Continuity of government

[billydkid]

Is anyone else bothered by this idea - the idea that should total disaster befall this country our first priority should be to protect all our leader so they can stay in charge when those of us left manage to dig out from the rubble? It seems to me that to endorse that kind of thinking is to endorse the idea that the government is the country, which I find deeply troubling. Plus, is suggests that some people think we should never really be free even when the country is in shambles and the supposed benefits of being a country no longer exist.

Yes, I am an anarchist and I believe the desire for justice and fair treatment of others is inherent in most of us and the only legitimate reason for instituting government is to protect the freedom we have by default. I think people cling to this idea that we need the government to prevent chaos - government count on people believing that to maintain control. There really is no reason at all to believe such a thing. The reason we are all not maniacs who go around stealing from or butchering each is not because the government keeps us in check. Tell me, is the reason you don't kill your neighbor and rape his wife is because of government sanctions against such behavior? I hardly think so. I have to add the popular notion of anarchy - molotov cocktail throwing psychos - has nothing to do with what anarchy actually is or what anarchists believe.

[gumboot]

Tell me, is the reason you don't kill your neighbor and rape his wife is because of government sanctions against such behavior? I hardly think so.

Government looks after all the stuff I want looked after but can't be bothered looking after.

[Bikewer]

I suppose it's possible that in the aftermath of some non-military destruction of the government (perhaps an asteroid lands on the capitol while the inauguration is in progress?) that the populace would simply settle down into some sort of libertarian paradise....

Doesn't seem likely, though.

For good or ill, most human beings seem to respond well to some sort of delegation of authority.
I have no idea what percentage of human beings would be happy anarchists, content to entirely manage their lives. I'd be willing to guess it would be rather small.

We seem to like some semblance of order, and have historically been willing to give up a variety of other things in order to have it.

If there's anything that having been in police work for many years has taught me, it's that during and after a large-scale disaster, people have to take charge. They have to organize, allocate, obtain and dispense resources, see that the dead and injured are cared for, re-establish whatever was disestablished, etc.
Like it or not, we look to government officials to accomplish these things.

[gumboot]

I suppose it's possible that in the aftermath of some non-military destruction of the government (perhaps an asteroid lands on the capitol while the inauguration is in progress?) that the populace would simply settle down into some sort of libertarian paradise....

Doesn't seem likely, though.

For good or ill, most human beings seem to respond well to some sort of delegation of authority.
I have no idea what percentage of human beings would be happy anarchists, content to entirely manage their lives. I'd be willing to guess it would be rather small.

We seem to like some semblance of order, and have historically been willing to give up a variety of other things in order to have it.

If there's anything that having been in police work for many years has taught me, it's that during and after a large-scale disaster, people have to take charge. They have to organize, allocate, obtain and dispense resources, see that the dead and injured are cared for, re-establish whatever was disestablished, etc.
Like it or not, we look to government officials to accomplish these things.


Just to add my agreement, you only need to have been on the scene of a bad car accident or similar to have witnessed this. Most people turn to custard if things go bad and there's no one to tell them what to do. It's a social animal thing. You never see panthers panicking. ;)

[Region Rat]

But, like they say, all politics is local. Even if DC was wiped out, the political structure in the rest of the country would still exist. There would still be local control over the same things as before the (so-called) 'disaster'. The main issues would be the money flow and the military control. But the state NG would still be controlled by the Governors. Police forces, courts, etc. would not all disappear. In my neck of the woods, a cheer may go up, then everyone would go back to work.

I think the more important question would be: How would the government survive with the loss of all of the lobbyists?

[ServiceSoon]

I suppose it's possible that in the aftermath of some non-military destruction of the government (perhaps an asteroid lands on the capitol while the inauguration is in progress?) that the populace would simply settle down into some sort of libertarian paradise....

Doesn't seem likely, though.I think there is a gene that stimulates certain people to govern others. Therefore I think (given a reasonable amount of time to establish a government) no matter what the situation, we will never be without government. I’m not saying governments or the people in government are bad.

For good or ill, most human beings seem to respond well to some sort of delegation of authority.
I have no idea what percentage of human beings would be happy anarchists, content to entirely manage their lives. I'd be willing to guess it would be rather small. We seem to like some semblance of order, and have historically been willing to give up a variety of other things in order to have it.Maybe authority is received fairly well because we have been domesticated. I agree, “For good or ill” is the question.

