Amazon.com Widgets
  • Government is necessary

    Because without government and laws there would be people running up and down the streets killing each other. With no police officers enforcing the law or with out any laws at all, our country would be in total chaos and crisis. Also because of no taxes we wouldn't have the army so we wouldn't have any protection from an invasion.

  • Yes, because human beings are selfish.

    Human beings are selfish, in a country without an institution to set the rules and laws and to ensure compliance with those laws, there would be too many people taking advantage of others and acting for their and their cronies' own benefits. There are different kinds of people everywhere and there will always be abuse by the ones who consider themselves to be stronger than others.

  • Absence of government is stupidity in a world where nations act aggressively. And the world we live is still aggressive.

    Absence of government is stupidity in a world where nations act aggressively.
    By choosing not to have a government and so an army , you increase dramatically the possibility of a government of another state to intrude you.
    So you end up with a government in either case !!! !

  • It is necessary until we innovate ways to control society with little or no physical force.

    I think government is necessary until we can organize ourselves enough to fund and create the services less forcibly. Government is a physical force, but I am sure there is a way to use psychological forces to keep people stable before they get mad and kill someone. We need to monitor peoples bio signs to ensure people are safe. A peak of adrenaline would essentially not only alarm your body but also the higher powers of social control. I say higher powers instead of government because government has physical force connotations. The system would electronically and cellularly arm you if you are in danger or dis arm you if you are a threat to society. I describe this system  in more detail on my latest blog post about stopping violence
    http://envisioningthefuturefortheworld.Blogspot.Com/
    Essentially everyone has the power to protect themselves but no power to harm innocent people. Even knives could have locking devices. Everyone would be trained in the ways of non-violent resolution yet also be ready to revolt if the higher powers are not listening to the concerns of the people. There needs to be a responsible balance of powers in this world. Everyone could be made responsible enough to manage small peace keeping forces. There would be a way set out for you to follow if you want this power and more. There needs to be a conspiracy of the lower classes to organize themselves to speak up for their rights and they need to conspire to create jobs for themselves as well. 

    What do you guys think, can we lead the world to become like this and be more peaceful through social controls and checks and balances on everyone?

  • Yes

    Government is very necessary or nothing would ever get decided. We need someone to make sure that laws are being followed and that people are brought together to work towards one thing. I do think that there is such a thing as too much government but we do have to have some in order to make life work.

  • 100% yes

    Without an enforcing government to have justice and keep the peace, i do believe that the human race would turn on itself and descend into chaos. Our personalities and even our families lend themselves towards governence. Without it, we would have no organization, no services, and no police. Education would be spotty, we would be thrown back into a stone-age like existance.

  • Yes, imagine life without it.

    Government is part of having a civilized society with a sense of order and safety and stability. Though there are many anti-government libertarians, all one has to do is visit a chaotic part of the world that lacks effective government, such as Somalia, to see how necessary it is to human survival and happiness.

  • Yes, government is necessary

    The question as posed is improperly formed and way too vague. Considering government in any structure - federal, local, state, etc., it is absolutely necessary. We must be a society of laws. Any time a group gets together to decide on those laws, you in essence have a governing body, or government. If the question was designed to be directed to the federal government, then again, yes it is necessary, but to a hugely limited fashion, not as it is today, primarily for the protection of its citizens and the overall governance of the states.

  • Yes i think government is necessary.

    I think government is necessary because if we didn't have government then people would do anything they want. Say like if we have no laws then allot of people will be dead. And have no army then any country can just come in and take over. So thats why I think government is necessary. K. Marshall

  • Protection paying taxes laws

    For protection of warfare and if any countries try to attack us. Another thing is paying taxes so we can send our troops out there for help that we need. There are laws that people don't follow but us citizens must try to follow them. People are understood about the crisis that is going on with Obama with Russia and Syria about the war.

  • Government is inherently immoral

    Why are supermarkets orderly? Are there police officers negotiating the traffic? No. People voluntarily create implicit rules among themselves because it's beneficial to do so. No government is needed. Government is the most violent institution that has ever existed. Millions killed by government in the past century. Look at the US in the middle east having killed over 100K in the past decade alone. Government is a monopoly on socially sanctioned violence in a given geographic area. It is not needed and it is mostly harmful and a complete disgrace.

