NationStates Jolt Archive

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

We've been over this Neu. There's no universal rule that states "in order to be a government, fulfill x, y, z". That's just a fallacy peddled by people usually trying to push their ideas of what a government should be and is too often abused as a means of justifying the destruction of other governments in order to expand territorial control. And that bit you linked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28political_science%29) in the other thread talking about legitimacy?

"Something becomes "legitimate" when one approves of it."

That line? It tells exactly what is wrong about the idea of a universal rule set that a government must fulfill. People can't even agree on pizzas, and you expect them to agree, much less approve, of a government as one?

Look at what Japan did, under the guise of their so-called "co-prosperity sphere". It's the same story all over the world. They'll pull up some obscure, easily emotionally charged topics, claim or show another government failing them, and then invading it.

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?

Translate US constitution to native language, apply to people. Thus far the only legitimate goverment is the US goverment. Europe we will be over to fix you sometime next decade.


Seriously there needs to be a attempt to represent the people in some form or fashion.

Translate US constitution to native language, apply to people. Thus far the only legitimate goverment is the US goverment. Europe we will be over to fix you sometime next decade.


Seriously there needs to be a attempt to represent the people in some form or fashion.

Speaking as a Pimp Named Slickback, I represent my hoes.

Hence, I am a legitimate government.

My armed forces are my pimp hand, my infrastructure consists of a 1968 Cadillac Calais sittin' on 28's....and they be spinnin', negroes, they be spinnin'.

We've been over this Neu.
No questions were answered then and neither of us learned anything. What I want to see this time is some reason why such a standard doesn't exist, that is a proper outlining of your position, which I didn't get last time.

There's no universal rule that states "in order to be a government, fulfill x, y, z".
Why not? If we had a government, for example, that could do something but never ever does, so that the country is a de facto anarchy, then is this a government? Does it govern anything?

"Something becomes "legitimate" when one approves of it."

That line? It tells exactly what is wrong about the idea of a universal rule set that a government must fulfill. People can't even agree on pizzas, and you expect them to agree, much less approve, of a government as one?
Why do rules of approval have to be subjective? Indeed, why does universality mean everyone agrees with it? It's perfectly possible for something to be universally true and people not believing, or disagreeing with it.

Remember, there exists one constraint here, and we can use this constraint to make a choice that otherwise might not have been possible: we are all humans, and as such there are certain things we need, certain ways we act and so on. So we can already exclude a lot of stuff - for example a government that as its stated goal has to kill everyone and blow up the planet is not bad simply because I happen to want to stay alive, but because it necessarily contradicts any possible way for humans to do or experience anything at all. No matter what is "good", death makes it impossible.

Similar reasoning can be extended to get closer and closer to what constitutes a perfect government. But that is already going further than what this thread really asks.

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?

There is only one thing that a government ultimately has to do. Submit to the people, and regardless of the fact that most don't....eventually they will.

they need an attempt to represent the people and they need this attempt to systematic. aka so i can be the democratically elected goverment form an election 60 years ago.

You would need a population large enough to support diversity of labor and/or its need to support external governance. A larger better educated population with moral courage would need less external governance than a much smaller uneducated population with few moral scruples.

The minimum for external governance would be:
1. Punish evildoers and look on with benign indifference to those who do good.

The minimum definition of evil would be:
2. Cause no (willful or wanton) harm to another person, and correspondingly do all that you willingly contract to do.

Set up a as few people as possible keeping in mind a sense of checks and balances that will keep their responsibilities from being so powerful that they grow despotically corrupt, and their powers separated by function so as to keep them from being tyrannically oppressive.

Keep them poor, humble, accountable to the people, and have a mechanism to punish the external governance from abuses by forcing them to swear fealty to the minimum definitions; and have the citizenry well trained to punish them for any deviation from going beyond those two.

From there you can make the statutory codes as simple or as complex as is the least amount necessary.

:) If the people elect the public servants for external governance to represent their best interests in common in the aforesaid manner, you can call it a republic, if you can keep it.

The minimum two principles all governments have is to punish evildoers and hold people accountable to do what they say they will do. From there things get dicey. :)

^ Gratuitous.

A government need not exist. If that doesn't tell you anything about "universal standards of governments" then you are mentally impaired.

^ Gratuitous.

A government need not exist. If that doesn't tell you anything about "universal standards of governments" then you are mentally impaired.

Huzzah, let us then progress to discourse on those characteristics that, a priori, distinguish a government from a moose.

My helmet is loose, and my state appointed caretaker has neglected to fasten my mittens to my coat with sufficient tenacity.

And I have peed in my thermos.

Similar reasoning can be extended to get closer and closer to what constitutes a perfect government. But that is already going further than what this thread really asks.

Well, what the thread really asks is rather impossible to answer. We should take it by steps from the government we have, to some ideal government which "only" provides what is should. We can't define what government "should" do, without stepping outside the society we live in, which is largely defined by what government has done.

Here, I resort to the concept of essences. What can a government provide, which ONLY a government can provide?

What only a government can provide, is the starting position of government. If this were a game, where one player is called "government", another "the banks", another "NGOs" ... surely that player looks first to their unique quality, their special unit or power, and schemes to maximize the effect of that?

It's tempting to say: government has the legitimate use of force. But that's not Game Over, because Legitimacy depends on many things, and without Legitimacy, the government's "use" of force is an order which is not obeyed, an atrocity which undermines their moral authority, and after all, a waste of their resources.

What should government do? I'm a slut to reality: government should do a bit of everything. Government should have an egg in every nest, it should have a stake in every facet of society, it should hang in there (not doing much) for the day when only government can save the day.

And yes, every 'sphere of influence' should resist government. The banks, the churches, the businesses, the ideologies, the families, the socialists, should make it hard for government to take them over. They should fight and defend their turf.

But at the end of the day, Government is supreme. This is the principle we should carry upwards to a world government, and that government should be bound by the principle of empire: the larger, the more dilute.

Government should be there when you really need it. The rest of the time, it should just go with the flow.

No questions were answered then and neither of us learned anything. What I want to see this time is some reason why such a standard doesn't exist, that is a proper outlining of your position, which I didn't get last time.

The reason why such a standard doesn't exist is because standards are a human invention. They aren't hard set physical laws like say, Newtonian physics. They are set up by humans who have different perceptions of normality, which are then translated into standards.

Very simple comparison. Australian aboriginals and Australian settlers. Both had very different standards as to what constituted rights. The settlers won not by any philosophical or intellectual strength of their government. They won by force. This example has held true for centuries.


Why not? If we had a government, for example, that could do something but never ever does, so that the country is a de facto anarchy, then is this a government? Does it govern anything?

A government is exactly what it says. A system that governs. It does not need the mandate of the people, be liked, or even be run by humans. All it has to do to be a government, which is not related to standards since this is a description of function, is govern people.

Anything from banana republics run by tinpot dictators to ultra-liberal societies.


Why do rules of approval have to be subjective? Indeed, why does universality mean everyone agrees with it? It's perfectly possible for something to be universally true and people not believing, or disagreeing with it.

