Government is Irrational.

[bennyboy]

I think, Koolay, that you see government as a group of power-hungry elite. The problems caused by this elite, then, could be solved by removing them. But if you see government as the process of instinct in action, you'll see that it's rooted in obvious evolutionary advantage, and will pop up wherever those instincts exist.

Actually humans are the only animal around that can negotiate peacefully - language after all is negotiation. If we want something, we (apart from the dsyfunctional aggressors) don't steal and fight when we want something. We peacefully trade and negotiate, negotiation is at the heart of all language systems that other animals do not posses. So humans, if anything are the only animal that aggression is not it's nature.

And if part of the negotiation is establishing common rules by which to guarantee fairness, and the consequences of breaking those rules, then you have established a peaceful government.

The real problem isn't the government, though-- it's the fact that you are in a social contract consisting of a truly staggering number of people, and have as much power as an individual salmon in a spawning river. This feels dehumanizing sometimes.

This is wrong. It is not a contract as a contract implies voluntarism. Nobody can sign on behalf of me unless I give permission. I didn't give permission for shit. How could I? I was a foetus when I was slapped on with fiscal debt and 'social obligations'.

The contract is implied. Nobody ever signed the social contract or explicitly agreed to it. But so long as you follow the rules of the society, and demand its benefits, you are in the contract sure enough. I guarantee if the police knock on your door to drag you away for sedition, you'll tell them how you've been a great citizen and beg them to allow you your "rights" (which you don't actually have, because you claim not to be a party to the social contract).

People sometimes DO declare explicitly that they don't accept the contract. They refuse to pay taxes, or they attack government offices, or rob banks. Then the government kills them or removes their freedoms completely.

But the specific details you mentioned (e.g. debt upon birth) don't really require anarchy to be solved. They require an active population who will change the cost-benefit analysis of governmental behaviors-- either through rebellion ("Let them eat cake."), or through voting/anti-voting social campaigns, or through worker strike, or whatever. Take for example Wall Street. What would have happened if the angry citizens had stormed all the business offices and started executing CEOs?

But this is not anarchy. It's rebellion. There's a big difference-- because an anarchist might tear down a government, but he's a fool if he thinks another one won't replace it.