  • Laws in a Stateless Society

    Government and the Initiation of Force

    Government is predicated upon the initiation of force. For example, if you were to stop paying your taxes, you would get a letter from the IRS saying you owe such and such amount. They would keep sending you these letters for a while, but eventually they would send a group of men with badges and guns to throw you in a cage for not giving this institution YOUR money.

    Laws in a Stateless Society

    Courts are often crowded because of overcriminalization (prosecuting individuals for victimless crimes) and there is no price associated with criminal cases. Cases often get plea bargained because prosecutors have an incentive to have high conviction rates, not to serve their clients since they are paid by the state. This often means that crimes that are easier to prosecute get more attention.

    Also you have the current problem where people sue each other willy nilly. This problem could be solved by simply requiring the person who brings suit to pay for the defendant's legal expenses if the defendant is proven innocent of any wrongdoing.

    Also the victim of a crime in our current system gets screwed twice. Once by the offender who perpetrated the crime, then again by the state, which confiscates his wealth in order to pay for the prosecution and housing of the criminal. Historically private law was centered around compensating the victim financially.

    In absence of a state professional judges would emerge that would make decisions based on a commonly established practices which could be codified into a law book. This would be analogous to how dictionaries codify definitions for words, you don’t need a central body to come up with new words and definitions, language emerges spontaneously. So too, law would be established in this way and in fact this is what English common law is based on, communal law that was established and accepted by the community. Similarly customs would emerge for the amount of times you can appeal, based on the crime committed.

    Private law would solve many of the above problems listed. It would eliminate overcriminalization (it would be unlikely that someone would bring suit against someone for using drugs), it would focus on restitution and lawyers would be working for the victims instead of simply working for a high conviction rate.

    For more on this read:
    http://www.Amazon.Com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/1598130447
    http://www.Amazon.Com/Anarchy-Law-Political-Economy-Choice/dp/1412805791/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y

  • We don't know what life would be like.

    Everybody says that it would be crazy and chaotic without government. Maybe they are right, but we do not know that for sure. We have not always had a government since the beginning. Man created it. So why not at least try for a non-governed country. If other countries can then why couldn't we? We don't know what it would be like. That is a fact, but I don't think that we should just assume it would be terrible. I believe that humans would be able to keep a stable environment without being governed.

  • Somalia Doing Better Without a State

    Actually Somalia is Doing Better without a state (see this article: http://mises.Org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia)

    Life expectancy, adult literacy, death rate and GDP per capita has increased in the absence of a state.

    When we compare a stateless society to a society with a state we need to compare apples to apples, ie Somalia with a state vs. Somalia without a state or countries similar to Somalia. It wouldn't make sense to compare Somalia with the US because Somalia is a “developing nation” and wouldn't have a standard of living comparable to the US even if it had a state.

  • Government is only necessary for those who will not self govern

    We've been convinced that government is necessary for our entire lives, mainly by governments. In fact, governments cause more problems than they prevent. Prior to a UN requirement that Somalia have a formal government, Somalia was a nation without leadership. Things were peaceful there. With the UN requirement that a government be instituted came the power hungry. That's just a single case.

  • Police in a Stateless Society

    Police in a Stateless Society

    It is an illusion that police keep us safe in our current society. They are typically not proactive and usually respond after a crime has already taken place. Also if the police were so good at their jobs why do businesses find it necessary to hire security guards, buy security systems, cameras, alarm systems, safes, and complex locks. Why are their private investigators, forensic labs, etc?

    The reason these things exist is precisely because police don’t actually deter crime. In fact they have no incentive too. Instead of relying on consumers to demonstrate demand for security services, police are forced on the public and often, since they have a monopoly on the use of force are often abusive towards their “customers” instead of serving and protecting them. If a police officer assaults an individual people automatically assume that the officer is justified and there is no recourse for the victim. If an alarm service company sent out one of its officers to your home and he assaulted you, you would likely stop patronizing that company, sue the company as well as the individual, and write a nasty review of the company on Angie’s list. Unfortunately you can’t stop patronizing your local police station if one of its officers assaults you, you will usually be assumed to be in the wrong unless you record the incident and you will usually be the one who gets into trouble.