You don't see anything wrong with the bolded? Not at all? The problem is that you are trying to compare subjective standards, human standards, which fall under social sciences, to hard, proven, sciences.


Remember, there exists one constraint here, and we can use this constraint to make a choice that otherwise might not have been possible: we are all humans.

Humanity is often abandoned whenever people feel it convenient. If by common needs, you mean food and shelter, that is a basic requirement for any living thing. I believe you mean something more complex than that.

My helmet is loose, and my state appointed caretaker has neglected to fasten my mittens to my coat with sufficient tenacity.

And I have peed in my thermos.

*drinks contents of Jhah's thermos*

Yeah, I see what you mean ...

*fights off flying unicorn*

I ... think ... uh - oh ...

Huzzah, let us then progress to discourse on those characteristics that, a priori, distinguish a government from a moose.
Let's. Also, I like you.

We can't define what government "should" do, without stepping outside the society we live in, which is largely defined by what government has done.
That's the question. I don't think it's impossible to answer, and I think that while you certainly put some thought into your post, you sorta missed the point I was trying to make. When I ask whether there exists a universal set of things a government should do, your post is basically an answer of "no".

Fair enough, but you haven't justified it.

What should government do? I'm a slut to reality: government should do a bit of everything. Government should have an egg in every nest, it should have a stake in every facet of society, it should hang in there (not doing much) for the day when only government can save the day.
What does "save the day" mean though? And what if simply hanging in there causes some amount of damage already?

Government should be there when you really need it. The rest of the time, it should just go with the flow.
That doesn't tell us much. I could need government for anything at any time, but its help is not always justified. That goes particularly if we have contradicting claims on government help.

As for going with the flow, it doesn't seem like that's possible. Government makes laws, which are necessarily rigid frameworks within which things flow. They can't go with the flow, they define and direct it. A government can therefore not be involved in something and still be a passive onlooker.

The reason why such a standard doesn't exist is because standards are a human invention. They aren't hard set physical laws like say, Newtonian physics. They are set up by humans who have different perceptions of normality, which are then translated into standards.
Some human standards are based on biology or super-basic economics. Those don't change because we happen to imagine or perceive that they do, and they are the things I'm talking about.

Very simple comparison. Australian aboriginals and Australian settlers. Both had very different standards as to what constituted rights. The settlers won not by any philosophical or intellectual strength of their government. They won by force. This example has held true for centuries.
But both Aboriginals and settlers had rules regarding the intentional killing of others for reasons other than self-defense. Both had rules regarding the theft of property (whether communal or private is not the issue at hand...). It should be possible to construct some sort of list of rules that all societies live by to some extent, and see whether it is possible to imagine a society that doesn't and that can survive any contradictions that arise.

A government is exactly what it says. A system that governs. It does not need the mandate of the people, be liked, or even be run by humans. All it has to do to be a government, which is not related to standards since this is a description of function, is govern people.
So, now having rephrased the question to "What does 'govern' mean?", we can proceed to answer it.

You don't see anything wrong with the bolded? Not at all? The problem is that you are trying to compare subjective standards, human standards, which fall under social sciences, to hard, proven, sciences.
Nothing at all. Disagreement with something does not prevent universal truth, regardless of the discipline or the topic. The dichotomy between social and "hard" sciences is not one of method or the tools at hand, but simply the quality of the data. Given the crappy data available in many "hard" fields, which basically means that pretty much all the advances in things like quantum- or black hole-related physics are made not with empirical evidence, but purely with extrapolations based on mathematics, it's not much of a distinction. Whether Steven Hawking tells us something about the event horizon based on some numbers a telescope happened to pick up, or Kant tries to tell us something about objective morality based on a few observations about the way humans gather knowledge...it's just not that big a deal.

Humanity is often abandoned whenever people feel it convenient. If by common needs, you mean food and shelter, that is a basic requirement for any living thing. I believe you mean something more complex than that.
We are more complex living things than most, but the basic principle is the same. Given that we perceive the world by use of concepts, that is by combining the empirical, sensual experiences we make with acquired and more abstract constructs based on relationships between things, we are beings that need to be able to use reason to perceive the world. So no one can do our thinking for us.

From there, we survive by making use of this knowledge by applying it to the world, again using our reason to make use of or improve the relationships we have established. So humans sustain their life by putting their knowledge to the test. Again, that needs to be facilitated in some way.

Those are caveats based on the particular nature of human beings as opposed to other organisms. If we had other characteristics, what we would call natural existence would be different, and the sort of government that would facilitate such an existence would be different. So if we were to design a constitution for ants, it would look rather unlike one we'd design for people.

So it's not universal in the sense that it floats about in the ether even if none of us would exist. It's universal in the sense that it applies wherever something we would classify as human (ie as sharing these characteristics) exists, regardless of time, place or other variables.

You have to have a nice house.

Translate US constitution to native language, apply to people. Thus far the only legitimate goverment is the US goverment. Europe we will be over to fix you sometime next decade.
.
The one that still has provisions for slavery in it? Though I'm not sure if you're being serious here, apologies if you're not

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?

Umm nope.

In fact, yes, there are universal standards of governance. Government is not a solely Western thing, unlike sovereignty. Government is a human thing. Why do we form governments? Political philosophers have poured over this. There are three most basic reasons for government to exist: to keep internal law and order; to protect its citizens from foreign aggression; and provide public services. All governments strive to do this.

There are of course regional variations: how the original laws should be made, for example; on what standards are those laws made; who exactly keeps the peace; to what extent can foreigners intrude into the country; the degree to which public services are provided etc. A combination of these plus ideologies, philosophies, and religions give us the world's different political systems. But there is a basic universal standard of governance.

That's the question. I don't think it's impossible to answer, and I think that while you certainly put some thought into your post, you sorta missed the point I was trying to make. When I ask whether there exists a universal set of things a government should do, your post is basically an answer of "no".

I suppose it is. From within my frame of knowledge (and inferring the knowledge which I don't personally have, 'scientific faith') I don't believe there is an Essential Role of government. I see a role for government in the past, present and future ... but nothing which Only government can do, under all circumstances.

I try to direct my attention to your question, but I carry over some misgivings from the "what is heaven" thread. I cannot know the perfect, only the more perfect, and that in my imagination. I can imagine what I would hope for, were I living in this more perfect world, but it is less certain than what I would hope for in this.

Can I speculate the ideal at the end of all these refinements? Maybe, but it would be worthless. Compare my perception of how things are, with how I think they should be. Now, imagine that things are as I think they should be. What would I want then? Even I cannot say!

To imagine what "everyone" would hold ideal, if the current ideal was fact, is more difficult by several degrees: no-one knows the general will; what was intended is not what happens; our hopes may have been founded in futility, never really meant to happen; and we can't even measure the change, our yardsticks are marked in the old terms.

And, yet, I am not too wide of the point. What is the role of government? It is, to provide what only government can provide. To DO, what only government can do.

