ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL i.e. government

[beenherebeforeagain]

What I am saying is that I don't consent.

and yet you continue to use the goods and services provided by not only government, but a society enabled by the presence and action of government...

Look, I took the same position when I was young.

Then as I grew and learned more about people and society works, it is inevitable that a minority of the population, motivated by a desire for wealth and power, will rapidly come to dominate society, both government and economy. Everyone else becomes serfs.

The only possibility to prevent or delay that is to have a government system that is organized to protect the citizens, to allow them to have some access to wealth and power, and above all, opportunity. Such a system requires the participants to put out the effort to maintain the system. It may or may not work well.

Basically:
1) No government = oligarchy dominated by a small group that owns everything and makes all decisions for their own benefit.
2) Government = oligarchy dominated by a small group who hold top positions of power in the structure of government...but who either must themselves own all the wealth, or are sock puppets for the oligarchs who do own everything.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Contracts could be voluntary. The social contract implies coercion. At least, that's how people who use the term means it as. Coercion to participate in government.

Contracts should be on a completely voluntary system.

How exactly are voluntary contracts enforced when one party decides to screw the other? Or decides the hell with contracts, I'm taking what I want and you just stop me!

 

[an anarchist]

If you believe it is impossible to withdraw consent... I think you have been gaslighted by the government.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Government is the ultimate arbiter in all matters, including matters pertaining to itself. Government is supreme law.

In today's world (at least in most democracies) this is not true -- every government is the creature of a constitution, and all constitutions nowadays place their first and most important restrictions on what powers government has over the individual. You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, for example, and if the government doesn't get the verdict it wants, it can't try you again for the same accusation.

In the western world, these ideas really got their start with Magna Carta (which really only concerned itself with the nobiity and the Monarch, not common folks like us -- but you have to start somewhere).

 

[an anarchist]

Government is the ultimate arbiter in all matters, including matters pertaining to itself. Government is supreme law.

In today's world (at least in most democracies) this is not true -- every government is the creature of a constitution, and all constitutions nowadays place their first and most important restrictions on what powers government has over the individual. You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, for example, and if the government doesn't get the verdict it wants, it can't try you again for the same accusation.

In the western world, these ideas really got their start with Magna Carta (which really only concerned itself with the nobiity and the Monarch, not common folks like us -- but you have to start somewhere).

You just agreed with me I'd say.

The Constitution is a government document that regulates government.

Like I said, government is the ultimate arbiter, including matters regarding itself.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You just agreed with me I'd say.

The Constitution is a government document that regulates government.

Like I said, government is the ultimate arbiter, including matters regarding itself.

Okay, anarchist, show me how your "no government" works. You decide, for example, you want to build a road to make it faster for you to get to work, but unfortunately, it goes through your neighbour's orchard. How do you guys work it out? Pistols at dawn? You hire flunkies to wipe him and his family out? Or he hires flunkies to wipe you and your family out? You play dice? I mean, with no government, there are no laws -- so neither of you can get in legal trouble for murdering the other.

 

[HonestJoe]

Government is the ultimate arbiter in all matters, including matters pertaining to itself. Government is supreme law.

Not necessarily. It depends on how broadly you're applying the term "government" and the various structures and systems in any given jurisdiction, but most truly democratic nations have a range of checks and balances, with elections, oppositions, heads of state and independent judiciaries. There are also plenty of examples of the people forcefully overcoming an unpopular government, so I'm not convinced they're anything like as all-powerful as you'd like to imaging.

None of this is perfect of course, and often far from it, but no alternative you may care to propose would be definitively better (for many of the sam reasons - humans are really the ultimate problem).

I do believe government is inherently immoral/evil. Control over another individual's life, liberty, and/or property without their consent is wrong.

With respect, what you might believe doesn't really mean all that much. There is a level of implied consent with democratic government, given that we're all free to move out of that governments jurisdiction if we so choose. You could technically move out of the jurisdiction of any government if you really wanted to (though it wouldn't necessarily be easy).

Again though, even if you don't like this reality, I don't see any better alternative. There are always going to be other people seeking to control your life and property (typically by force or manipulation). One of the major roles of government is to prevent that.

 

[icehorse]

How have the corporates and companies treated you?
Have you been oppressed by any government?
Are your beliefs consonant with what you have experienced?

I understand that being middle class in the US makes me quite fortunate.

That said, corporations and worldwide governments are all lying to us about our lifestyles. The big lie is that we can keep making more babies and keep consuming our planet's precious, limited resources in unsustainable ways.

What's happening today, worldwide, is known as ecological overshoot, or just overshoot. The fact that overshoot is not the main story in the news all the time, and that overshoot is something politicians almost never talk about is proof that those in power are lying to us.

 

[an anarchist]

There are always going to be other people seeking to control your life and property (typically by force or manipulation). One of the major roles of government is to prevent that.

This is a contradictory statement, as government itself exists in the basis of controlling your life and property. You say it exists to prevent it, yet it does it. I find your statement illogical, though it is often echoed.

How is that any different then paying for the mafia to "protect" i.e. extort you?

 

[HonestJoe]

This is a contradictory statement, as government itself exists in the basis of controlling your life and property.

No, that is not a fundamental aspect of the meaning of the word government. There may well be elements of that in the operation of governments in practice, but it is not a requirement, especially at the scale you're presenting it to be.

You say it exists to prevent it, yet it does it. I find your statement illogical, though it is often echoed.

In principle, most governments have legal systems which include laws and enforcement to target theft or violence. They're not perfect and can't stop it entirely, but they can certainly reduce and mitigate it compared to the alternative of having no government at all.

How is that any different then paying for the mafia to "protect" i.e. extort you?

Because the mafia only protects you, only for as long as they choose to. You have literally zero say or influence on those decisions.

And how is that different to not having a government? You continue to avoid the question of what alternative to having government you're proposing and how you expect that would pan out given that you'd still have the underlying problematic factor - human beings.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

As far as I know, any form of anarchism depends on a social contract between all members with governance at least at the local level by the collective of all community members, which has the power to enforce the social contract on those who will try to subvert it...which means its a form of government...and apparently therefore evil...

 

[The Hammer]

I understand that being middle class in the US makes me quite fortunate.

That said, corporations and worldwide governments are all lying to us about our lifestyles. The big lie is that we can keep making more babies and keep consuming our planet's precious, limited resources in unsustainable ways.

What's happening today, worldwide, is known as ecological overshoot, or just overshoot. The fact that overshoot is not the main story in the news all the time, and that overshoot is something politicians almost never talk about is proof that those in power are lying to us.

This might interest you: The overshoot myth: you can’t keep burning fossil fuels and expect scientists of the future to get us back to 1.5°C

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What do you think?

Sauron was an evil tyrant who used deception and violence in his efforts to conquer the world.
States, in general, are not like that unless you're looking at those like the Roman Empire or Nazis. But a Western Liberal Democracy? It's misguided at best to compare them to the Ring.