For what purpose ought government to exist?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Stizzles Except that you can't really represent your own interests after you're dead. And self-defense doesn't always work. And you won't always be capable of getting revenge.

Who says you have to die, given a healthy support network? And I agree, self-defense doens't always work, which is why an entire community should be on guard against any truly violent and deranged people. For this, you don't need to relegate responsibilities to a special group of people.

My statement about revenge was merely a conditional one. A society shouldn't be founded largely on attutudes of revenge and oppression. Instead, the attitude should be one of solidarity and egalitarianism.

Quote by: Stizzles In fact, you are merely suggesting a judicial system of a different kind: Rule by grandpa. If grandpa wants to use force against you, all you can do is defend yourself. If grandpa wants to take something from you, all you can do is defend yourself.

I don't recall advocating a judicial system of any kind, honestly. I especially know I said nothing about my ruling other people. I certainly wouldn't want the human world to go in that direction, or to go in any direction where it is ruled by elite groups. This is why I never mentioned my using force on anyone. What I have argued is that the state is intended to rule by force, by theft, by chicanery. There's a big difference between my taking that position and my utilizing such means personally.

Grandpa h.

[Objectivist]

My belief:

Government's only proper role and position is to secure and protect its citizens life. Which also means the government protects a citizen's property (extension of one's life), a citizen's freedom to make his own choices, and to protect its citizen's right to do whatever he wishes to do, as long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Government does not have a useful/proper role in its citizens economy, religion, culture, etc.

[Domino]

Government's only proper role and position is to secure and protect its citizens life. Which also means the government protects a citizen's property (extension of one's life), a citizen's freedom to make his own choices, and to protect its citizen's right to do whatever he wishes to do, as long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others.

This sounds very similar to my beliefs, except I generally put it in broader terms: there are two types of freedom that are more important to a human life than any others: freedom from oppression and freedom of opportunity.

I really should have mentioned that in the title post. I think I shall. edit: It seems I am unable.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Domino This sounds very similar to my beliefs, except I generally put it in broader terms: there are two types of freedom that are more important to a human life than any others: freedom from oppression and freedom of opportunity. I really should have mentioned that in the title post. I think I shall. edit: It seems I am unable.

What do you mean by "freedom from oppression and freedom of opportunity"?

As long as a human has the right to do what he freely chooses, he is free from oppression. As long as a government doesn't stop a human from being employed by a company, working for whoever they want, or going to a hospital, school, etc. of their choice, they have freedom of opportunity.

[xyzer]

All one has to do is watch the program..Orangutan Island on the tube to realize why some sort of government is necessary?
Without some central direction and control, behavior runs the gamut? Force and chance rules the individuals existence? Chaos and the exertion of force overrule other forces in the individuals existence?

Species have to have some sort of rules and leadership to exist peaceably? Government is the answer.

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer All one has to do is watch the program.. Orangutan Island on the tube to realize why some sort of government is necessary?

Stae government would be necessary in any place that values subordination to authority. On the other hand, those who love freedom from oppression of all kinds feel the state isn't necessary.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa Stae government would be necessary in any place that values subordination to authority. On the other hand, those who love freedom from oppression of all kinds feel the state isn't necessary. Grandpa h.

I'm going to get nit-picky on a logical basis (i don't do that often).
You're statement more then implies that those who agree with you are against opression. And those that don't are people who like being trampled on.

That's a generalization using the gentlest words.

I like freedom and government. I want a government that will try and protect those freedoms so some other person doesn't infringe upon them. Without government, what is to stop people from taking the liberties of others?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind I'm going to get nit-picky on a logical basis (i don't do that often). You're statement more then implies that those who agree with you are against opression.

I'd say anti-authoritarians are very much against oppression. Look at what is implied by the authoritarians: We cannot have humanity without the United States government, or some other state government. Is that particularly logical? Does humanity come from some elite class of rulers?

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa I'd say anti-authoritarians are very much against oppression. Look at what is implied by the authoritarians: We cannot have humanity without the United States government, or some other state government. Is that particularly logical? Does humanity come from some elite class of rulers? Grandpa h.

I was talking more about the other way around, the implication that the rest of us have a penchant for dominance. Which isn't true.