I'll try a little harder to answer your question, your abstract question. Government should do the minimum necessary in each sector, to keep the option of control over society as a whole. The OPTION, not the fact. To completely control one sector is an act of desperation which can only cost government credibility overall. To control every part of society is the stuff of mad dictators.

Proper government does what it has to do to maintain the option of control. It's the Lazy Bully, always capable of slapping down contenders for control of society as a whole. Very rarely bothering, since the various sectors keep each other in check most of the time.

There is my answer. If you must reduce it to one of the poles, make it "I don't know."

The one that still has provisions for slavery in it? Though I'm not sure if you're being serious here, apologies if you're not

you mean the 13th amendment banning it or do you mean the little left over tidbits such as the 3/5ths rule ???

you mean the 13th amendment banning it or do you mean the little left over tidbits such as the 3/5ths rule ???

eh, I meant the tidbits, I was thinking you meant the original constitution rather than with all the extra amendments.

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on?

Yes. For example, providing for its citizens or accepting help from those who can provide for them in response to a natural disaster.


Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

One of the universal functions of government is to protect property; specifically, governments protect the property of the rich.


What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?
I like how you phrased that: "group claiming to be a government." Do you mean that this "group" might not be in legitimate power?

One of the universal responsibilities of government, in my view, is to render itself superfluous and redundant. However, governments do not do this in practice.

eh, I meant the tidbits, I was thinking you meant the original constitution rather than with all the extra amendments.

technically the amendments are part of it. as they are adjustments though your correct often they are referred to separately.

I would guess the one universal is "don't do things that lead to you being overthrown"

you mean like takeing away individual freedoms before haveing a strong propaganda network and a militrized police force to deal with the ones that see past the goverment lies?

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?

No, because any attempt to introduce and enforce such a set of "standards" would greatly undermine all countries independence and lead to a situation whereby the system will be used as a justification for "regime change".

In addition the process of coming up with these criteria would itself be all but impossible. I doubt even the most basic concepts could be agreed upon, and it will end up being forced onto most countries against their will with huge resentment and the ensuring trouble.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here, are you concerned more with what a government has to do to fulfil the very definition of Government and thus be appropriately labelled as one, or just obligations concerning how the government should function in a moral sense?

If the former, then well lets look at the actual definition of government:

government Show phonetics
group noun [C] (WRITTEN ABBREVIATION govt)
the group of people who officially control a country:

government Show phonetics
noun [U]
1 the system used for controlling a country, city, or group of people:

2 the activities involved in controlling a country, city, group of people, etc:source= Cambridge dictionary online

So basically a government is all about control over an area or people. Official would mean that there is no central power that has equal or more power then this body of people, and that it actually has control over the area it is supposed to govern. Very simple.

If you mean the latter, then this is a question of ethics, you will first have to show that universal obligations can exist at all before claiming that there are universal ways a government SHOULD function.

No, because any attempt to introduce and enforce such a set of "standards" would greatly undermine all countries independence and lead to a situation whereby the system will be used as a justification for "regime change".

You're right. That's the whole point of universal standards: to decide when governments can be forcibly overthrown.

Huzzah, let us then progress to discourse on those characteristics that, a priori, distinguish a government from a moose.

My helmet is loose, and my state appointed caretaker has neglected to fasten my mittens to my coat with sufficient tenacity.

And I have peed in my thermos.

Have you ever heard of a commune?

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?

the only universal thing a Government has to do is hold control. there are many ways that Government can hold control. either 1) keep the people happy (and thus get re-elected/avoid a revolt) 2) keep the people downtrodden to the point where they cannot revolt 3) hold all the power (either Economic/Military or Social.)

that's it. they have no obligation to keep the people (in general) happy, they have no obligation to keep the People (in general) prosperous, they don't even have to care for the people (in general).

and should that government fail to hold control? then they lose control.

whether that means being voted out of office, beheaded by revolutionaries, forced into exile, or even assassinated.
or in other words... this.
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here, are you concerned more with what a government has to do to fulfil the very definition of Government and thus be appropriately labelled as one, or just obligations concerning how the government should function in a moral sense?

If the former, then well lets look at the actual definition of government:

government Show phonetics
group noun [C] (WRITTEN ABBREVIATION govt)
the group of people who officially control a country:

government Show phonetics
noun [U]
1 the system used for controlling a country, city, or group of people:

2 the activities involved in controlling a country, city, group of people, etc:source= Cambridge dictionary online

So basically a government is all about control over an area or people. Official would mean that there is no central power that has equal or more power then this body of people, and that it actually has control over the area it is supposed to govern. Very simple.

If you mean the latter, then this is a question of ethics, you will first have to show that universal obligations can exist at all before claiming that there are universal ways a government SHOULD function.

Have you ever heard of a commune?

The place up the road where the aging hippies make truly shitty zucchini bread and all pitch in for patchouli oil?

So, are you considering that a government, or a moose?

I think an argument can be made for both.


A unicorn need not exist. If that doesn't tell you something about minimum standards for what makes a unicorn, you are not a taxonomist.

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?

Yes. All governments must tax, protect (including law enforcement), and make laws, or they'll dissolve into anarchy/revolution. Universally.

Yes; one must ensure an acceptable(subjective notion, I know, but since we're dealing in the general anyway, I see no problem) quality of life, acceptable standards of education, as high a level of employment as possible, and security from crime. Beyond that, I see very little that is fundamentally imperative for any administration. Notably "politcal representation"; many democracies fail to adequatly feed, clothe, educate and protect their respective electorates, just as many dictators, though not offering the abstract notion of a vote, do.

Yes; one must ensure an acceptable(subjective notion, I know, but since we're dealing in the general anyway, I see no problem) quality of life, acceptable standards of education, as high a level of employment as possible, and security from crime. Beyond that, I see very little that is fundamentally imperative for any administration.

Curiously, you left out national defense. Was that deliberate ?

Curiously, you left out national defense. Was that deliberate ?

erm....well spotted....I wondered who'd notice that....

In truth, it was a genuine omission on my part. Apologies.

The place up the road where the aging hippies make truly shitty zucchini bread and all pitch in for patchouli oil?

A society with no Executive i.e. no government.

So, are you considering that a government, or a moose?

I think an argument can be made for both.

Neither:)


A unicorn need not exist. If that doesn't tell you something about minimum standards for what makes a unicorn, you are not a taxonomist.

If the unicorn does not exist then the minimum standards are meaningless. Thus my point.

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

I think that some general lines can be agreed.
I'd say that, generally speaking, the purpose of government is to lead the State; that is, an organisation whose purpose is to grant the survival of the society.

How you (try and) achieve that, is another issue.

A society with no Executive i.e. no government.


You mean that group of people that doesn't have/hates the goverment, but pretty much needs to protections of our goverment to exist.
Make a hippie commune in a place with out a goverment like Somalia then we will talk. though to be honest with out military and police protection the place would be looted clean in 5 minutes, the women kidnapped to be used as sex slaves, and the children force converted to the local religion.

Neither:)

correct, pointless waste is far more accurate in describing a hippie commune rather then a goverment or a moose.