If there's anything that having been in police work for many years has taught me, it's that during and after a large-scale disaster, people have to take charge. They have to organize, allocate, obtain and dispense resources, see that the dead and injured are cared for, re-establish whatever was disestablished, etc.
Like it or not, we look to government officials to accomplish these things.Reliance upon government will inevitably lead to a worse disaster when government can't be there to help.

Is anyone else bothered by this idea - the idea that should total disaster befall this country our first priority should be to protect all our leader so they can stay in charge when those of us left manage to dig out from the rubble? It seems to me that to endorse that kind of thinking is to endorse the idea that the government is the country, which I find deeply troubling. Plus, is suggests that some people think we should never really be free even when the country is in shambles and the supposed benefits of being a country no longer exist.This policy won't change no matter what. I think your confusion is due to a conflict of interest and thus your opinion is biased. Kind of like how the people in power that created this policy is a conflict of interest.

Yes, I am an anarchist and I believe the desire for justice and fair treatment of others is inherent in most of us and the only legitimate reason for instituting government is to protect the freedom we have by default. I think people cling to this idea that we need the government to prevent chaos - government count on people believing that to maintain control. There really is no reason at all to believe such a thing. The reason we are all not maniacs who go around stealing from or butchering each is not because the government keeps us in check. Tell me, is the reason you don't kill your neighbor and rape his wife is because of government sanctions against such behavior? I hardly think so. I have to add the popular notion of anarchy - molotov cocktail throwing psychos - has nothing to do with what anarchy actually is or what anarchists believe.Have you read, "Why government doesn't work?" (http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119977.pdf) Should be required reading in school. Otherwise the schools aren't educating they are propagandizing.

[billydkid]

Why on earth can I not ever write a single paragraph without leaving out a word or some other gaff? Well, maybe this one will come out alright. You know, write a lot - in lab notebooks, analytical methods, reports and various other stuff. I don't think I have ever been able to write anything without at least one obvious mistake in it. I hate that about myself.

[69dodge]

Wouldn't leaving out a gaff be good?

P.S. You left out the "I" from "You know, I write a lot".

P.P.S. There should be a law against that sort of thing.

P.P.P.S. :p

[billydkid]

Wouldn't leaving out a gaff be good?

P.S. You left out the "I" from "You know, I write a lot".

P.P.S. There should be a law against that sort of thing.

P.P.P.S. :pSee, there's something wrong with me.

[Francesca R]

I think people cling to this idea that we need the government to prevent chaos - government count on people believing that to maintain control. It may not be chaos but it will likely be a lot less stable than governed society. You know, a nastier, more brutish, shorter life kind of thing.

There really is no reason at all to believe such a thing. The reason we are all not maniacs who go around stealing from or butchering each is not because the government keeps us in check. Tell me, is the reason you don't kill your neighbor and rape his wife is because of government sanctions against such behavior? I hardly think so. No but I would expect more of this in the absence of social order imposed by consensus.

I have to add the popular notion of anarchy - molotov cocktail throwing psychos - has nothing to do with what anarchy actually is or what anarchists believe.How does anarchy avoid social chaos?

[SteveGrenard]

From the OP sounds like the argument is based on the plot of Jericho. Is it inspired by this?

[Ladewig]

I believe the desire for justice and fair treatment of others is inherent in most of us

Evidence, please.

O.K. now that the semi-sarcastic response is dispensed with, let's talk. If by most, you mean 51%, then I think that there is a true need for a government in times of calm and times of chaos. If If by most, you mean 99%, then you are right that it may be wiser to not devote resources to government continuity in times of crisis.

Of course the last point to address is: what is your definition of just and fair treatment? I suspect that if we grabbed five U.S. citizens off the street and asked what is the fair and just thing to do with illegal aliens we could easily get five very different answers. Heck, we might even get seven different answers.

[billydkid]

From the OP sounds like the argument is based on the plot of Jericho. Is it inspired by this?Actually I never saw Jericho. In regard to some of the comments regarding chaos - I can only think of Charleton Heston as Moses and pretty much every biblical epic - the ridiculous idea that without some overriding social authority that everything devolves into social chaos and people turn into animals. In the movie, Moses leave to go up the mountain and in the interim all the people lose their faith (or something) and apparently all their self control and sense of decency and becoming raping and pillaging barbarians. It is a boneheaded view of humanity that unfortunately most people seem to share it.

