For what purpose ought government to exist?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: grandpa That essentially means the same thing. Grandpa h.

No it doesn't. If the state stays out of the negotiating process, they aren't forcing anyone to do anything. Enforcing agreements after they have been reached is completely different from forcing people into agreement in the first place.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa 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.

But you have not been arguing that leaders should be challenged. You have been saying that viewing them as necessary or permanent is wrong. You imply that people could free themselves of large, centralized government and live freer and happier lives if they just wanted to do it and/or really tried. The problem is that they do not now, nor will they ever likely, want to do this. From the earliest stages, they seek leaders, they submit to leaders, they follow them. And there is a certain segment of the human population that will always seek to lead, to dominate and to control. If left to their own devices, they would take whatever they can from the individuals around them. And if you organize into a family unit, they will build a gun to dominate you. If you organize into a town, they will build a castle and have multiple thugs in their service to dominate you. We have ended up where we have ended up with large "national" governments because of needing a strong counter to these thugs. How do you get around that? We have turned over a certain amount of control to find some assurance of objectivity. How do you get around that need? We allow enforcement because there are too many examples of humans who will not "submit" to a common good without being forced to do so. How do you get around that in your system?

No leader should be beyond challence, no law should be beyond challenge, but a powerless leader is useless and a law with no means of enforcement is beyond useless, it is absurd.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: me 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.

grandpa, I need you to respond to this before I really can understand your position.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 No it doesn't. If the state stays out of the negotiating process, they aren't forcing anyone to do anything.

But if use of force to carry out a policy is presupposed, the "negotiating process" is still a coercive situation. You still are aware that force is applicable, and intended that way. There is much to indicate this is the case, including what I would consider common sense.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 But you have not been arguing that leaders should be challenged. You have been saying that viewing them as necessary or permanent is wrong.

There is no deep contradiction there. If you suppose an authority title is not absolutely necessary and hold it to be impermanent, you've already challenged its legitimacy. Of course, the matter can go deeper than mere suppositions.
To me, it's actually a matter of distinguishing between reality and superstition. When I see a politician, I think of him (or her) as a seperate person. They are not an extension of me, nor is everything they do likely in my interests. So why should I put much of any faith in them? Clearly, this idea presupposes authoritarianism to be wrong.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind grandpa, I need you to respond to this before I really can understand your position.

Okay, fair enough. I'll give an in-depth response.

Quote by: Winter wind A segment of humans will seek power over others.

Often true, but this does not mean we should eagerly let this be the case, or yawn in the face of it.

Quote by: Winter wind This segment of humans will group together to create a segment more powerful then an individual.

This is true under authoritarianism, but organized efforts needn't always weaken the individual, especially in a community where all members are eligible to participate. It ultimately depends on if the efforts are done under duress or if they are done with relative freedom. If the individual is not subordinate and regarded like a mere machine, individuality will no doubt be strengthened.

Quote by: Winter wind This group will have the ability to overpower individuals for whatever reason and take advantage of them.

Only if people in the group let it happen.

Quote by: Winter wind The new anti-bullying group will begin grow as it becomes effective.

I see you have in mind a "snowball system," which is possible. But if people are on guard against powerful interests taking shape, it is more unlikely to happen.

Quote by: Winter wind 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 tends to happen (such as if a person speaks eloquently), but this doesn't mean we should puch much faith in such people, as they are just as able to stab others in the back.

Quote by: Winter wind 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.

To be able to do their work, people may turn to others with more experience. But this by no means makes "experts" an infallible source of information. If people are aware of this, the power of experts can be restricted. As I often say, take a look at history and you'll see the dangers of not guarding yourself against the rule of "experts."

Quote by: Winter wind The group look to this powerful segment as role models.

I wouldn't say all power politicians are popular or regarded as "role models" by a majority. Superstition (in this case, unyielding faith in an expert class) may supercede the issue of popularity.
At that point, they've gone beyond being role models and start becoming THE model.

Quote by: Winter wind You have created a government, not only is it a government, but one with a distinctive elite.

If this hypothetical society is run by a monopoly of force, then yes, you have a state government. However, if force is not utilized, it is more like a free agreement, only heavily guided by superstition. Chances are, it'd be a coercive, hierarchical state if it's being run by some expert class. Such a thing doesn't need to happen. In fact, it often does because of pre-existing conquerers. Society can be changed on a rather global basis, and not into a "one world
government." If people everywhere wise up, they can see the manifold errors of authoritarianism.
They can avoid joining the ranks of the army and the nation-state.

Quote by: Winter wind Point out the segment(s) you disagree with and why.