My argument is that people will seek power over others. It's an evolutionary imperative, it's generally part of human nature. You have a choice of either channeling that into a democratic society where those who get power have to stay popular among the people, or you let it happen anyway and have a hierarchy that doesn't answer to the people.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind I was talking more about the other way around, the implication that the rest of us have a penchant for dominance. Which isn't true.

That's not just an implication, it's based on plenty of evidence. Looking through Volconvo alone, you'll find people who would ardently defend the state, who find it decent to relegate responsibilities to some elite class of regulators. They'll wholeheartedly support elections, the regulation of speech and immigration, foreign wars, secret biological weapons research and production, support for Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. Such people apparently have a "penchant for dominance." It's further proven when you make authoritarianism out to be some innate, biological imperative that practically must be fulfilled. Well, where it's fulfilled the most the world apparently sees the most problems. Again, that's not a loose implication, but something revealed by a cursory glimpse into history.

Here's an example:

US falls short on new Iran sanctions The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany agreed Tuesday to impose new sanctions on Iran over its suspect nuclear program, yet the measures appeared to fall short of what the Bush administration had wanted. After months of diplomatic bickering and U.S. pressure, Washington and its European allies overcame strong Chinese and Russian resistance to a third U.N. sanctions resolution and they all approved a draft that expands and strengthens the penalties that were in the two earlier ones.

What is revealed? Authority figures refuse to listen to reason, almost across the board. That must be the case if they are to be maintained. So what do they do? They try to adopt punitive and bellicose measures to keep their populations and each other in line. Why is this trend necessary? Because authorities tend to be illegitimate. They must use compulsion and indoctrination to retain control, lest their people get crazy ideas and self-govern.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

That's not just an implication, it's based on plenty of evidence. Looking through Volconvo alone, you'll find people who would ardently defend the state, who find it decent to relegate responsibilities to some elite class of regulators. They'll wholeheartedly support elections, the regulation of speech and immigration, foreign wars, secret biological weapons research and production, support for Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. Such people apparently have a "penchant for dominance." It's further proven when you make authoritarianism out to be some innate, biological imperative that practically must be fulfilled. Well, where it's fulfilled the most the world apparently sees the most problems. Again, that's not a loose implication, but something revealed by a cursory glimpse into history.

The argument against that evidence. Me.

The state sucks. I hate the education system, I'd feel it is both more realistic and more effective to work the system from the inside then over turn the system. But I'd like to rip apart the education system itself. I'm against all regulation of actual speech (money ain't speech), legal immigration. In a year, I will be able to pick the "elite class of regulator."
I want to change the election system so that America gets rid of this impossible electoral system. I think that all biological, or any scientific, research should be done in the open. And don't get me started on Saddam Hussein (still think they shouldn't have killed him, but whatever...). My hero is Jesus, a man so against the domination system (excluding God) that he was killed by the same system he spoke out against.

Now if you want to talk about dominance being a biological imperative, fine. Lets talk.

Here is a list of arguments, please pick the ones you disagree with.

A segment of humans will seek power over others.

This segment of humans will group together to create a segment more powerful then an individual.

This group will have the ability to overpower individuals for whatever reason and take advantage of them.

To respond the victims and his/her friends will create a group to defend against the bullying group.

The new anti-bullying group will begin grow as it becomes effective.

An group of people in the anti-bullying group (people with a better right hook, or smooth talker that everyone likes) will begin to stand out as more effective.

This more powerful segment will be listened to more closely then the others because they have more things to teach as they are the most effective.

The group look to this powerful segment as role models.

So they start doing what they ask.

You have created a government, not only is it a government, but one with a distinctive elite.

Point out the segment(s) you disagree with and why.

[Domino]

What do you mean by "freedom from oppression and freedom of opportunity"? As long as a human has the right to do what he freely chooses, he is free from oppression. As long as a government doesn't stop a human from being employed by a company, working for whoever they want, or going to a hospital, school, etc. of their choice, they have freedom of opportunity.

Government is not the only force capable of oppressing or limiting opportunity. Any entity with sufficient power could infringe on the freedoms of others, whether that power is economic, militant, or just an organization of sufficient size, be it religious or secular. Even the voluntary interaction between two people has the potential to oppress or limit the opportunity of a third party. Natural disasters, also, can oppress and limit the opportunity of those they affect.