This whole idea that without the constraints of governing authority of some sort everyone reverts to their basest instincts is, frankly, stupid. We have the mythology of the old/wild west where "lawlessness" was rampant and people were always having gunfights and women and children lived in constant fear. The reality is that for the most part the wild west was pretty tame and people cooperated because they knew cooperation was in their best interest and in general people are inclined to respect each other.

People who rape and murder and steal will do it with or without laws against it and people who don't do those things - the vast majority of us - are constrained by their sense of decency and desire for a peaceful existence. The silliness of believing that societies are peaceful and cooperative and care about justice only because their government dictates that they be that way is obvious. The belief in the value and necessity of government is so indoctrinated in people that they can't even imagine that a society without a government could be anything but barbaric. Which is odd when you consider that virtually all the barbarity that has ever occurred has occurred under the auspices of some sort of governing authority or other.

[Cylinder]

...the ridiculous idea that without some overriding social authority that everything devolves into social chaos and people turn into animals.

It is ridiculous to claim that a lack of social authority would turn people into animals. We already are animals.

[billydkid]

It is ridiculous to claim that a lack of social authority would turn people into animals. We already are animals.I'm not at all sure what you are saying. I'm not sure if you are taking issue with my use of the word animal (which I am obviously using in the sense of being inhumane) or if you are saying people are obviously beastly creatures. If the argument is that - that humans are beastly creatures who can't be trusted to control themselves it is hard to imagine that they should be trusted to control others.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Have you read, "Why government doesn't work?" (http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119977.pdf) Should be required reading in school. Otherwise the schools aren't educating they are propagandizing.

LOL, and that isn't propaganda?

The education section was hilariously awful. For example, look at page 113, where the author attempts to show a negative correlation between SAT scores and federal spending. First of all, his graph is misleading in its mere set up. Secondly, he is being an idiot by not controlling for outside variables. We don't use the SAT test to track student education because when more students took the test, giving it a larger and less biased sample size, the average score went down. That is why it seems like students were consistently getting dumber.

Libertarians with a hard on for economics should really attempt to actually study education.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

To the OP, people naturally form into groups for power over scarce resources. Some form of government is inevitable.

Also, the claim that people are inherently good and their actions go unneffected by risk of punishment is laughable.

Ever seen a riot?

[Cylinder]

If the argument is that - that humans are beastly creatures who can't be trusted to control themselves it is hard to imagine that they should be trusted to control others.

People can be trusted more than persons.

[Lensman]

Humans are not born with a sense of morality, it is imposed externally - by parents & others in authority over them.

(ps, "unneffected" = unaffected, in this context.)

[Francesca R]

This whole idea that without the constraints of governing authority of some sort everyone reverts to their basest instincts is, frankly, stupid. Yes it's stupid. It's also a strawbaby. Now try the other way around . . . are you suggesting that the utility of laws prohibiting crime is zero? Everybody would be as just and orderly and well behaved as they are now if government was swept away at a stroke?

Which is odd when you consider that virtually all the barbarity that has ever occurred has occurred under the auspices of some sort of governing authority or other.Virtually all documented human existence has occurred under the auspices of some sort of governing authority or other. Anarchy is something of a disequilibrium situation.

[PogoPedant]

We actually tried this whole 'no government' thing in Norway a while back. We introduced the Plague and had our ruling class (royalty and nobility) completely exterminated. For good measure, we got our armed forced destroyed by the disease as well. The result: Denmark invaded.

There's always somebody ready to govern.

[Bikewer]

Lensman: Perhaps not so much. Have you read Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate?
He makes a powerful argument for a Human Nature, which includes a propensity towards certain behaviors.

[Francesca R]

Humans are not born with a sense of morality, it is imposed externally - by parents & others in authority over them.

(ps, "unneffected" = unaffected, in this context.)

Lensman: Perhaps not so much. Have you read Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate?
He makes a powerful argument for a Human Nature, which includes a propensity towards certain behaviors.I haven't read that but I probably agree with what it might be arguing. Several actions which we know as "moral" have an evolutionary gain if we do them. That kind of thing?

[ServiceSoon]

LOL, and that isn't propaganda?