I mainly disagree that governments are so benign, that they are inherently popular.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa There is no deep contradiction there. If you suppose an authority title is not absolutely necessary and hold it to be impermanent, you've already challenged its legitimacy. Of course, the matter can go deeper than mere suppositions. To me, it's actually a matter of distinguishing between reality and superstition. When I see a politician, I think of him (or her) as a seperate person. They are not an extension of me, nor is everything they do likely in my interests. So why should I put much of any faith in them? Clearly, this idea presupposes authoritarianism to be wrong. Grandpa h.

Define authritarianism. The idea does not presuppose authority to be wrong, though it could and should presuppose abuse of authority to be wrong. Now we may start doing an interesting dance, because I would probably agree that granting authority pretty much leads to attemps at abuse of authority, a certain portion of which will be successful. The question becomes, what leads to the greater good? I would submit that, although constant vigilence is necessary against the accumulation of unchecked authority, the absence of strong, central authority leads to greater harm than what is caused by it's very existence. This is not about blind obedience to all authority. It is about the recognition that power is necessary for protection and independent power is necessary to insure objective outcomes.

[Milton Bradley]

Here are some great Ayn Rand interviews about her philosophy, and how it applies to society, and government to anybody inclined to watch.


First, Ayn on Mike Wallace in 1959. ( One can see how she is being proven right on a daily basis. )


YouTube - Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1

YouTube - Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 2

YouTube - Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 3



Here we have Ayn Rand on Phil Donahue in 1980.

YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 1 of 5

YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 2 of 5

YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 3 of 5

YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 4 of 5

YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 5 of 5


Personally, I'm on her side, I think coercion in any application is morally wrong, and ultimately damages all parties involved.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa I mainly disagree that governments are so benign, that they are inherently popular.

The entire thing was based on how middle school would work if no teachers were around. Governments aren't benign, but they are inherently popular. I'm absolutely sure of that. Maybe not government as a word, but cliques are. Groups with obvious hierarchies are. Clashes between these groups and popularity contests, damn grandpa, you've never been to high school? It's human nature and impossible to completely control. The best way is to find some method where the most popular are forced to answer to the people all the time. The system sucks, but the one you describe assumes that people are always drawn to power is someway which is delusional at best.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Here are some great Ayn Rand interviews about her philosophy, and how it applies to society, and government to anybody inclined to watch. First, Ayn on Mike Wallace in 1959. ( One can see how she is being proven right on a daily basis. ) YouTube - Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1 YouTube - Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 2 YouTube - Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 3 Here we have Ayn Rand on Phil Donahue in 1980. YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 1 of 5 YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 2 of 5 YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 3 of 5 YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 4 of 5 YouTube - Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 5 of 5 Personally, I'm on her side, I think coercion in any application is morally wrong, and ultimately damages all parties involved.

I can be right all day long that people tend to abuse authority and that a system that ignores the individual creates problems that are huge. Being right about some of the issues that "ail" a system does not mean that the solutions you suggest are correct. You get no points for realizing cancer is bad, nor do you get any points for suggesting that we should amputate any cancerous part of the body. When the solution is worse than the problem, it is no solution.

[Charlatan]

Governments should exist to help the people economically prosper and offer enforcement of laws that the people will like and are logical. In light of this most recent 'stock crash', they can freeze prices so that the people can benefit a great deal more than they would with them falling, for instance, and put fraudsters away in jail for a long time. The government represents what the people voted for, and they always say they will bring different things to the fore, but usually the most logical things have to be done, so they usually stick to them.

[Domino]

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.

This seems like a semantic difference, and it seems pointless for me to argue it. I'd be happy to amend my statement: The government's highest priorities should be the protection of our freedom of opportunity and our freedom from oppression.

That said, I think the government can increase our freedom of opportunity, for example, by establishing a currency, or supporting an interstate highway system. Likewise, supporting hospitals and disaster relief are a couple of excellent ways to strengthen our freedom from oppression. One could suppose that these freedoms are already held by all, in maximum, but the efficiency of their application can be improved.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Define authritarianism. The idea does not presuppose authority to be wrong, though it could and should presuppose abuse of authority to be wrong.

I see no reason to object to Wikipedia's definition:
"Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measure. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical."

Given even this basic definition, there are a number of reasons to suppose it is wrong.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind The entire thing was based on how middle school would work if no teachers were around. Governments aren't benign, but they are inherently popular.

I think order is popular (though how inherent it is seems to vary). But order doens't necessarily mean "state government," which often stirs up great chaos.

Grandpa h.

