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.
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.
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 !!! !
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
It seems to me that not one person that commented in the "Yes" side of this opinion has any idea what the government currently does or how the government actually works. I find that oddly funny.
All in all the government as it stands today here in the US is beyond unnecessary. It is without a doubt, detrimental to the people, almost to the point of being scary. Today they continue down the path of the militarization of police, the desolation of basic human rights, the continued unjust and unlawful wars (which only benefit the industrialized military complex), the eroding of the middle class and the poor, the endless taxes and fees, the Fed's smoke and mirror show to boost the national debt and keep people enslaved. Meanwhile, you have the corporate leaning "protection agencies" such as the FDA, EPA, USDA who are bought and paid for by large multi-billion dollar corporations who's interest isn't in keeping you from getting ill, but in fact the complete opposite. The fear mongering propaganda machine (also bought and paid for by those same corporations) are brainwashing the public into thinking that the government is going to save them from all their wows. This is far from true. Free markets can and will prevail for anything that is necessary. That's how free markets work. Innovation would skyrocket, your life would become easier, and you'd have all that other 50% of your money that's currently stolen from you at gun point or threat of being caged, to help your fellow man, maybe you'll start up a new business doing something you love, who knows. The choice would be yours.
There may be some type of need for a non-obtrusive, volunteer "governing body". Not so much to make laws, but to be used as more of a "guidance council". They could offer assistance in finding people to cover services that weren't previously covered in certain areas, they could assist in disagreements or questions of morality. They could be tasked with spreading ingenuity and newer technologies into areas where they would be prove to be helpful. Don't really know exactly, but you get the idea...
Just remember 'Muricah is only #1... In launching unjustified wars, incarceration rate, and obesity!
The more chaos, chaos in this case meaning less control, the more free you are. Crime happens, even with our government, and also a lot of crime being committed by the government. We know through things like the Silk Road that when, "illegal" things become easier to get it decreases the violence. Without the government there would be less violence. It would almost be necessary for all people to own guns, but if everyone owned a gun then there would be a lot less violence because criminals fear people with guns. Look at any place in the world; the absence of guns increases crime, and the more guns there are the less crime.
I feel that governments can bring about more chaos and disorder than what people think. I feel that people don't need other human beings telling them how to live. You may say America is "free" but think about this, you're being watched and monitored 24/7 and if the police state get one whiff of "criminal activity" they bust your door down and start shooting. We don't need fellow humans forcing us to follow THEIR "way of living."
It's immaterial whether it's necessary or not. It's immoral and must therefor be abolished. The same issue surrounded the abolishment of slavery - which had existed for thousands of years beforehand (and still does in many places). People screamed and complained, that the sky would fall, the economy would collapse without slavery. Yet, no such thing happened. Government is the same. It is based on and funded by the immoral involuntary expropriation of funds by an occupying force of armed men. Taxation is only enforceable at the point of a gun, and is therefor theft. Moreover, many of the stolen funds are used for nefarious ends such as the development, production AND USE (!!!) of nuclear weapons, something unlikely to have occured without the wealth extractive power of the centralised state. Wake up - it's the kings and queens living in pomp and funding their armies - just as in the old days