Similar to God, Government breaks all of it's own rules it inflicts upon it's citizens. For example, The old testament God flooded the entire world killing all of every living thing bar 2 of every species, men, women, children were all drowned from the very same entity that said murdering is always wrong.

If you put the Government through any level of logic or Aristotelian principles it becomes illogical immediately.

Government, similiar to God, kills and inflicts harm on people in mass numbers, breaking and going above and beyond all of the proposed 'rules'.

For example, the government can put people in a cage and call it 'citizen rehabilitation', but if you do it, it is called kidnapping.

The government can kill people and it is called 'freedom fighting' or 'justice' or 'foreign policy', but if you kill people, you are simply called a murderer.

The government can steal and extort money from people and it is called 'taxation', if you do it, you are called a thief.

Not only is government irrational, but it is simply evil if you apply rational thought to it.

What would you propose is a valid alternative to government? Should government be completely eradicated?

(June 29, 2013 at 8:08 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: What would you propose is a valid alternative to government? Should government be completely eradicated?

Pretty simple, society organising without the initiation of force or violence.

in this hypothetical arrangement, what would happen to murderers?

(June 29, 2013 at 8:12 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: in this hypothetical arrangement, what would happen to murderers?

Small tangent:
From my understanding of the profile of murderers, that behaviour comes about from traumatic experiences in childhood and being brutalised, ignored and abused by their parents and other people. By the point society as a majority realises that initiating violence is wrong, murderers would be such an abnormality it wouldn't even be a concern any more. Similar to how countries that have outgrew religion don't see public executions any more, it's just not a concern anymore since it is such a social taboo. The environment were children would be exposed to abusers would be so rare.

More to the point:
Like anyone that breaks a rule in a rational context- they get banned from goods and services. I don't know what that would look like exactly; technology and process wise (since i cant predict the future).

After all, how many people would willingly do business with a murderer now? let alone in the future.

Question: Do I get my own Unicorn?

so you would restrict them from goods and services but then how would you do that without force? I mean right now, before we have access to the technology of the future. Or do you mean that government is a necessary evil now, but we will one day grow out of it?

I think your thesis is flawed, because you are judging the actions of the government on 1) what's best for the average Joe; 2) what the politicians in the government SAY they are attempting to achieve.

Epic logic fail, IMO. The truth is that the government are acting rationally as selfish human beings, with their goals being wealth, power, and some kind of permanent legacy (i.e. they get their names in lots of books). Many of them are succeeding wildly, beyond their education, their class, and their ability to contribute to the society. If you want a different kind of government, you will have to find a way to make power and money unworth the risk of getting them. Good luck with that.

As for no government-- that's just semantics. No such thing is possible, because as soon as you pull out a shotgun and say, "Get off my lawn, commie," you've established a local government of your own. The same goes for the gang that shows up at your door once the police are disbanded, rapes your wife, steals your food, and kills you. They've established a free-roaming government-- "Give us what we want, or die."

Have you had this happen lately? No, because there's a government, and in return for the ability to suck the society dry, they offer a service: the society (for the most part) should stay healthy enough to be WORTH sucking dry.

(June 29, 2013 at 8:35 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: so you would restrict them from goods and services but then how would you do that without force? I mean right now, before we have access to the technology of the future. Or do you mean that government is a necessary evil now, but we will one day grow out of it?

No, it can be decided upon private citizens. If likely no one wants to do business with a murderer, it won't take long before he or she runs out of resources, at which point they can pay amends via a private court or attempt to steal to get resources, at which point it wouldn't take long before he is killed by other people's self defence.

(June 29, 2013 at 8:38 pm)Koolay Wrote:

(June 29, 2013 at 8:35 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: so you would restrict them from goods and services but then how would you do that without force? I mean right now, before we have access to the technology of the future. Or do you mean that government is a necessary evil now, but we will one day grow out of it?

No, it can be decided upon private citizens. If likely no one wants to do business with a murderer, it won't take long before he or she runs out of resources, at which point they can pay amends via a private court or attempt to steal to get resources, at which point it wouldn't take long before he is killed by other people's self defence.

Oh ok, so you're saying violence initiated by individuals is ok, but if the government jails this person up and save us from the trouble of having to kill him ourselves, that would be not ok?