That makes two threads in the Debate Forum in a row on the nature of the role of government to descend into chaos; the second time, it was my thread, and very much my fault... Also, you guys are like pumas, only meaner.
The bone of contention here? You can probably guess what it is if you reckon that history repeats itself.
Why no government? At least chiefly because governments kill people:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
That's Prof. R. J. Rummel's website, by the way. He concludes that democide is allegedly responsible for the deaths of over 262,000,000 people in the twentieth century alone. I urge you not to dispute this number, because it is not the item being debated; the exact number is quite irrelevant, because, in any event, it is staggeringly massive.
Why no government? Governments leave people without a voice. In terms of written agreements, obviously excluding unwritten societal ethical mandates, individuals should feel morally bound only by decisions in which they take part in making.
Why no government? Because there is, in fact, an alternative: Falk, the political scientist, has demonstrated in so many essays that a move toward abandonment of the State is more likely to bring about world peace than any other alternatives.
You can dismiss market anarchism as fantastic utopian speculation, but the fact is, it is more relevant than ever. I hope we can get through this debate with no condescension on the part of either side.
But arguing in defense those things which are provided by government is just not a very good way of going about debating; we must imagine that, as has been true in every other instance, where the private sector can perform some facets of the responsibilities with which the State had been entrusted, the private sector can outpace and outperform the government. This is because of the varying structure of the two, and arguing that government should be let alone because it provides some meager conveniences is impossible if government is harmful on the whole.
The bone of contention here? You can probably guess what it is if you reckon that history repeats itself.
Why no government? At least chiefly because governments kill people:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
That's Prof. R. J. Rummel's website, by the way. He concludes that democide is allegedly responsible for the deaths of over 262,000,000 people in the twentieth century alone. I urge you not to dispute this number, because it is not the item being debated; the exact number is quite irrelevant, because, in any event, it is staggeringly massive.
Why no government? Governments leave people without a voice. In terms of written agreements, obviously excluding unwritten societal ethical mandates, individuals should feel morally bound only by decisions in which they take part in making.
Why no government? Because there is, in fact, an alternative: Falk, the political scientist, has demonstrated in so many essays that a move toward abandonment of the State is more likely to bring about world peace than any other alternatives.
You can dismiss market anarchism as fantastic utopian speculation, but the fact is, it is more relevant than ever. I hope we can get through this debate with no condescension on the part of either side.
But arguing in defense those things which are provided by government is just not a very good way of going about debating; we must imagine that, as has been true in every other instance, where the private sector can perform some facets of the responsibilities with which the State had been entrusted, the private sector can outpace and outperform the government. This is because of the varying structure of the two, and arguing that government should be let alone because it provides some meager conveniences is impossible if government is harmful on the whole.