I address this post at Strangeloop.
Basically, why do we need a governement?
We don’t “need” one; peoples have existed without government. However, I believe the best societies–historically–have developed only where democratic political institutions have organically developed alongside other community norms.
“The Right’s view of government and the Left’s view of big business are both correct.” – Robert Anton Wilson
Which question are you asking?
Strangeloop is a utlitarian. You answered your own question: it’s “good”.
What are you saying, God dammit, can you be more precise lol?
Do we “need” one or do we not “need” one?
Human communities have existed without contemporary political institutions, so government is not “needed” in that sense.
However, our best evidence suggests that government is needed to help cultivate free, prosperous, and peaceful societies.
Of course, that is in regard to good governance; bad governance is a drastic impediment (if not altogether destructive) of civilization.
Alright, that’s an appealing argument. Can you offer some proof and be more detailed?
Also, I’m curious on how you define “bad governance” and “good governance”.
Call me a cynic, but I don’t care about society. I care about myself, my children and loved ones, my friends and so on. Hit me with your “best evidence” that government exists in my interest.
Clayton -
strangeloop:
Human communities have existed without contemporary political institutions, so government is not “needed” in that sense.However, our best evidence suggests that government is needed to help cultivate free, prosperous, and peaceful societies.
Of course, that is in regard to good governance; bad governance is a drastic impediment (if not altogether destructive) of civilization.
Govmt. comes about from individuals,for the sake of ease. ie, granting authority by relinquishing responsibility. Govmt. regulates, therefore cannot cultivate freedom. A population not free, will at best not keep its prosperity, at worst never achieve it. Good or bad governance? To whom? By whom? Over whom? To what end? All govmt. is subjective and for the “public good”. Who is the public? Everyone else.
Anyone who wants to coerce people for their own good, I would ask why there shouldn’t be an option to opt out for those who really want to. Say make it a long and bureaucratic process, but if you really want to opt out you can. And should it merely be forcing people to save/spend their own money, or should we be forced to pay for each others? And why does it have to be government run? Those reasons lead me to believe that the whole “we are just forcing people to do what they’re are too stupid to take care of themselves” argument is an excuse and they really just like socialism.
Well, that we don’t need a government in the economy doesn’t mean we need no government altogether. I feel Austrians are a little quick to jump from ‘separation of economy and state’ to anarchism.
“To govern is to conquer” - Me
There is no redeeming value for the subject populace in being plundered, raped and pillaged. It might be said that people don’t object to the conditions of their conquest so it’s “efficient” - to borrow the latest euphemism coming out of economists’ Government Apologetics Dept. - but this is a rather circular situation since the masses are bred for servility much like domesticated animals are bred for their docility. This the truest and darkest purpose of wealth redistribution, to cuckold the productive and innovative and force them to raise the offspring of the dull and servile. The more successful the system of wealth redistribution, the more rapidly the conquered population is being bred into servility.
Clayton -