If the unicorn does not exist then the minimum standards are meaningless. Thus my point.
communes reject governments in name however depend on them for protection. They are little more people living on the fringes of society but still with in society.

You mean that group of people that doesn't have/hates the goverment, but pretty much needs to protections of our goverment to exist.
Make a hippie commune in a place with out a goverment like Somalia then we will talk. though to be honest with out military and police protection the place would be looted clean in 5 minutes, the women kidnapped to be used as sex slaves, and the children force converted to the local religion.

correct, pointless waste is far more accurate in describing a hippie commune rather then a goverment or a moose.

communes reject governments in name however depend on them for protection. They are little more people living on the fringes of society but still with in society.

Communes were set up in Republican Spain and did not have any protection from the government, quite the contrary. Women weren't raped, looting cannot occur because private property is abolished, and work does happen, shockingly enough, with higher productivity than in capitalist order (Shock Horror).

Oh and they weren't hippies either. They were workers.

I do not see that the establishment of Universal Standards of Governance can possibly do any good.

First, everyone has different expectations of government. While all the individuals in a discrete population may agree on the big issues, the expectations of a different group may vary widely, not merely on what government should do, but what government should be. One size fits all this is not.

Second, you will never get the strictness level right. You can either set things high, on the "civil rights" level, or low, on the "lowest common denominator" level. On the high level, no nation will ever hold to them all the time, and thus offending nations will be able to say "But you did susch and such! You're just as bad!" China does this all the time to the US over civil rights. On the low level, any idiot will be able to stay within the guidelines; but that will mean that any criticism will be met with "But I stayed inside the Universal Standards!!!"

Either way you're just letting the problem nations off the hook while responsible nations have one more set of "guidelines" to try and reconcile with their own hopes and dreams.

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?

Yes. In fact, some powers of government are so basic they are not even expressly granted to them in constitutions. One that comes to mind is eminent domain. Governments have the authority to take private real estate and even private personal property for public use.

Another basic component of government is dispute resolution. Some governments have had very weak roles such as the Thing's role throughout much of Iceland's history, but it is a function that every government has.

I cannot think of any government that does not have some form of symbolic power.

Yes. In fact, some powers of government are so basic they are not even expressly granted to them in constitutions. One that comes to mind is eminent domain. Governments have the authority to take private real estate and even private personal property for public use.

The public != the government.
Ownership may be part of the social contract enacted by society, and consequently written in law. The granting or suspending such a right may be executed by the executive, but it is not within their prerogatives to do so unless stated by law.

Another basic component of government is dispute resolution. Some governments have had very weak roles such as the Thing's role throughout much of Iceland's history, but it is a function that every government has.

Judiciary != Government (= the Executive)

I cannot think of any government that does not have some form of symbolic power.

the State (the trademark, or symbolic power if you must) != Government.

Communes were set up in Republican Spain and did not have any protection from the government, quite the contrary. Women weren't raped, looting cannot occur because private property is abolished, and work does happen, shockingly enough, with higher productivity than in capitalist order (Shock Horror).

Oh and they weren't hippies either. They were workers.

Hey guess what, these communes were... voluntary. :eek: So, let's see, a society where a group of people if they so choose could form a commune but are not obliged to serve in one... sounds almost like libertarianism (shock horror).

(I'm assuming you're a communist since I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue for it before, sorry if I'm wrong).

Communes were set up in Republican Spain and did not have any protection from the government, quite the contrary.
Which is why they completely failed.
Women weren't raped
Quite. Was it particularly more widespread before the communes? No.
looting cannot occur because private property is abolished
Right... and how was this previously private property appropriated?
and work does happen, shockingly enough, with higher productivity than in capitalist order (Shock Horror).
There was success in certain communes, and not in others. Saying that there was an overall raise in productivity is a bit much.

Hey guess what, these communes were... voluntary. :eek: So, let's see, a society where a group of people if they so choose could form a commune but are not obliged to serve in one... sounds almost like libertarianism (shock horror).

(I'm assuming you're a communist since I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue for it before, sorry if I'm wrong).

Communism=/=Totalitarian forced labour.
And libertarianism requires the existence of property (not sure, please educate me)?

Communism=/=Totalitarian forced labour.

No, but if people can set up and disband communes at will, why call it communism at all? You'll have a society where perhaps some people will willingly decide to set up and work in a commune (if anyone does at all), whilst others will be setting up different systems of business and trading and living in their own property, essentially libertarianism. If the government wipes out trade and property, then it is forcing people into a commune.

Edit: and before you point out that there is no government, in all practical senses you will at least need a central body to create conditions in order to make conditions for communism (i.e. Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat).

Hey guess what, these communes were... voluntary. :eek: So, let's see, a society where a group of people if they so choose could form a commune but are not obliged to serve in one... sounds almost like libertarianism (shock horror).

:eek: I know.

(I'm assuming you're a communist since I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue for it before, sorry if I'm wrong).

No, I'm a social democrat, pragmatically. I just have an anarchism fetish;)

Which is why they completely failed.

Quite. Was it particularly more widespread before the communes? No.

Right... and how was this previously private property appropriated?

There was success in certain communes, and not in others. Saying that there was an overall raise in productivity is a bit much.

Hey... some of them were viable, but they were simply in a too hostile environment (with the war and the reactionary communists around) to be sustained for a long time.

Hey... some of them were viable, but they were simply in a too hostile environment (with the war and the reactionary communists around) to be sustained for a long time.
Yes, exactly. They were rubbish, because they didn't have the means to actually defend themselves, and they didn't work together properly.

Which is why anarchism is a particularly weak system.

Yes, exactly. They were rubbish, because they didn't have the means to actually defend themselves, and they didn't work together properly.

Which is why anarchism is a particularly weak system.

I didn't say it is strong. All I said is that it occured, thus it is ridiculous to claim that a state is absolute necessity and thus a government is necessary, which is a prerequisite of it having universal standards.

Again, I am a social democrat.

I didn't say it is strong. All I said is that it occured, thus it is ridiculous to claim that a state is absolute necessity and thus a government is necessary, which is a prerequisite of it having universal standards.
It lasted for 1936-1939. A state absolutely is a necessity for the survival of any kind of movement, especially in a war.
Again, I am a social democrat.
Hurray or something, I'm a socialist authoritarian. What does that really matter?

It lasted for 1936-1939. A state absolutely is a necessity for the survival of any kind of movement, especially in a war.

Thus why I said circumstances weren't exactly helpful.

Hurray or something, I'm a socialist authoritarian. What does that really matter?

Just making sure this doesn't descend into "anarchism sux and u z shtupid to believe in it".

Thus why I said circumstances weren't exactly helpful.
Which is cause and which is effect is hard to tell.
Just making sure this doesn't descend into "anarchism sux and u z shtupid to believe in it".
Right.

Which is cause and which is effect is hard to tell.

Unfortunately. It would have been a most interesting social experiment for posterity.

Unfortunately. It would have been a most interesting social experiment for posterity.
It already is an interesting social experiment for posterity.

