Exactly! Unless you can come up with a better system for not forcing people to be subjected to laws they do not agree with.
If everyone gets a veto then no legislation would ever get passed and we would have a useless institution…what’s the point of it? Why not just impliment Anarchy?
The point is that society could not start another form of government, which the elites would try to do.
The elites would have no basis for legitimacy and those in an Anarchist society would violently resist them.
Exactly! Why 100%, why not any willing percent?
You are already doing that though, your system still doesn’t bind the non-voters. By your own logic all non-voters and infants would be dragged in as well.
They’d have to agree before we know that they agree.
Government is force.
But that assertion is tautological. People need government because people need government is what I’m getting out of your logic so far. I’m not saying people don’t want to organize and form orderly societies, but rather that order is not the mother of liberty, but liberty is the mother of order in this case (I think I’m quoting Proudhoun… o_O) as individuals must be free to organize for their own survival in the first place. Thus, again, what you have just described is a free market because it fits each and every property of a free marke t(1. People own their persons in whole and the results of their persons (their property). 2. People are responsible for what they do with their persons and property. 3. People owe no debt inherent to each other in regards to their persons and property. These are just three properties that I would say you would need to have a free market at the minimum.). So, again, why are you trying to redefine the term government into something it’s not (government does not necessarily mean state)?
The problem is that people will not stay anarchist. The basis for my reasoning is that HBO had a show about a western town that existed before it became a part of the U.S (I cannot remember the name of it). The show was based on a true story. The town was completely anarchist. No government whatsoever. Then the town “leaders” decided to create a city government, and the sheeple just followed in line and voted for officers for the new city government.
No, government and force are not synonyms.
I think they are. If there’s no force then all you have is contractual agreements, not government. The system you’re describing is practical anarchy, or no-government.
It seems to me, spidey, that you have restated the market anarchist position in a manner which those who are still infatuated with democracy would find acceptable. I can see how such a system might serve as a sort of transitional phase for such individuals. It is effectively a polycentric, democratically created legal order. But the polycentric nature of it makes all the difference.
It actually sort of reminds me of the “representative participatory democracy” in L. Neil Smith’s The Probability Broach.
Government is the territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making with the power to tax. Force is inherent in its conception.
I disagree; wouldn’t government occur (in the form of self-government, and the interaction of the sovereign individual in said stateless society) regardless of the existience of The State, & it’s de-centralized represenative institutions?
Ah, someone who gets it.
In essence, yes it is anarchy, since the government could not function. But the problem I find with pure anarchy, as I have already stated, is that people will form a government eventually. This is why we need a true democracy, one ruled by absolute majority rule, a 100% majority, to be a check on any other form of government people may try to conceive. The purpose of said government would also be for people to show to others that they did vote on presented legislation, and that they were against it, and that implementing it would be tyranny.
Ok, now you are just wildly speculating about the behaviors of people you don’t even know or have even been conceived. If the people became Anarchist and had access to infrastructure and natural capital then it would make no sense for them to give up all of their natural rights.
On a side note, why do you call them sheeple? Do you feel that all people are in fact “sheeple” and there is only a small minority who are in fact intelligent?
Yes. My guess is ~1% of the population is acutally “intelligent”.
I think we are just talking past each other here - I don’t separate the conception of “State” and “government.”
I am writing an essay about government, and I was wondering if anyone could point me to some articles and/or books that talk about government. Especially helpful would be if you could direct me to an article/essay/book about the history of governments.
I would strongly recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book, The Myth of National Defense. Also, this is an essay of his which touches on the subject.