The education section was hilariously awful. For example, look at page 113, where the author attempts to show a negative correlation between SAT scores and federal spending. First of all, his graph is misleading in its mere set up. Secondly, he is being an idiot by not controlling for outside variables. We don't use the SAT test to track student education because when more students took the test, giving it a larger and less biased sample size, the average score went down. That is why it seems like students were consistently getting dumber.

Libertarians with a hard on for economics should really attempt to actually study education.Only telling one side of the story is propaganda. I don’t recall hearing anything about Libertarianism or criticisms of our current political philosophy in high school. Unfortunately I never attended college.

In my opinion it would be better if both sides of the story were told. The document isn't perfect, but surly there is some good information in there. It's no secret that our current Department of Education isn't doing so well.

[KingMerv00]

Even if I agree with the OP and believe that human beings are basically good, you can't deny that some humans are awful people. We need an official authority to keep those individuals from obtaining power through force.

[roger]

Billydkid, serious question - how many third world nations have you visited? I can tell you stories of being shook down by police, local populations (road blocks created to extract a bribe from you), evading bandits. I have friends who have had a gun held to their temple by the police in Mexico when they wouldn't pay a bribe during a shakedown. I have climbed (I travel internationally to climb, basically) in areas where groups of armed citizens roam on horseback or on foot, ready to steal from you (fortunately, I never got held up, but know people who have). I know people who, while riding in a cab (in Lima, Peru) made the mistake of leaving their window rolled down, resulting in a mugging from somebody walking on the street. Another person was robbed by a person holding a razor - he ran up and slit the person's backpack - the joke was all she had in there was some toilet paper, and he ran away trailing a big ribbon of white. Least you think these are anomalies, things like the cut backpack (Old town, Quito) the armed robbers on horseback (Rou Pinchincha), the thieves in Lima, etc., are written about in guidebooks. It's bog standard in some places. And we haven't even addressed organized crime. In short, it's been my experience that when you do not have a strong government keeping crime in check, people readily turn to crime. Not all, or even most. But enough to make life dangerous and miserable.

[Loss Leader]

Tell me, is the reason you don't kill your neighbor and rape his wife is because of government sanctions against such behavior?


Yes.


But then again, I only have three degrees in political science, public administration and law, so I might not have the most fully-formed understanding of the topic.

[KingMerv00]

Pointless post removed.

[NobbyNobbs]

Billydkid--another serious question. I don't know much about anarchists, but I'm willing to learn. I've always had the "Molotov-throwing psychotic" image in my head.

Even assuming that's a false image, there are always those who would throw a Molotov cocktail. Some, just to see what it's like; some, out of hate. (Heck, I've always wondered what it's like, myself!) Similarly, there are those who would steal, or draw swastikas on school walls, or refuse to contribute to society. How does anarchy deal with these things?

Myself, I like the fact that I don't have to personally oversee the repaving of the nation's highways, the safety tests for new drugs, or the negotiations for overseas trade. I'm glad we have people (a.k.a. "government") to do that for me, and I'm more than willing to pay them ("taxes") to do it.

[D'rok]

Yes.


But then again, I only have three degrees in political science, public administration and law, so I might not have the most fully-formed understanding of the topic.

You have nine degrees? Damn. That is impressive.

(I kid).

[Soapy Sam]

Pointless post removed.

You set a dangerous precedent, my friend.
__________________________________________________ ____


The problem with anarchists is that some of them don't agree with you.
About peace and stuff.
And they tend to be the ones with the bombs.

[Loss Leader]

The problem with anarchists is that some of them don't agree with you.


Every man is an anarchist until he has a teenage daughter.

[Francesca R]

Even assuming that's a false image, there are always those who would throw a Molotov cocktail. Some, just to see what it's like; some, out of hate. (Heck, I've always wondered what it's like, myself!) Similarly, there are those who would steal, or draw swastikas on school walls, or refuse to contribute to society. How does anarchy deal with these things?My thought is that privately formed enforcement groups would spring up to defend that which they want to protect. Also to offend what they want to offend and procure, which is the other side of that coin. So in other words the law of the jungle prevails. Eventually the most successful "organised crime racket" prevails over the many others and becomes a de facto government that rules by something approximating tyranny and the threat and use of force. Perhaps this government stops using force to extract what it wants after a while (because of the effort/cost involved) and instead gives something back to its subjects as a trade for more peaceful servitude on their part. Perhaps co-operative bargains are made whereby the threat of punishment isn't even necessary to ensure the compliance of much of the population eventually, and they come to willingly accept the governing arrangements because they feel that they get optimum benefit (more or less) in the form of provision of services and protection from outsiders so that they don't want things any other way. The mindset of those governing and those governed alters from conflicting interests to common interests.