"Working together with your friends is nice until your little project utterly collapses when even a poorly-led and equipped army with very little training comes to fight you. Youthful optimism is nothing in the face of armed men."

It already is an interesting social experiment for posterity.

"Working together with your friends is nice until your little project utterly collapses when even a poorly-led and equipped army with very little training comes to fight you. Youthful optimism is nothing in the face of armed men."

I can understand your pessimism, so please do understand my idealism.

I know odds are very remote that the right circumstances will ever occur, but one can at least retain a bit of hope in humanity ;)

I know there is no reason to hope, I just want to.

It already is an interesting social experiment for posterity.

"Working together with your friends is nice until your little project utterly collapses when even a poorly-led and equipped army with very little training comes to fight you. Youthful optimism is nothing in the face of armed men."

But voluntary militias can and has been formed, for example during the Spanish Civil war by the anarchists. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that anyone without a government to follow will be toothless.

But voluntary militias can and has been formed, for example during the Spanish Civil war by the anarchists. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that anyone without a government to follow will be toothless.
Not completely toothless, but they got absolutely plastered both by the Fascists and by the Stalinists.

Not completely toothless, but they got absolutely plastered both by the Fascists and by the Stalinists.

Because both were provided with weapons from abroad, while the anarchists didn't even have military training.

Not completely toothless, but they got absolutely plastered both by the Fascists and by the Stalinists.

But they would still be beaten had the communes been lead by governments.

Because both were provided with weapons from abroad, while the anarchists didn't even have military training.
Again, which is cause and which is effect of their lack of military success is mixed.

But they would still be beaten had the communes been lead by governments.
I dunno, if they had one central body to which one could negotiate, give money and arms, offers of training etc. they probably would have done far, far better.

Hard to say, mind.

Again, which is cause and which is effect of their lack of military success is mixed.

By all means I agree with you. I was merely adding what I thought was necessary to point out.

If the unicorn does not exist then the minimum standards are meaningless. Thus my point.

But if something does exist, or even could exist, whether or not it need exist, then discussing its minimum standards, even in hypotheses, is not meaningless.

And since some governments do exist, discussing the minimum standards for the labeling of something as such doesn't make people "mentally impaired".

For example, an evacuation plan need not exist, but discussing minimum standards to be applied if one is developed is not a sign of retardation.

Something need not be mandatory for it to have minimum standards of definition.

I can understand your pessimism, so please do understand my idealism.

But if others express the desire to explore the minimum standards of what might make a good government, they are "mentally impaired". Nice.


I know odds are very remote that the right circumstances will ever occur, but one can at least retain a bit of hope in humanity ;)

I know there is no reason to hope, I just want to.

Well, doing something without reason is unreasoned by definition, but at least its not retarded.

Perhaps as an act of hope in humanity, others might discuss the pragmatic ways in which a government could exist and what minimum standards would qualify it for the benefit of people, were it to be developed.

But if something does exist, or even could exist, whether or not it need exist, then discussing its minimum standards, even in hypotheses, is not meaningless.

And since some governments do exist, discussing the minimum standards for the labeling of something as such doesn't make people "mentally impaired".

For example, an evacuation plan need not exist, but discussing minimum standards to be applied if one is developed is not a sign of retardation.

Something need not be mandatory for it to have minimum standards of definition.

Definitions, definitions:rolleyes:

To discuss "unviersal" minimum standards to something that needs not exist is impossible, because its occurence is not "universal". You are trying to impose a "universal" attribute onto a contingency. To claim those standards are "universal" one must be mentally challanged.

"General" standards on the other hand, are a completely different matter and can be discussed. My point is that I really don't fancy having imposed universals on my thought by people who don't even know the meaning of the words they use. Generalise all the fuck you want, but don't universalise your preconceptions mkay?

But if others express the desire to explore the minimum standards of what might make a good government, they are "mentally impaired". Nice.

Feelings != inability to articulate a proposition.

Feelings, chosen or not are not inconsistent, and are of a different nature, than logically self-contradictory propositions. One is not mentally deficient to feel. He is human.

Well, doing something without reason is unreasoned by definition, but at least its not retarded.

Nobody claimed a belief is reason. But neither is it faulty reason.

Perhaps as an act of hope in humanity, others might discuss the pragmatic ways in which a government could exist and what minimum standards would qualify it for the benefit of people, were it to be developed.

As long as you don't impose your "universals" on me you can do whatever the fuck you want.

The question is this: Are there universal, basic things a government has to do, regardless of time, place, culture and so on? Are there universal functions of government, or is it all subjective?

What are they? And what are the implications if a group claiming to be a government fails to do them?

well other then doing the best it can, to keep people from freezing, starving, or beating each other over the head, and seeing to the existence and environmental harmony of useful tangable infrastructure, there really are no other GOOD reasons for any government in any form to exist.

as for what happens when a government allows itself to become entirely superfilous, that may not be inevitable, but there is a matter of probabilities.

master kung said something about a three legged stool. the three legs being the good will of the people, the well being of the people, and the strength of its enforcement force.

with basically the idea that you need at least two of them to be strong, preferably all three. that no single one of them alone can do the job.

i mean the job of that government in any meaningful sense continuing to exist, or maybe in any sense at all.

if a government falls, will its neighbors or some other powerful force claim its territory? while that can and sometimes has happened, there's nothing inevitable about its doing so. all depends upon the specifics of the individual situation.

something that affects all of human society, reguardless of borders, might not give any particular advantage to any one nation over another.

at the very least a nation has to pay its cops and keep the walls of its jails from falling down, or on the other hand, keep everyone happy enough, i don't know if that's possible but i like the idea, to not need them.

=^^=
.../\...

Definitions, definitions:rolleyes:

To discuss "unviersal" minimum standards to something that needs not exist is impossible, because its occurence is not "universal". You are trying to impose a "universal" attribute onto a contingency. To claim those standards are "universal" one must be mentally challanged.

So, you roll your eyes at definitions, then quibble with them.

So, don't discuss "universal" minimum standards, just discuss minimum standards for those governments that are either existant, or potentially so.

I myself never said "universal" minimal standards, you know.


"General" standards on the other hand, are a completely different matter and can be discussed.

Thanks for permission. My whole comment about the moose was to propose exactly that discussion.


My point is that I really don't fancy having imposed universals on my thought by people who don't even know the meaning of the words they use.

Weren't you just rolling eyes at "definitions, definitions"? And if all it takes to impose something on your thought is an internet post, you should upgrade your browser. If you don't like someone else's usage of a term, challenge it civilly, don't call them mentally impaired because they don't subscribe to your semantics.

After all, if someone were to apply an equally rigorous standard of meaning to your use of the term "mentally impaired" as opposed to the other reasons that might lead to word misusage, you might find yourself on the opposite end of the appelate "people who don't even know the meaning of the words they use".



Generalise all the fuck you want, but don't universalise your preconceptions mkay?

You mean like your preconceptions about the cognitive development of people who disagree with you?

