> "We need government!"
For what?
To form a collective and seize an illegitimate authority of "arbitrary compulsion under threat of violence" that no member individually posses?
I don't have the authority to violate the natural rights of another person.
An arbitrary group of people exerting supposed authority (that none of them have individually), and calling it "Government", is a brazen, illegitimate, out and open criminal enterprise.
> we need government
Explain why we *need* that.
This is a very good question.
I believe that this manipulation to make us want someone to rule over us is as old as time. Perhaps the original conspiracy.
@eriner @EvolLove It is the original conspiracy—and the original rebellion. It’s what’s really going on in Genesis 3:5. The entire Bible and its commentary on human sin is really about this one thing. Humanity’s falling short is not about a piece of fruit. It’s about taking power for ourselves in the hope of constructing our own paradise on our terms.
@eriner The urge to form a "governemnt", or join/support a way of organizing a society in order to exert power over "the other" is perhaps a consequence of human nature, or at least responding to unbridled base instincts.
I guess one could construe unbridled base instincts as a "need"
Moral relativist look to the state to set the morality for the nation. They “need” government because they don’t trust themselves or others to be moral individuals without a nanny state.
@eriner Did you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers?
Why pretend not to know their arguments?
@Best What relevance does that have?
@eriner I don't know, go eat a bratwurst, you fat fuck. :)
@eriner What if the people in one location agree to form a local government for practical reason? Then it is ok, and because it is practical to coordinate activities and organize commonly used spaces or facilities.
because people often disagree on facts. because people violate others' rights, even when they try not to. because some issues have to be decided together, and then some people refuse to accept the outcomes.
and most of us think that the solution to these failures of your theory translating well to reality, shouldn't be the bigger or wealthier or more dangerous clan getting what they want.
@eriner @wjmaggos If people disagree on facts, including what rights people have, or whether rights even exist, how will they “decide issues together”?
Also, bigger, wealthier, and more dangerous clans getting what they want is the direct, demonstrable, and consistent result of the state throughout human history. In fact, it’s essentially the definition of what the state is.
@eriner Give me everything you know about the Madison vs.Henry debate in 30 seconds.
Oh, that's tight you know nothing, literal fuck-all. STFU, FATTY.
you're right about clans becoming governments. monarchies, not liberal democracies. liberal democratic governments are imperfect, but better than what you seem to be conceding your idealistic society would devolve into (since you avoided my argument).
in liberal democracies, we give power to governments and institutions to resolve the conflicts. we teach civics. we participate. but ultimately we do accept their force upon us, even when we disagree with its decisions.
We need a government for the simple reason that we've got a society that depends on it. As much as I'd like to do without a government, you can't simply turn back the clock to pre-agrarian times.
And redesigning society to do without a government is not only hard, how would you even expect other people to get on board with this new society?