For what purpose ought government to exist?

[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?

[Stizzles]

#1, to prove to naive idealists that governments seldom if ever increase freedom.

#2, as a necessary evil to prevent the citizenry from being physically harmed.

[Nigh Eve]

Depends on the type of government. True, all governments can have an idealistic purpose or potential for one, if those implementing chose as much, and it really depends on whether or not one agrees with or cares about the purpose put forth. Cultural and individual choices play their parts at that point

My current best reason to have a government: to maximize freedom for all.

That would be a government along the lines of libertarianism. But true freedom is had without government at all since any government will hold power and law at some degree against complete freedom. If anything, this type of government would add security to the types of freedoms people exhibit in order to achieve an ideal state.

That's how I see it.

[Stizzles]

Quote by: Nigh Eve But true freedom is had without government at all since any government will hold power and law at some degree against complete freedom.

How would you enforce contracts, or adjudicate disputes, other than an agreed-upon system that all are subject to (also known as "government")?

[Nigh Eve]

Quote by: Stizzles How would you enforce contracts, or adjudicate disputes, other than an agreed-upon system that all are subject to (also known as "government")?

I don't understand how that relates to what I said. Perhaps you could elaborate what it is that you disagree on?

To answer your question nonetheless - enforcing contracts, settling disputes, these are enforced securities, handled in a pre-defined manner with pre-defined outcomes, in a system.

Quote by: Nigh Eve If anything, this type of government would add security to the types of freedoms people exhibit in order to achieve an ideal state.

Without a system, they would be handled by individuals as they see fit.

[Stizzles]

I don't understand how that relates to what I said. Perhaps you could elaborate what it is that you disagree on?

You said "But true freedom is had without government at all since any government will hold power and law at some degree against complete freedom."

Without a system of governance, you cannot settle such disputes in any kind of fair or organized manner. That's why they made governments in the first place.

To answer your question nonetheless - enforcing contracts, settling disputes, these are enforced securities, handled in a pre-defined manner with pre-defined outcomes, in a system.

...you mean like a legal system? You're still calling for a government, but you're just pretending to call it something else.

[Chaossaber314]

Government should exist as a conglomeration of individuals who benefit each other in the interest of trade, safety (reasonable protection from individual harm), and security (reasonable protection from harm against interests and the society as a whole).

Once these basic criteria are fulfilled you can expand to others like education. You can't educate someone if they don't feel safe. You can't afford to educate someone if you don't have money from trade.

My view of government is very similar to the Hierarchy of Needs.

[Nigh Eve]

Quote by: Stizzles You said "But true freedom is had without government at all since any government will hold power and law at some degree against complete freedom." Without a system of governance, you cannot settle such disputes in any kind of fair or organized manner. That's why they made governments in the first place. ...you mean like a legal system? You're still calling for a government, but you're just pretending to call it something else.

Settling disputes in a fair and organized manner? That's not freedom. There's a difference between freedom and priviledges/benefits.

I wasn't calling for anything...just stating the difference so that the term "freedom" isn't misconstrued with government granted priviledges and rights. I never once said my preference. With that said, government can be used to secure some freedoms, and to grant rights and priviledges, in order to create an ideal system.

[grandpa]

How can we settle disputes "in a fair and organized manner" when government coercion is involved?

Grandpa h.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: grandpa How can we settle disputes "in a fair and organized manner" when government coercion is involved? Grandpa h.

How can we settle disputes "in a fair and organized manner" when there is no means of enforcing the outcome?

[Chancellor]

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?

Your title question presumes that government ought to exist.

[Stizzles]

How can we settle disputes "in a fair and organized manner" when government coercion is involved?

What system of resolving disputes wouldn't use coercion? If they didn't, then people could simply not consent to unfavorable outcomes and avoid punishment.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 How can we settle disputes "in a fair and organized manner" when there is no means of enforcing the outcome?