Ad Nihilo, if you were to ask yourself honestly whether you may be universalizing any of your own preconceptions, or whether you ever had, could allow for more productive discourse for others who may be doing the same?

I dunno, if they had one central body to which one could negotiate, give money and arms, offers of training etc. they probably would have done far, far better.

Hard to say, mind.

Well I would think that even attempting to create a governmental body would have led to divisions upon division on the basis of ideological conflict. Attempting to create a government is likely to have dissolved the movement sooner than anything else.

Feelings != inability to articulate a proposition.

Feelings, chosen or not are not inconsistent, and are of a different nature, than logically self-contradictory propositions. One is not mentally deficient to feel. He is human.

Then let the humans discuss what things might be the minimum standards, whether potentially, ideally, functionally, etc, for a government.



Nobody claimed a belief is reason. But neither is it faulty reason.

As long as you don't impose your "universals" on me you can do whatever the fuck you want.

By what means can I "impose" anything on you? Could you not immediately reimpose your own "universals" onto yourself by whatever means that would be?

You sound young, like somebody who has difficulty with their parents. I'm not saying you are that person, but you very much sound like one.

AN, both of us can do whatever the fuck they want here, within the bounds circumscribed by the mods. Nobody can impose universals on you if you don't buy into them.

But calling people mentally impaired for wanting to explore an idea, even if it is not universal, is a bit offsides.

So, you roll your eyes at definitions, then quibble with them.

So, don't discuss "universal" minimum standards, just discuss minimum standards for those governments that are either existant, or potentially so.

I rolled my eyes at you, then stated the problem: definition. You should try to read behind only what you want to understand.

I myself never said "universal" minimal standards, you know.

I didn't say you did. But the OP did, and that's what I was talking about. It has nothing to do with you.

Thanks for permission. My whole comment about the moose was to propose exactly that discussion.

Yes, but then you seem to have an issue with first clarifying the extent of what we are debating, and THEN debating.

Weren't you just rolling eyes at "definitions, definitions"?

No, I was rolling my eyes at you, because you seem very intent on reading into my statements something that is not there.

And if all it takes to impose something on your thought is an internet post, you should upgrade your browser.

Well I don't know about you, but I tend to think value judgements on how government should work affect everybody.

If you don't like someone else's usage of a term, challenge it civilly, don't call them mentally impaired because they don't subscribe to your semantics.

I didn't say anyone was mentally impaired. I said that the standards the OP was referring to are not "universal" and to think that they are is mentally impaired. Nobody seems to have considered themselves as such, and you are the only one who had an issue with it.

After all, if someone were to apply an equally rigorous standard of meaning to your use of the term "mentally impaired" as opposed to the other reasons that might lead to word misusage, you might find yourself on the opposite end of the appelate "people who don't even know the meaning of the words they use".

At least I wouldn't be in the category of "people who wilfully misread what others have posted, just to have an argument". "Mentally impaired" was used as a means of general derision (not a clinical assesment), and was not specifically aimed at anybody, otherwise it would have been flaming.


You mean like your preconceptions about the cognitive development of people who disagree with you?

I have made nu such pre-judgements.

Ad Nihilo, if you were to ask yourself honestly whether you may be universalizing any of your own preconceptions, or whether you ever had, could allow for more productive discourse for others who may be doing the same?

Uhm, no. My only problem is that when people invoke "universal truths" et al. they have a tendency to feel justified in suppressing opposing views to begin with, then to discriminate against their perpetrators, and the more they are crusading their "universal truths" the more they are likely to put them ahead people, lead where it may.

Do I have a problem with insulting such people? Not at all. Would I do more? Nope.

Are you done?

Then let the humans discuss what things might be the minimum standards, whether potentially, ideally, functionally, etc, for a government.

Oh dear. Slowly: Do whatever you like, just don't try to morally justify imposing it on others because it is somehow "universal"/


By what means can I "impose" anything on you?

Anything regarding governance has an impact on everybody governed. That's how.

Could you not immediately reimpose your own "universals" onto yourself by whatever means that would be?

Explain.

You sound young, like somebody who has difficulty with their parents. I'm not saying you are that person, but you very much sound like one.

:confused:

AN, both of us can do whatever the fuck they want here, within the bounds circumscribed by the mods. Nobody can impose universals on you if you don't buy into them.

Uhm, you mean like the Nazis couldn't impose their "universal" racial superiority upon the Jews? (Sorry about the Godwin, but it's the first thing to come to mind)

But calling people mentally impaired for wanting to explore an idea, even if it is not universal, is a bit offsides.

I didn't call anyone mentally impaired for exploring an idea. I did so for the belief that that idea was universal, when even the context within which that idea occurs is not necessary.:)

Well I don't know about you, but I tend to think value judgements on how government should work affect everybody.

You've made your own value judgements on government, on your hopes and preferences, are you imposing anything? No, you're voicing your view, and everyone else here can do the same. That such discourse could have impact is the reality of living in a world with other people.


I didn't say anyone was mentally impaired. I said that the standards the OP was referring to are not "universal" and to think that they are is mentally impaired. Nobody seems to have considered themselves as such, and you are the only one who had an issue with it.

Well, if your comment applied to "nobody", then why make it? The fact is, you said that anyone that didn't see a certain thing that you see is mentally impaired.

Such people don't exist anywhere?

If they do exist, then you did say they were mentally impaired.

If they don't exist, then applying your own universal preconception to them is quite self contradictory to much of what you've written.

You were talking about logical self contradictions?



At least I wouldn't be in the category of "people who wilfully misread what others have posted, just to have an argument". "Mentally impaired" was used as a means of general derision (not a clinical assesment), and was not specifically aimed at anybody, otherwise it would have been flaming.

As, so as long as you paint with a broad brush, "not specifically aimed at anybody", the shotgun approach to "general derision" is useful?


Uhm, no. My only problem is that when people invoke "universal truths" et al. they have a tendency to feel justified in suppressing opposing views to begin with, then to discriminate against their perpetrators, and the more they are crusading their "universal truths" the more they are likely to put them ahead people, lead where it may.

Thus far, the only person here saying "Don't do this, don't do that, as long as you don't do this, you may do that" is you.


Do I have a problem with insulting such people? Not at all. Would I do more? Nope.

So, you can insult, and not more. That will certainly hold the tyrants at bay.

Are you done?

Well, since you've admitted to general derision, then backpedalled out of your comment, by claiming that when you applied a term and later claimed you weren't applying it to anyone, there isn't much more that needs illustrating.

EDIT: Okay, the "Slowly" part in your next post was needlessly rude. I will try to respond civilly.

Oh dear. Slowly: Do whatever you like, just don't try to morally justify imposing it on others because it is somehow "universal"/

This is a debate forum. Examing an idea verbally doesn't force anything on you, and if you are so afraid that the fruits of debate will be forced on you, be politically active outside the internet. If you are already, thats the best you can do, but you can't eclipse other's right to discuss an idea just because you don't like where it might lead.


Anything regarding governance has an impact on everybody governed. That's how.

That is reason to participate in the discourse, even in a commune, the actions of others will affect you. Deal.

