorious cash.

Truckload upon truckload of glorious cash.

That too. And three gold dancers.

That too. And three gold dancers.

And a dancing squirrel.

proof

even kids on the playground play by rules
its the way all social animals operate

so it would take a large scale long term experiment in anarchy. something more than a few doomed villages in spain before the civil war.

if a country the size of say ..... cuba.. went truly anarchic and lasted as long as .....the 3rd reich.... then id say it was possible.

nothing less would convince me.

Kids don't always play by the rules on the playgroudn, teachers or large groups of likeminded kids enforce rules onto small groups of kids who want different rules. Playgroud games, and classroom behavior requirements are basically training for the "proper" relationship with authority later in life.

Not all social animals arrange themselves into heirarchies. Dolphins, for instance, are very egalitarian and entirely anarchic.

You're right that taking a collection of humans socialized into an authority based society and dropping them into an anarchy won't work (it's the reason most anarchic experiments fail), but this does not mean that anarchy is impossible for humans, it simply means that the right conditioning is needed to make "proper" anarchic citizens.

It's amazing. Millions of people convinced beyond a shaddow of a doubt that government is justified.

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?

I think government is necessary, but that the government should govern as little as possible. Other than ensuring that peoples' rights and safety are protected, the government should just stay out of everybody's affairs.

I can't really think of anything that would make me lobby against any kind of government. Chaos isn't something I look forward to.

It's amazing. Millions of people convinced beyond a shaddow of a doubt that government is justified.

I didn't say that. All I said was it would take truckloads of cash to convince me that government is not justified. It would also take truckloads of cash to convince me that government *is* justified.

You asked what it would take. I gave my honest answer.

I think government is necessary, but that the government should govern as little as possible. Other than ensuring that peoples' rights and safety are protected, the government should just stay out of everybody's affairs.
A slightly more sane and realistic approach.

I think government is necessary, but that the government should govern as little as possible. Other than ensuring that peoples' rights and safety are protected, the government should just stay out of everybody's affairs.

So what would it take to convince you that governments aren't justified?

Support your government, they are here to protect you.

So what would it take to convince you that governments aren't justified?

Being socialised into that belief from birth. Or some radical real life event which would change people's perceptions of what government is.

Support your government, they are here to protect you.
...most of the time

"If men were angels, there would be no need for government."

...most of the time

49% of the time.

49% of the time.


NO! 48.79069% of the time. Sheesh :rolleyes:


;)

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?


First of all, this is a logical fallicy. You can either prove it or you can't. You can't bribe someone into believing. If a single event happened that I had outlined, I'm going to be suspiscious. It becomes self defeating.

Anyway, you would have to convince me that everyone on earth is working together happily and everyone not only understands what each other wants, but is working with in those bounds.

Yes, dolphins and deer and many other animals don't have a heirarchy or any sort of structure. We tend to classify these animals as prey.

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?

Letila, I have a bit of friendly advice, from one experienced anarchist to another...

It will be a lot easier to have a serious discussion about anarchism if you stop insisting that it means "no government," and instead stress that it means true self-government. "Government" in the most general sense, after all, just means something like "the institutions, practices, and customs by which a people is governed"... that is, the means through which rules are established, justice enacted, and the economy managed.

We anarchists believe that the best constitution is one that involves participatory decision-making between equals. Sure, there is a sense in which this means we are opposed to government if you understand "government" to be synonymous with the class-based states that exist today. However, there is no reason to make this assumption.

When you start talking to people about government without rulers, i.e. a government of human affairs enacted between equals who all have a say... you may be surprised by the results. People are willing to have that discussion. They are not, on the whole, willing to discuss a world in which there is "no government"... and given their understanding of government, who can blame them? It certainly sounds like a scary idea to me!!

Letila, I have a bit of friendly advice, from one experienced anarchist to another...

It will be a lot easier to have a serious discussion about anarchism if you stop insisting that it means "no government," and instead stress that it means true self-government. "Government" in the most general sense, after all, just means something like "the institutions, practices, and customs by which a people is governed"... that is, the means through which rules are established, justice enacted, and the economy managed.

We anarchists believe that the best constitution is one that involves participatory decision-making between equals. Sure, there is a sense in which this means we are opposed to government if you understand "government" to be synonymous with the class-based states that exist today. However, there is no reason to make this assumption.

When you start talking to people about government without rulers, i.e. a government of human affairs enacted between equals who all have a say... you may be surprised by the results. People are willing to have that discussion. They are not, on the whole, willing to discuss a world in which there is "no government"... and given their understanding of government, who can blame them? It certainly sounds like a scary idea to me!!

I would strongly urge Letila to follow this advice as well.

Letila, I have a bit of friendly advice, from one experienced anarchist to another...

It will be a lot easier to have a serious discussion about anarchism if you stop insisting that it means "no government," and instead stress that it means true self-government. "Government" in the most general sense, after all, just means something like "the institutions, practices, and customs by which a people is governed"... that is, the means through which rules are established, justice enacted, and the economy managed.

We anarchists believe that the best constitution is one that involves participatory decision-making between equals. Sure, there is a sense in which this means we are opposed to government if you understand "government" to be synonymous with the class-based states that exist today. However, there is no reason to make this assumption.

When you start talking to people about government without rulers, i.e. a government of human affairs enacted between equals who all have a say... you may be surprised by the results. People are willing to have that discussion. They are not, on the whole, willing to discuss a world in which there is "no government"... and given their understanding of government, who can blame them? It certainly sounds like a scary idea to me!!

That sounds a whole lot better than "government is t3h ev33l," whether I agree with you or not.

Letila, I have a bit of friendly advice, from one experienced anarchist to another...

-snip-




So in theory a proper anarchy would be like a "pure" democracy. Everyone is considered equal and has an equal say.

So in theory a proper anarchy would be like a "pure" democracy. Everyone is considered equal and has an equal say.

Even though a "pure" democracy favors the majority.

So in theory a proper anarchy would be like a "pure" democracy. Everyone is considered equal and has an equal say.

More or less. There are variations within anarchist thought, but for the most part we take "self-rule" to imply some form of democratic government.

Even though a "pure" democracy favors the majority.

Since when was "democracy" synonymous with "majoritarianism"? There are many ways to make a decision among equals, majoritarian decision being only one of them. Others include unanimity and consensus.

Of course, nothing about majoritarian rule is really opposed to anarchism. Many anarchists, in fact, are perfectly happy to support majoritarianism, provided that in a classless world there is unlikely to be a "consistent" majority. So everyone "loses" some of the time, and everybody "wins" some, too. The important part for anarchists is that everyone is a part of the process, and the process does not inherently favor any one consistent group or class.

So in theory a proper anarchy would be like a "pure" democracy. Everyone is considered equal and has an equal say.

Possibly, in that it would be a rule of the people, but the word 'democracy' in the modern Western world carries the connotation of voting and the majority over-ruling the minority, which is not neccessarilly the case in all anarchist models. Some, for example favour a process based on consensus decision making in which the view of the minority is not simply over-ruled or rejected by sheer weight of numbers, but instead a satisfactory agreement agreeable to all is reached.


Of course, the challenge of how exactly one makes the decision to shift to a consensus based decision making process when no agreed upon decision making process already exists is an exercise best left for the reader...


...and yes, I have been to meetings where it was pointed out at the end that although the final decision was reached through consensus based decision making, no consensus had been reached on whether that was the appropriate and satisfactory method of reaching a decision.

What would it take to convince you that government is not justified? What kind of evidence or argument would it take to disprove the validity of government to you?
Proof that lack of government could actually work well on a global scale.