    In the absence of a state security firms, alarm companies, private investigators, and private forensic labs would proliferate and provide the services that police currently do, only much cheaper and much better.

    For more on this read:
    http://www.Amazon.Com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/1598130447
    http://www.Amazon.Com/Anarchy-Law-Political-Economy-Choice/dp/1412805791/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y

    Education
    http://rt.Com/usa/nyc-graduates-unable-to-read-011/

    Consider the article above: 80% of high school graduates in New York City coming into community college failed the entry test and had to relearn basic skills. The reason our education system is so poor is precisely because the government does such a poor job educating children.

    The schools that perform poorly are rewarded with more money (this is reminiscent of the wall street bailouts). This practice creates moral hazard. If education was privatized the schools would have to compete for parent’s dollars. The schools that receive the most patronage are those that would provided the best education for the cheapest price and competition would drive prices down and education quality up. Also if you care about the poor being educated wouldn’t you voluntarily donate to schools that educate the poor? If not, then you are a hypocrite, if so then there is no need for government to be involved in education anyway.

    Conclusion

    I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here so this is just a brief expose on why we don’t need government. For more on how we can have order in absence of a state see my links above as well as below.

    For more on this read:
    http://library.Mises.Org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto.Pdf
    http://www.Freedomainradio.Com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.Pdf
    http://library.Mises.Org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Power%20and%20Market%20Government%20and%20the%20Economy.Pdf

  • Do you support violence against the non-violent? If you say no, you're an Anarchist.

    If there was no government, would you go out first thing and rape a child, murder a stranger, or do cocaine? If the answer is no, you're in the majority, and the majority suppresses the minority no matter what. Most people believe in non-aggression, but the government is inherently violent, that's just a fact. Get rid of it, and get real. Pull you're head out of you're ass. I bet you you're already half-way there.

  • If you think government is necessary then you lack the ability to think for yourself.

    My opinion no type of government works. We might have a chance if we start thinking on a global scale. Very hard to accomplish though the entire wold needs to be on the same page...Check out The Venus Project-A new world system I found on YouTube... Hit the nail on the head

  • If you think government is necessary then you lack the ability to think for yourself.

    My opinion no type of government works. We might have a chance if we start thinking on a global scale. Very hard to accomplish though the entire wold needs to be on the same page...Check out The Venus Project-A new world system I found on YouTube... Hit the nail on the head

  • Government is by very definition immoral.

    First, we must define what a government is. A common definition of a government is "the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community". From this definition we can see that the role of a government is to control a group of people.
    How does an organization, such as the government, control groups of people? One might say that a government could convince said people to do as they said through negotiations(mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement) and peaceful contracts, but this would be a contradiction because at the point that negotiation is reached, no control is being exercised, because of the nature mutuality of negotiations, and thus the organization in question is no longer defined as a government.
    Thus the only way that a government can truly control a group of people is by coercion(force or the power to use force in gaining compliance). It is known almost universally by people and cultures throughout the history of the human race that the use of force to obtain ones goals is wrong. It is a moral absolute that coercion in any instance other than that of protection of ones self, property, or others selves or properties. One would not think it moral for a man to beat another man with a club because the other man did not sing him a song. Similarly, it is not moral for a government to fine, jail, or shoot a citizen because the citizen did not pay the government money or ingested a flora that the government did not happen to like.
    This brings up the argument that the purpose of a government is to protect the citizens, and therefore all associated violence is justified. However, this is simply not true. For violence to be justified in the name of defense, it must only be used in the process of protection and not as a means of impelling people innocent of any threat of harm to submit to the will of the user of the violence. One would not consider it moral if a man demanded that another man give him money to pay for a gun to protect himself, even if the man will also use the gun to protect the other man. It is not moral for a government to demand its citizens to give it money to pay for a military to protect itself, even if it promises to protect the citizens as well.
    This was only a short introduction to the reasoning behind the immorality and therefore unusefulness of a government.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Quan says2013-06-18T16:36:49.263
Limited government is necessary.