As for the explanation, if a post on the internet "imposes" something on you, counter it in a more cogent way then your "general derision", you can reimpose your own universals by simply not accepting those that you find unpersuasive. But that doesn't have to include occluding the discussion itself as "mentally impaired".

Honestly, AN, your comment really came across that way.


Uhm, you mean like the Nazis couldn't impose their "universal" racial superiority upon the Jews? (Sorry about the Godwin, but it's the first thing to come to mind)

If you have a real sense of the gravity of what you reference, you would know that it took a great deal more than an internet post. If that's all it took, the folks over at Stormfront would already be in charge.

The restraint on action (especially action invigorated with the weight of law) should be more considered than restraint on debate.



I didn't call anyone mentally impaired for exploring an idea. I did so for the belief that that idea was universal, when even the context within which that idea occurs is not necessary.:)

I don't think anyone was suggesting that chipmunks, volcanoes, and all humans must always have government, I think the idea was, if something is a government, what things should it be doing to earn the title.

AN, you are so emphatically aggrieved when anyone applies stringent terminology to what you say, yet you do so freely to others, you know?

You've made your own value judgements on government, on your hopes and preferences, are you imposing anything? No, you're voicing your view, and everyone else here can do the same. That such discourse could have impact is the reality of living in a world with other people.

I never claimed my views were universal truth though, now did I?


Well, if your comment applied to "nobody", then why make it?

To add punch to the point I was making?

The fact is, you said that anyone that didn't see a certain thing that you see is mentally impaired.

Such people don't exist anywhere?

If they do exist, then you did say they were mentally impaired.

If they don't exist, then applying your own universal preconception to them is quite self contradictory to much of what you've written.

Except I don't hold my standard of "mentally impaired" to be universal truth.

You were talking about logical self contradictions?

Yes, why?


As, so as long as you paint with a broad brush, "not specifically aimed at anybody", the shotgun approach to "general derision" is useful?

Yes.

Thus far, the only person here saying "Don't do this, don't do that, as long as you don't do this, you may do that" is you.

Not to universal standards. Just to the convention of definitions and logic which most people seem to agree on. I didn't claim to have any moral high-ground except in that context.

So, you can insult, and not more. That will certainly hold the tyrants at bay.

Your point?

Well, since you've admitted to general derision, then backpedalled out of your comment, by claiming that when you applied a term and later claimed you weren't applying it to anyone, there isn't much more that needs illustrating.

General derision is aimed at nobody in particular. That's the point. That was the point all along. I'm glad you are finally getting there.

I never claimed my views were universal truth though, now did I?

Did the OP claim their version of government was "universal truth"? Did I? No.



To add punch to the point I was making?

If your points need that kind of punch, consider working on their content, not the "general derision" frosting. It may be less meaningful than you think.


Except I don't hold my standard of "mentally impaired" to be universal truth.

Not to universal standards. Just to the convention of definitions and logic which most people seem to agree on. I didn't claim to have any moral high-ground except in that context.

General derision is aimed at nobody in particular. That's the point. That was the point all along. I'm glad you are finally getting there.

Ah, more of that general derision. I've tried to be both polite and on topic with you, AN.

But your "general derision", since its aimed at nobody in particular and doesn't truly add anything to your argument, can only be an expression of what is truly inside you.

I"m going to shoot some pool and go to bed.

I honestly hope things get better for you.

This is a debate forum. Examing an idea verbally doesn't force anything on you, and if you are so afraid that the fruits of debate will be forced on you, be politically active outside the internet. If you are already, thats the best you can do, but you can't eclipse other's right to discuss an idea just because you don't like where it might lead.

I wasn't eclipsing anyone's right to discuss. I was merely pointing out that the discussion was stretching itself over certain boundaries that exist.


That is reason to participate in the discourse, even in a commune, the actions of others will affect you. Deal.

As for the explanation, if a post on the internet "imposes" something on you, counter it in a more cogent way then your "general derision", you can reimpose your own universals by simply not accepting those that you find unpersuasive. But that doesn't have to include occluding the discussion itself as "mentally impaired".

Honestly, AN, your comment really came across that way.

Tough. For someone who preaches the insignificance of such a discussion you sure are sensitive to that "mentally impaired".


If you have a real sense of the gravity of what you reference, you would know that it took a great deal more than an internet post. If that's all it took, the folks over at Stormfront would already be in charge.

The restraint on action (especially action invigorated with the weight of law) should be more considered than restraint on debate.

I don't dispute this. Never did.


I don't think anyone was suggesting that chipmunks, volcanoes, and all humans must always have government, I think the idea was, if something is a government, what things should it be doing to earn the title.

Of course, and that's what I was pointing to.

AN, you are so emphatically aggrieved when anyone applies stringent terminology to what you say, yet you do so freely to others, you know?

And here I was thinking that makes my point more pertinent, by both raising the point and providing the example.

Again, you interpret this only as to be able to carry on this off-topic argument.

Did the OP claim their version of government was "universal truth"?

Yes. "Universal" remember?

Did I? No.

Did I say you did?

If your points need that kind of punch, consider working on their content, not the "general derision" frosting. It may be less meaningful than you think.

Points all have their meaning, and I have explained mine again and again. If the form bothers you, then that's your problem really.


Ah, more of that general derision. I've tried to be both polite and on topic with you, AN.

So I'm rude. Your point?

But your "general derision", since its aimed at nobody in particular and doesn't truly add anything to your argument, can only be an expression of what is truly inside you.

I"m going to shoot some pool and go to bed.

I honestly hope things get better for you.

Wow. Freudian and sympathetic. Did I just make a friend here?:rolleyes:

I wasn't eclipsing anyone's right to discuss. I was merely pointing out that the discussion was stretching itself over certain boundaries that exist.

No, you were not that polite, and your comment went beyond that.



Tough. For someone who preaches the insignificance of such a discussion you sure are sensitive to that "mentally impaired".

I didn't say insignificant, I said that the debate doesn't impose anything on you in and of itself, and its potential to eventually do so is a fact of living on a planet with other humans.


I don't dispute this. Never did.

Ah, but you did when you drew the comparison between an internet post and the Holocaust. You implied, very clearly, that the imposition of the Third Reich was somehow comparable to a discussion of what would be a good standard for defining a goverment in more elaborate terms.


Of course, and that's what I was pointing to.

So, now you claim it was mere redundancy? That you were pointing out that doing something other than what was already being done was "impaired"?

Seriously, Ad Nihilo, you can say "Tough" but your comment carried more than you are owning up to.


And here I was thinking that makes my point more pertinent, by both raising the point and providing the example.

Again, you interpret this only as to be able to carry on this off-topic argument.

Well, I'll go to bed, then. Really, though, if you are so concerned with the topic of discussion, please honestly consider less derision and more crafting of an argument.

So, let's see, a society where a group of people if they so choose could form a commune but are not obliged to serve in one... sounds almost like libertarianism (shock horror).

Not even remotely. You forget that the Spanish Anarchists weren't exactly inclined to respect private property.