I would be happy to have an alternative model outlined.

Myself, I like the fact that I don't have to personally oversee the repaving of the nation's highways, the safety tests for new drugs, or the negotiations for overseas trade. I'm glad we have people (a.k.a. "government") to do that for me, and I'm more than willing to pay them ("taxes") to do it.I know the anarchist's response to this is: you are forced to do this--whether you're willing or not does not matter. So this evil (monopoly on the use of force) must be overthrown

[Ladewig]

People who rape and murder and steal will do it with or without laws against it and people who don't do those things - the vast majority of us - are constrained by their sense of decency and desire for a peaceful existence.

So you believe that virtually no one who considers rape or murder is dissuaded by governmental laws and harsh criminal penalties?

. . . . . .

ETA: Also, please explain how the society you describe would deal with a rapist or murderer.

[billydkid]

Even if I agree with the OP and believe that human beings are basically good, you can't deny that some humans are awful people. We need an official authority to keep those individuals from obtaining power through force.I don't disagree, the dispute is whether or not we need to designate particular people as authority figures and proxies to keep bad actors in line.

Actually, I do believe in the rule of law, both in the sense that we should not be governed by "men" but by certain principles and in the sense that certain behaviors are generally recognized as proscribed and sanctions against individuals are not arbitrary. My personal belief is that the only legitimate role for government is to protect our fundamental rights - which in our culture we have decided all people have by virtue of their existence alone. Some people would say rights "ordained by our creator" even if that creator is simply the universe along.

Even in our most liberal societies governments generally have extended their reach way beyond the scope of merely securing and guaranteeing those rights. But I hold to position that you and I and virtually every single person we know are not inclined to interfere with the basic rights of others. In my view laws, say, against assaulting the rights of others serve the purpose of expressing those rights in a tangible way so that those inclined not to respect the rights of others know what behaviors they will not be allowed to engage in without sanctions.

It may be that the threat of sanction inhibits those who do not respect the rights of others from acting badly but only in as much as they think they may be caught. Likewise, most crimes are committed by those thinking they will not be caught. It is not the law itself that inhibits them, only concern with being caught and punished which means only that they will tailor their behavior in order not to be caught and not for the purpose of obeying the law. You and I do not need to worry about laws to prevent us from infringing on the rights of others since we have no interest in doing so. There are a multitude of other laws which have nothing to do with protecting our rights which we mostly obey merely because they are the law.

We obey the law because it is the law and because we don't wish to exploit others. Criminals, simply, do not obey the law. They might not kill you out of fear of getting caught, but if they see a way to kill you without being caught they will do it (assuming they are so inclined). Essentially, and this goes to the gun control issue, criminals (and please don't gratuitously go after me for using that shorthand) do not obey the law and laws only apply to the "law abiding". We can punish those people who break the law if we can catch them, but the law itself does not make them inclined to be law abiding.

[billydkid]

So you believe that virtually no one who considers rape or murder is dissuaded by governmental laws and harsh criminal penalties?

. . . . . .

ETA: Also, please explain how the society you describe would deal with a rapist or murderer.I believe those who rape and murder may tailor their anti-social behavior only to the extent they have to and in the context in which they feel they can get away with it they will rape and murder. I believe in the rule of law. It serves two purposes - first it delineates what behaviors will not be tolerated for those who do not have internal controls and it details what behaviors will be punished. It elliminates confusion for those who are either confused or don't care what constitutes decent behavior. In my mind, there is no contradiction between anarchy and the rule of law - it simply mean that no particular set of people are designated as the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable behavior. It simply mean we do not have rulers, not that there is no code of acceptable behavior. I think people are capable of self ruling. You know, we see so much injustice and confusion within our extremely complicated justice system - horrible miscarraiges of justice. And this happens on a routine and nearly predictable basis so my argument would be that credentialing and formalizing and beauracratizing our governmental system in no way assures or even is conducive to any kind of consistent justice.