If the outcome was forced, in what way is it fair?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Stizzles What system of resolving disputes wouldn't use coercion? If they didn't, then people could simply not consent to unfavorable outcomes and avoid punishment.

A legitimate one, perhaps? When assessing the viability of a system, certainly its level of coercion can be considered. But you did bring up a point of reference that underlies all state power, which is coerced consent. That's why, if we wish to avoid generalized punsihment, we should avoid engaging in behavior conducive to state power.

Grandpa h.

[Stizzles]

A legitimate one, perhaps? When assessing the viability of a system, certainly its level of coercion can be considered. But you did bring up a point of reference that underlies all state power, which is coerced consent. That's why, if we wish to avoid generalized punsihment, we should avoid engaging in behavior conducive to state power.

Absolutely correct. Without coercion, you will be unable to punish anyone who does not consent to it--do you really expect murderers and rapists to be of such high moral character that they would not simply refuse consent to avoid punishment?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Stizzles Absolutely correct. Without coercion, you will be unable to punish anyone who does not consent to it--do you really expect murderers and rapists to be of such high moral character that they would not simply refuse consent to avoid punishment?

Unless I'm missing something, not every dispute involves murder or rape, though my point remains
correct regarding those issues. We don't need a coercive, state bureaucracy to deal with cases of rape and murder. There is a such thing as self-responsibility and self-defense, is there not? or how about defending your neighbor if he/she is attacked? Do we need some elite state bureaucracy to do these things? Do we need the state to giev us support networks, or could we do this of our own initiative? In fact, do we even need revenge to occur in state form? I fail to see why I should relegate responsibilities to other people. I can only adequately represent my own interests. I need no High Priests of any kind.

Grandpa h.

[Stizzles]

Unless I'm missing something, not every dispute involves murder or rape, though my point remains correct regarding those issues. We don't need a coercive, state bureaucracy to deal with cases of rape and murder. There is a such thing as self-responsibility and self-defense, is there not? or how about defending your neighbor if he/she is attacked? Do we need some elite state bureaucracy to do these things?

Of course not. The bureaucracy is an unfortunate necessity for dealing with punishing those people who overcame others' defenses.

Do we need the state to giev us support networks, or could we do this of our own initiative? In fact, do we even need revenge to occur in state form? I fail to see why I should relegate responsibilities to other people. I can only adequately represent my own interests. I need no High Priests of any kind.

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.

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.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa Unless I'm missing something, not every dispute involves murder or rape, though my point remains correct regarding those issues. We don't need a coercive, state bureaucracy to deal with cases of rape and murder. There is a such thing as self-responsibility and self-defense, is there not? or how about defending your neighbor if he/she is attacked? Do we need some elite state bureaucracy to do these things? Do we need the state to giev us support networks, or could we do this of our own initiative? In fact, do we even need revenge to occur in state form? I fail to see why I should relegate responsibilities to other people. I can only adequately represent my own interests. I need no High Priests of any kind. Grandpa h.

I would also add that there is such a thing as interest blinded by self. We need government because we need a mechanism to remove self interest from the process. If individuals were the sole arbitors of justice, the man who stole a bag of potato chips from a sociopath would find himself dead on the side of the road. Hardly an example of justice. Your system ignores the fact that it is next to impossible to be objective when your own interests are involved. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Domino]

That would be a government along the lines of libertarianism. But true freedom is had without government at all since any government will hold power and law at some degree against complete freedom. If anything, this type of government would add security to the types of freedoms people exhibit in order to achieve an ideal state.

Government is not the only force capable of limiting freedom. There are a great many forms of coercion, some of which don't even originate in mankind, and all inhibit freedom. Whether it's a person with a knife, an army with guns, an economy that has appropriated all available resources, a corporation with overwhelming economic leverage, or a natural disaster, freedom is inhibited.

[Winter wind]

My current best reason to have a government: to maximize freedom for all.

The only reason government should exist is to serve it's people's needs. Ends up becoming an organization to serve it's people's wants by a margin of 50%.