Edit: Well, not capitalist "libertarianism", anyway.

No, you were not that polite, and your comment went beyond that.

That's what you read into it. Nobody else seems to have taken it for more than it was intended to be :)

I didn't say insignificant, I said that the debate doesn't impose anything on you in and of itself, and its potential to eventually do so is a fact of living on a planet with other humans.

So why exactly do you have an issue with one idle comment?


Ah, but you did when you drew the comparison between an internet post and the Holocaust. You implied, very clearly, that the imposition of the Third Reich was somehow comparable to a discussion of what would be a good standard for defining a goverment in more elaborate terms.

No, darling, I was giving an example of what may happen when people impose universals on others in real life, and why it's probably a good idea to keep the discussion within the limit of general rather than universal. Don't make this more than it is. I've already explained a few times that I don't have a problem with the object of the debate, only with the extent to which it wants to reach.


So, now you claim it was mere redundancy? That you were pointing out that doing something other than what was already being done was "impaired"?

No, what was being done was trying to establish "universal" standards of government and my point was to limit it to "general".

Seriously, Ad Nihilo, you can say "Tough" but your comment carried more than you are owning up to.

Only to you it did. Now if I had a penny everytime someone's sensibility has been offended by the form of what I say rather than the contents...


Well, I'll go to bed, then. Really, though, if you are so concerned with the topic of discussion, please honestly consider less derision and more crafting of an argument.

Derision carries a message. Maybe you will be more likely to understand that in the morning. Night night (Oz?).

No, what was being done was trying to establish "universal" standards of government and my point was to limit it to "general".
If we find rules that apply to every government on earth concerning human beings, then that is in fact good enough. Rather than calling it "general", I'd much rather say "Universal Standards for Human Government", because that is what I'm talking about. "General" leaves the option for an exception to the rule, it leaves an allowance for an error committed during the generalisation process. There can be no such error if we were to follow this thread properly.

Which of course no one is doing. :p

If we find rules that apply to every government on earth concerning human beings, then that is in fact good enough. Rather than calling it "general", I'd much rather say "Universal Standards for Human Government", because that is what I'm talking about. "General" leaves the option for an exception to the rule, it leaves an allowance for an error committed during the generalisation process. There can be no such error if we were to follow this thread properly.

Which of course no one is doing. :p

Well, you know, noble purpose and everything, but there will always be an exception somewhere down the line, as it should be. It is not within human nature to be particularly consistent.;)

Well, you know, noble purpose and everything, but there will always be an exception somewhere down the line, as it should be. It is not within human nature to be particularly consistent.;)
Obviously. But if that deviation leads to death, as it must if it really is an exception, we don't have to concern ourselves with it.

Obviously. But if that deviation leads to death, as it must if it really is an exception, we don't have to concern ourselves with it.

Death?:confused:

Death?:confused:
Yeah. If people suddenly do something that isn't what people do, they'll die. I'm talking about that basic facts of human nature.

Yeah. If people suddenly do something that isn't what people do, they'll die. I'm talking about that basic facts of human nature.

Well, no. Outcasting, isolation, ostracisation are just as likely.

Not even remotely. You forget that the Spanish Anarchists weren't exactly inclined to respect private property.


True but there were many different anarchist groups actually, and a lot of the time communities would just willingly have their property redistributed, and often communities would stay as they are since the concept of anarchism was not popular enough. It wasn't all violent class struggles.

So why exactly do you have an issue with one idle comment?

Because, even by your own admission, it was derisive and rude. The only message that carries is that you are derisive and rude, and a good point has no need of that kind of "punch".


No, what was being done was trying to establish "universal" standards of government and my point was to limit it to "general".

Here are two common yet slightly different uses of the term "universal" (both from the dictionary, since you clarified for me that you were emphasizing definition):

1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide.

AND

2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration.. This is a common dictionary definition of "universal" used in a certain way, and makes the most sense in context. The class of things under consideration was "governments".

So, we can discuss the universal qualities of the members of the group "governments", even if governments need not exist. Again, this second definition is equally valid, and makes much more sense in context than the usage you assumed.

You talk about people not understanding the words they use, I'm just asking that you consider the possibility that the second definition might be applied here by people who are neither mentally impaired nor deserving of derision. Understood in context, this kind of universalization doesn't force anything at all on you, especially not anything comparable to the holocaust.

For example, suppose someone had the preconception that the word "universal" could only mean #1 above, when #2 is just as possible and more cogent in context. Would they have the right to impose that on others? Instead, maybe acknowledge that both usages are possible, and the 2nd one fits better, and doesn't impose anything on you.


Only to you it did. Now if I had a penny everytime someone's sensibility has been offended by the form of what I say rather than the contents...

Then cash those coins in for the understanding that content with merit deserves better than the patina of deprecation that can only serve to obscure its insight to the audience, not magnify it.


Derision carries a message. Maybe you will be more likely to understand that in the morning. Night night (Oz?).

Yes, derision carries a message. It tells the world something about you.

You've talked about hope for humanity. That hope stands a much greater chance of fruition in the absence of your caustic derision.

AN, your ideas can be important; if you really want to convey them and if you are sincere in their intrinsic worth and not just the opportunity to ascerbically "correct" others, please at least consider substituting your delivery with something less abrasive. Your thoughts can be worth it.

Yeah. If people suddenly do something that isn't what people do, they'll die. I'm talking about that basic facts of human nature.

If we limit these doings to dangerous or maladaptive behaviours, that can happen, but I don't think it always does.

Sometimes, innovative action need not be nonviable to a fatal extent, or even at all.

One might even posit that it those who have engaged in behaviours that "just aren't done" that offer at least some opportunity for advance, for expansion of the bounds of "what people do".

sure there's a universal standard: don't destroy the web of life we all depend on and don't tell someone else to do or not do what you can't, won't or don't, set the example of doing or not doing yourself.

=^^=
.../\...

snip

All one needs in life is the patience to deal with fools and the thick cheek to deal with the sensitive.

We took 3 pages of debating because you felt insulted. Are we ready to move on now?

All one needs in life is the patience to deal with fools and the thick cheek to deal with the sensitive.

We took 3 pages of debating because you felt insulted. Are we ready to move on now?

Okay ignore that I "felt" insulted (even though you've admitted that you were rude, derisive, and insulting, at least in general). But fine, forget that.

Can you respond to the actual point that was made?

The term "universal", has a dictionary definition consistent with the context that was used wherein it applies properties to a particular group or class under discussion, meaning one can apply that meaning of "universal" standard to something that need not exist, and in such a way that it doesn't force anything on anyone.

This substantially refutes your opening post on this thread.

You respond so intensely to anyone you feel is imposing something on you through language, and accuse others of "not even understanding the meanings of the words they use", yet look at your own ire raised on this thread, the way you've imposed your own preconceptions about what "universal" means when there are other dictionary definitions that fit the context better.

I'm sorry if that makes me foolish or sensitive. Maybe I have my own hopes for people (and perhaps mine are also without reason).