[dudalb]

Actually I never saw Jericho. In regard to some of the comments regarding chaos - I can only think of Charleton Heston as Moses and pretty much every biblical epic - the ridiculous idea that without some overriding social authority that everything devolves into social chaos and people turn into animals.

My knowledge of History,and what I see around me, tell me that without some overriding social authority society does indeed drop into chaos and people do turn into animals.
Welcome to the real world,guy.
You seem to be suffering from "All Authority Sucks" syndrome. Don't worry, if you are in the age group I think you are, you will grow out of it.

[Ladewig]

ETA: Also, please explain how the society you describe would deal with a rapist or murderer.

I believe those who rape and murder may tailor their anti-social behavior only to the extent they have to and in the context in which they feel they can get away with it they will rape and murder. I believe in the rule of law. It serves two purposes - first it delineates what behaviors will not be tolerated for those who do not have internal controls and it details what behaviors will be punished. It elliminates confusion for those who are either confused or don't care what constitutes decent behavior. In my mind, there is no contradiction between anarchy and the rule of law - it simply mean that no particular set of people are designated as the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable behavior. It simply mean we do not have rulers, not that there is no code of acceptable behavior. I think people are capable of self ruling. You know, we see so much injustice and confusion within our extremely complicated justice system - horrible miscarraiges of justice. And this happens on a routine and nearly predictable basis so my argument would be that credentialing and formalizing and beauracratizing our governmental system in no way assures or even is conducive to any kind of consistent justice.


I will agree that the current system is capable of gross miscarriages of justice. But I want to hear what is involved in your system of justice before I advocate dismantling the current system.

What is done with people accused of murder or rape? How will your proposed system ensure we have fewer miscarriages of justice?

[Loss Leader]

We obey the law because it is the law and because we don't wish to exploit others. Criminals, simply, do not obey the law. They might not kill you out of fear of getting caught, but if they see a way to kill you without being caught they will do it (assuming they are so inclined). Essentially, and this goes to the gun control issue, criminals (and please don't gratuitously go after me for using that shorthand) do not obey the law and laws only apply to the "law abiding". We can punish those people who break the law if we can catch them, but the law itself does not make them inclined to be law abiding.


You have contradicted yourself. Either someone does not kill you for fear of being caught or the law itself does not affect whether someone is inclined to be law abiding. If fear of punishment changes how people behave, then the law mandating that punishment changes how they behave.

And this is the largest hole in your argument. There is no "criminal" class or "law abiding" class. There are only people who are each individually encouraged or discouraged from following certain rules by the punishment or rewards that law offers. A person who would never murder another in civilian life might be quite the cold-blooded killer as a soldier - the only thing that has changed is how the law rewards the behavior. And a person who would never rob a liquor store under the current system might do so if police were suddenly absent or the courts ceased to function.

Law has an effect on behavior. You said so yourself.

[Ziggurat]

Is anyone else bothered by this idea - the idea that should total disaster befall this country our first priority should be to protect all our leader so they can stay in charge when those of us left manage to dig out from the rubble?

What do you mean, "our" first priority? It won't be my first priority. But it does rather make sense that it should be someone's first priority, just like other aspects of disaster response should be someone's first priority. So what, exactly, is the problem here?

It seems to me that to endorse that kind of thinking is to endorse the idea that the government is the country, which I find deeply troubling.

It's nothing of the sort. But if government doesn't ensure its own survival and continuity, what other organizations or structures are going to do that for government? Well, nobody. Nobody else is equiped to do so, and it's nobody else's responsibility.

Plus, is suggests that some people think we should never really be free even when the country is in shambles and the supposed benefits of being a country no longer exist.

It sounds like you're saying that if disaster strikes, then at least the destruction of government would be the one positive we could look forward to. Which, well, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. And anyways, even if you think we're better off with no government, most people disagree, and the government disagrees, so why would you expect them to do anything differently?

If that's not what you mean, well, I really don't know what you do mean, because the thread of logic is... frayed.

Yes, I am an anarchist and I believe the desire for justice and fair treatment of others is inherent in most of us

You need to spend some more time around small children, then. Such sentiments are not at all inherent. Children may absorb such ideas as justice and fairness easily, but they do not come pre-programmed, and they can absorb plenty of ideas contrary to those as well. Children are, by default, petty and selfish, because that's about all you can be when you're an infant.

and the only legitimate reason for instituting government is to protect the freedom we have by default.