If the government is to maximize the freedom of opportunity and freedom from oppression for all, it will have to act against all entities that attempt to limit those freedoms, and it must act to correct the harmful situations that will arise as the indirect consequences of disparate events.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Domino Government is not the only force capable of oppressing or limiting opportunity. Any entity with sufficient power could infringe on the freedoms of others, whether that power is economic, militant, or just an organization of sufficient size, be it religious or secular.

True, but usually when an entity begins limiting opportunities, it takes upon governing characteristics. This is when the great question takes shape in organizations: How do we determine that which is moral and that which is not, and how do we convince others of this while reducing compulsion to its absolute minimum? Leaders and their followers are a formidable force, which is why this question is so important. Well, one immediate answer is to not give any leaders much of any power. That's part of the anti-authoritarian tradition, and I'll go out on a limb and say no sane person would sharply disagree with this basic principle.

Grandpa h.

[Domino]

Our morals are determined by our values, which are, in turn, determined by cultural consensus.

I nominate freedom of opportunity and freedom from oppression as our highest values :) , for they allow every individual to maximize their own good, whatever they might choose it to be. Enforcing these freedoms allows the maximum coexistence of varying moralities.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa True, but usually when an entity begins limiting opportunities, it takes upon governing characteristics. This is when the great question takes shape in organizations: How do we determine that which is moral and that which is not, and how do we convince others of this while reducing compulsion to its absolute minimum? Leaders and their followers are a formidable force, which is why this question is so important. Well, one immediate answer is to not give any leaders much of any power. That's part of the anti-authoritarian tradition, and I'll go out on a limb and say no sane person would sharply disagree with this basic principle. Grandpa h.

Are you claiming that humans, if given a world free of leaders, will forever remain free of leaders? Are you really claiming history supports this notion? Walk into a pre-school. Watch the children interact with each other. In 20 seconds, you should be able to figure out that some little kid is directing the actions of a couple of the others. The kids who like to play on the swings and monkey bars group together and one or two of them are setting the agenda. " Bobby, you are too slow, get down so I can go across really fast!" And if Bobby doesn't get down, he gets pushed aside. The kids who like to play soccer are choosing up sides. "Sam, I pick you first. Jimmy, you can't be in goal because you always let the ball through."

In groups, or as a big pack, someone is taking power and someone is having to give it up. It is the way we are built. You can not wish your way out of it. So, we end up with government, no matter if you believe we need it or not. It is unavoidable. Adjust your ideology to come in line with the facts as they are. Some things can be changed. That is not one of those things.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Domino Government is not the only force capable of oppressing or limiting opportunity. Any entity with sufficient power could infringe on the freedoms of others, whether that power is economic, militant, or just an organization of sufficient size, be it religious or secular. Even the voluntary interaction between two people has the potential to oppress or limit the opportunity of a third party. Natural disasters, also, can oppress and limit the opportunity of those they affect. If the government is to maximize the freedom of opportunity and freedom from oppression for all, it will have to act against all entities that attempt to limit those freedoms, and it must act to correct the harmful situations that will arise as the indirect consequences of disparate events.

I'm fine with everything except for the phrase: "if government is to maximize the freedom..." the government cannot "maximize" freedom. It can only protect the freedoms people already have.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Objectivist I'm fine with everything except for the phrase: "if government is to maximize the freedom..." the government cannot "maximize" freedom. It can only protect the freedoms people already have.

And one of the best ways it can do that is to stay out of the people's way and stop trying to legislate every aspect of their lives.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: grandpa If the outcome was forced, in what way is it fair? Grandpa h.

Who said that the outcome was forced? I merely said that the outcome once it had been reached, be enforced after discussions have closed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Are you claiming that humans, if given a world free of leaders, will forever remain free of leaders? Are you really claiming history supports this notion?

More to the point, I'd say a world ever-freer of ideology and ignorance would make people perceive leadership as less necessary. It also comes down to what one means by "leadership." If we mean people who tend to do more and/or who are more knowledgable, then yes, leaders see inevitable. However, if we mean leadership positions which claim to be "permanent," those may not be nearly as legitimate, so we should challenge them. People have to be conscious of the need to do this, in the classic style of critical thinking. They have to challenge ideologies of power and various related superstitions, and arrive at the general realization that state governments and other entities are just that -- abstract, collectivist entities.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Who said that the outcome was forced? I merely said that the outcome once it had been reached, be enforced after discussions have closed.

That essentially means the same thing.

Grandpa h.