Government is Irrational.

[Creed of Heresy]

I don't agree with that. I think that human beings, by-and-large, are willing to cooperate and work towards common goals in an organized manner. But I think that this only works well in small communities where everyone in the group knows one another and shunning an uncooperative person is very effective at protecting the group.

Shunning an uncooperative person is an act of government, at least from the shunned person's point of view; who are those other people, he'd think, to decide to punish him for not obeying their dictates? If it was Koolay, he'd be complaining, "You guys are denying me my liberty to fart in our bomb shelter. I never signed a paper saying I wouldn't." Especially after he'd done it about 20 times and someone got physical with him.

Best. Analogy. Ever.

[Tonus]

Shunning an uncooperative person is an act of government, at least from the shunned person's point of view;

That wasn't my point. I was commenting on the claim that we're "douchebags by nature." I believe that humans are social creatures by nature, and that most of us see the benefits of cooperation and of putting the community above the individual. The ratio of douchebags is, IMO, very low. But given that we are social creatures who create communities, even a small ratio of troublemakers is damaging to the community. Thus, we create governments, be it on a loose and communal scale or on a large and rigidly organized one.

Koolay's point appears to be predicated on the idea that we can continue to refine humanity until so few disruptive people are left that they can be rendered ineffective. I think that this view is unrealistic; you only need a very small group to wreak considerable havoc in a community, and in a world as interconnected/interdependent as ours the damage would spread quickly.

[genkaus]

@Tonus & Bennyboy,

The need for government isn't simply due to presence of douchebags in society. We'd need a government even if everyone was a moral and rational person.

Imagine a hypothetical, futuristic society where everyone has a morality chip implanted in their brain upon birth. Such a chip would indicate all immoral thoughts you have and would give you a severe migraine upon commission of such an act, proportionate to its immorality. Parents would always have such a chip implanted in their children because their chip indicates that it is the moral thing to do. Do you think we'd be able to do away with government in such a society? Would two moral and rational persons never have any disagreements?

Imagine that in such a society, two partners have invested different amounts of time and money into building a company and as a result of that, each claims a different percentage of the profits. Who would decide what the appropriate percentage is? A third party? Who'd choose this third party? Who'd ensure that this third party is objective and correct and hasn't misjudged the facts?

Take another hypothetical - a worker dies in factory due to an accident. The family claims that it was due to the owner's negligence and inadequate safety precautions and demand compensation in the amount of that year's profits. The owner says that the precautions were adequate and the worker died of his own incompetence. Who would decide who is correct and how much compensation is deserved? Who'd lay down the guidelines for what qualifies as "adequate precautions"?

The role of the government is a society goes much beyond keeping errant douchebags in check.

[bennyboy]

I can think of another reason for government. Without one, roads wouldn't get built.

[Koolay]

I can think of another reason for government. Without one, roads wouldn't get built.

So you are saying a private company could not build roads?

What a load of bullshit propaganda. Especially considering that government routinely contracts private companies for road construction.

---

@Tonus & Bennyboy,

The need for government isn't simply due to presence of douchebags in society. We'd need a government even if everyone was a moral and rational person.

So you are saying we need government to be moral? Isn't that what religious say? 'we need god to be moral'.

---

Could you expand on this, why is it unrealistic for people to act voluntarily ?

You are making a strange syllogism: anarchists act voluntarily, therefore all people who act voluntarily must be anarchists.

You see government as an impediment to liberty. This is true in a sense; certainly you cannot choose to do whatever you want to without restriction. To allow you this right would be to ask humanity to trust in your peaceful and honest nature.

That's fine for you. But I am not willing to extend this trust to all members of humanity. I've met a large cross section of our species, and a bigger group of selfish douchebags, lying thieves, and illogical bullshitters I could never hope to meet.

Well why are they behaving that way to begin with? And you are saying none of these people are in government? The government lies all the time. And kills people on a daily basis.

[genkaus]

So you are saying a private company could not build roads?

What a load of bullshit propaganda. Especially considering that government routinely contracts private companies for road construction.

There is a difference between building roads and getting roads built. Roads serve an important socio-economic function in a country, especially in underdeveloped areas. Private companies would only build roads where they can make a profit. Government would build roads even where it would run at a loss simply because it'd in the long term benefit of the country as a whole.

So you are saying we need government to be moral? Isn't that what religious say? 'we need god to be moral'.

That is not even close to what I said. Try reading a bit more closely this time.

We'd need a government even if everyone in the society is moral and rational.

Well why are they behaving that way to begin with?

Everyone has their own reasons. It'd be foolish to generalize.

And you are saying none of these people are in government?

No one is saying that.

The government lies all the time. And kills people on a daily basis.

And there would be much, much more of that if there wasn't a government.

[Koolay]

So you are saying we need government to be moral? Isn't that what religious say? 'we need god to be moral'.

That is not even close to what I said. Try reading a bit more closely this time.

We'd need a government even if everyone in the society is moral and rational.

Who are you to determine what 7 billion people need?

Well why are they behaving that way to begin with?

Everyone has their own reasons. It'd be foolish to generalize.

Well if you don't even know why people are acting badly to begin with, then there's no way you could possibly have the solution.

The government lies all the time. And kills people on a daily basis.

And there would be much, much more of that if there wasn't a government.

How do you know?

[genkaus]

Who are you to determine what 7 billion people need?

Someone who clearly understands people better than you.

Well if you don't even know why people are acting badly to begin with, then there's no way you could possibly have the solution.

I do know why they are acting badly. Which is why I can tell you that there is no single reason for them to act badly and that every bad act has its own set of reasons and motivations. Which is also why I can tell you that the solution is to have a central body to not only judge and evaluate those bad acts and mete out appropriate punishment, but also to address the existence of those varied motivations and attempt to prevent prevent those acts altogether.

And there would be much, much more of that if there wasn't a government.

How do you know?

Because it not only makes logical sense, but we also see it happening in communities where there is no government or where the governmental authority is lax.

[Koolay]

Who are you to determine what 7 billion people need?

Someone who clearly understands people better than you.

Well if you don't even know why people are acting badly to begin with, then there's no way you could possibly have the solution.

I do know why they are acting badly. Which is why I can tell you that there is no single reason for them to act badly and that every bad act has its own set of reasons and motivations. Which is also why I can tell you that the solution is to have a central body to not only judge and evaluate those bad acts and mete out appropriate punishment, but also to address the existence of those varied motivations and attempt to prevent prevent those acts altogether.

How do you know?

Because it not only makes logical sense, but we also see it happening in communities where there is no government or where the governmental authority is lax.

Alright, we are going in circles, so I will end this conversation now.

[genkaus]

Alright, we are going in circles, so I will end this conversation now.

We are not going in circles. I've presented reasoned and logical arguments and you don't seem to have any counter to them. If you want to pretend that you are quitting because the discussion isn't going anywhere, be my guest, but don't expect anyone else to be fooled.