Yeah, yeah. But how is the continuity of government issue any different from all the other problems with government that I suspect you have?

[billydkid]

Yes.


But then again, I only have three degrees in political science, public administration and law, so I might not have the most fully-formed understanding of the topic.Yes, you are a genius. You are also a frightening person if the only thing keeping you from murder and rape are laws against them.

[billydkid]

Billydkid, serious question - how many third world nations have you visited? I can tell you stories of being shook down by police, local populations (road blocks created to extract a bribe from you), evading bandits. I have friends who have had a gun held to their temple by the police in Mexico when they wouldn't pay a bribe during a shakedown. I have climbed (I travel internationally to climb, basically) in areas where groups of armed citizens roam on horseback or on foot, ready to steal from you (fortunately, I never got held up, but know people who have). I know people who, while riding in a cab (in Lima, Peru) made the mistake of leaving their window rolled down, resulting in a mugging from somebody walking on the street. Another person was robbed by a person holding a razor - he ran up and slit the person's backpack - the joke was all she had in there was some toilet paper, and he ran away trailing a big ribbon of white. Least you think these are anomalies, things like the cut backpack (Old town, Quito) the armed robbers on horseback (Rou Pinchincha), the thieves in Lima, etc., are written about in guidebooks. It's bog standard in some places. And we haven't even addressed organized crime. In short, it's been my experience that when you do not have a strong government keeping crime in check, people readily turn to crime. Not all, or even most. But enough to make life dangerous and miserable.Don't you see that you are making my point. Your argument for giving people official authority over other people is that people with authority held a gun to your friends head and that people are awful so we ought give them authority over other people. I don't pretend that I have developed some sort of complete theory about these things - but I do know this, when you give people power over other people they tend to abuse that power and the kind of people who gravitate toward wanting power over other people are the kind of people who shouldn't have power over other people.

I don't advocate lawlessness. I believe in the rule of law. And we may or may not need to authorize other people as proxies to enforce (read "punish", since laws can't really be enforced) those laws. I'm talking about the kinds of laws that involve interfering with persons and their property. My argument really goes to the notion that our natural inclinations are towards abusing the rights, so to speak, of other people. In fact, I believe it is a very small percentage of people who are inclined to do that. In as much as it only takes a small minority of such people to make things miserable for the rest of us we probably do need some sort of coordinated way to deal with these people and to minimize the damage they do.

There may be a small percentage of people who do not harm other people because it is illegal. More likely there are people who do not harm others out of fear of getting caught and punished - which is not a fine distinction. In a context were the concern of getting caught is minimal there are no constraints on these people and they will do what they want to do because they don't care about others. It helps to remember that the vast majority of all the killing done throughout history has been done under the auspices of some sort of authority or other. The whole idea that authority itself is somehow protective is on it's face foolish.

I believe that any community has to have a consensus in terms of what sorts of behaviors are unacceptable. My personal view is that this consensus should be based on the need to protect individual sovereignty, but now there are laws about virtually everything and the vast majority have nothing to do with the protection of individual rights. Just like you can't legislate morality, you can't legislate common decency and I believe, on the whole, people are far more decent than their governments.

If you look at societies that have collapsed and become "lawless" it has almost always come through the corruption of their governments and though having the more or less natural state of cooperation distorted by the government doing as all governments ultimately do - serve the interests of the powerful. I am just surprised that no one sees the paradox in saying that people are awful so they can't be left to their own devices and yet are somehow fit to be given authority and power over others. That is why the notion of limited government is so important and why it is such a concern that we have a government which could not be any further form any reasonable notion of what is limited.

Discretion is a great thing for the conduct of our personal affairs, but not so great when you are wielding power and the threat of force of others. People should not be given authority over others to the point where their personal foibles or political tendencies or their prejudices can have any impact on their conduct. If you hold a position where your religious beliefs or you contempt for another race or your opinion about the proper role of women has any bearing, then the position has been given far more authority than any person should have over other people.

[billydkid]

I have to add, I don't pretend to present myself as an authority on any of these things or that I have a well thought out manifesto of the way society should work. I only present my feelings and impressions about things and to the extent I can, my justifications for those impressions. Likewise, if I bring up something for discussion it generally mean I am looking for the same things from others. I this because of that. Do you agree, disagree and what are your reasons for either. I do believe there is a notion broadly held that without the moral authority of some sort of formal arbiter people in general will go berzerk and not be able to control themselves - like everybody went berzerk when Moses went up to the mountain top (or whereever he went). I just don't think this is accurate.