[sevendogs]

Quote by: Domino If I had asked "What is the purpose of government?", I'd get a great many cynical answers. True as they may be, they're not terribly helpful. I'm hoping to avoid them here, since I'm not trying to discuss any particular government. My hope is that identifying the root purpose will be the first step in determining the nature of the government we ought to have. My current best reason to have a government: to maximize freedom for all. Anyone got a better suggestion?

Good or not so good government will always exist simply because people think they need it. It hosuld be a balance between freedoms and duties. Freedom does not come for free. Someone should protect us from each other, too.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa I see no reason to object to Wikipedia's definition: "Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measure. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical." Given even this basic definition, there are a number of reasons to suppose it is wrong. Grandpa h.

That is a fine definition. All government does not fit that definition. My point being, authoity is not the same as authoritarianism. Just because you grant authority to all forms of government does not mean you must admit they are all authoritarian, nor that they will all end up authoritarian, nor that they are all inherently bad. That seems to me to be the point you are making, at least in reguard to strong, central governments.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Being right about some of the issues that "ail" a system does not mean that the solutions you suggest are correct. You get no points for realizing cancer is bad, nor do you get any points for suggesting that we should amputate any cancerous part of the body. When the solution is worse than the problem, it is no solution.

The solution is only "worse" to people who fear freedom, and standing on ones own merrit.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The solution is only "worse" to people who fear freedom, and standing on ones own merrit.

Right. Because that's what I fear. It's not that I fear unrestrained power in the hands of assholes who believe they have no obligation to others unless they choose to obligate themselves. It's not that I fear a government so weak as to be useless. What I fear is my own freedom and standing on my own merits. You see right through me.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Right. Because that's what I fear. It's not that I fear unrestrained power in the hands of assholes who believe they have no obligation to others unless they choose to obligate themselves. It's not that I fear a government so weak as to be useless. What I fear is my own freedom and standing on my own merits. You see right through me.

Do I see through you, or do you fail to see your own oppression, and inherent results of implementing your own philosophy?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Do I see through you, or do you fail to see your own oppression, and inherent results of implementing your own philosophy?

Well, I am fairly certain I see the oppression that I may or may not have to expierence and/or deal with. I am not some happy idiot, living in a dream world. And why don't you ennumerate on the flaws in my philosophy. I suspect you have no clear understanding of what my philosophy actually might be. I say this because I do not remember a time when you have accurately stated what I would do or cause to happen. And I do not mean you have misstated what I expect the end result to be. I mean, you have never accurately characterized any of the means I would employ, nor any of the intentions that I have at an implementation level. So, lets get some of this straight. First of all, I would not ever turn all control of my life over to any other party. Secondly, I do not think it is the governments job to "make everyone equal by lowering everyone". Nor would I suggest that profit motive be removed from our economic system. Maybe it would be easier to state what I do believe.

1 - Government should exist to provide a means for the individually powerless to have power that is an effective counter to the power that institutions gather to themselves. It should exist so that justice can be blind, not always blinded by power, either economic or otherwise. (Notice I am using the word "power" alot) Power is the only thing that truely carries weight in this world. The power of the law is the only thing standing between the individual and effective slavery. Individuals or institutions not constained by law have no constaints what-so-ever. To deny this is to deny history. For these reasons, I would have a strong central government that is democratically elected.

2 - People are both beasts and angels. They have the capacity to create the most vile circumstances for their fellow humans and the capacity to do great good works. No individual, no group, no institution is beyond corruption. The power of the law is the only power that allows the first set of tendencies to be thwarted and the second set to be encouraged. For this reason, I would have a strong central government that is democratically elected.

3 - People do not self regulate when they do not feel constrained. They must know that government will not function for them if it can not function for all. The law must be impartial and stong to be effective. For this reason, I would have a strong central government that is democratically elected.

4 - People do not work hard, nor innovate, nor progress in any meaningful fashion if they do not believe they will gain themselves from their work. For this reason, I believe in an economic system that is mostly capitalist.

5 - Some things should not be run with profit in mind because they are not meant to be agents of profit. News organizations, hospitals, and public utilities (among others) work best when they are not looking for ways to squeeze pennies out of people. They should be run with the idea that they should provide the most good possible. This means avoiding waste, but not seeking gain. For this reason, I would run them as non-profit organizations. The director of the hospital should receive a salary, but there should be no shareholders to placate with larger and larger profits. Doctors and nurses, reporters, linemen, should all receive payment for their services, but there should be no stock holders to placate with larger and larger returns. For this reason, I do not think a mixed economic system is evil. It allows for public support where small, ecomonically stuggleing community might otherwise be unable to provide medical care, electricity or other good and usefull services.

That is not the sum total of my philosophy, but it is a start. Rip away at me.