Furthermore I think authority - whether it comes from a states or from religion or whatever - far from generally being a guarantor of justice and fair play, has been the primary instrument for the perpetuation of injustice all throughout history. History is rife with examples of this. And all of this injustice was "legal" and "formal" and "authorized" and so on. I don't seriously think we could get by without some sort of formalized cooperation - there are just too many of us. Small societies like say Amazonian tribes do not need formal authority in the way larger ones do.

I just think that the problem has never been a lack of respect for authority. It has been people's inclination to give up personal responsibility in lieu of collective responsibility and to have too much respect for authority. All of those people who participated in and allowed, say, Nazi Germany to become what it was were all law abiding citizens and they were all doing what they were "supposed" to do. Like the libertarians like to say "It's not the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse."

[Ladewig]

I believe that any community has to have a consensus in terms of what sorts of behaviors are unacceptable.

I have travelled to parts of the southern United States where very small communities would, if allowed to set their own laws, allow white folks to beat up black folks. I grant they are the exception, but I also know that there are a lot of people who would avoid hiring minorities if federal legislation were expunged. Segregation did not end because communities reached consensus about treating people equally; it ended because civil rights marchers from outside the community staged rallies - it ended because troops were sent in to enforce federal court decisions.

Also, I still want to know how accused rapists and murderers are treated in the society that you envision.

[Francesca R]

I do know this, when you give people power over other people they tend to abuse that power and the kind of people who gravitate toward wanting power over other people are the kind of people who shouldn't have power over other people.

What is your solution? It sounds like it might be to de-regulate the use of force (which is anarchy). Please confirm/deny.

I don't advocate lawlessness. I believe in the rule of law. And we may or may not need to authorize other people as proxies to enforce (read "punish", since laws can't really be enforced) those laws. [ . . . ] I believe it is a very small percentage of people who are inclined to do that. In as much as it only takes a small minority of such people to make things miserable for the rest of us we probably do need some sort of coordinated way to deal with these people and to minimize the damage they do. . . . But then the above indicates you support exactly what is already the case.

[Loss Leader]

Yes, you are a genius. You are also a frightening person if the only thing keeping you from murder and rape are laws against them.


Is every decorated veteran of World War II and Iraq a "frightening person"?

The only thing that separates a soldier from a murderer is the economic, social and legal weight of the separate decisions to kill.

[ServiceSoon]

I have travelled to parts of the southern United States where very small communities would, if allowed to set their own laws, allow white folks to beat up black folks. I grant they are the exception, but I also know that there are a lot of people who would avoid hiring minorities if federal legislation were expunged. Segregation did not end because communities reached consensus about treating people equally; it ended because civil rights marchers from outside the community staged rallies - it ended because troops were sent in to enforce federal court decisions.Are you arguing that it is best to have human right issues declared from the federal gov?

[Ladewig]

Are you arguing that it is best to have human right issues declared from the federal gov?


I'm saying that allowing groups of one or two hundred people to determine, in billykid's words, "what sorts of behaviors are unacceptable" is less desirable than having groups of tens or hundreds of millions of people determining what is unacceptable.

That may not be a sufficient answer so let me focus directly on that question. I believe that all humans have rights and that a federal government is better able to ensure that those rights are protected than city governments or community councils are. I would be willing to reconsider that position, if billykid provides compelling evidence that smaller groups are better able to protect rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.

[dudalb]

Are you arguing that it is best to have human right issues declared from the federal gov?

In some cases,yes.

[ServiceSoon]

I'm saying that allowing groups of one or two hundred people to determine, in billykid's words, "what sorts of behaviors are unacceptable" is less desirable than having groups of tens or hundreds of millions of people determining what is unacceptable.

That may not be a sufficient answer so let me focus directly on that question. I believe that all humans have rights and that a federal government is better able to ensure that those rights are protected than city governments or community councils are. I would be willing to reconsider that position, if billykid provides compelling evidence that smaller groups are better able to protect rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.Maybe you should be the one who has to prove that the federal government is better at protecting rights. PLease see below. I quoted your name because I feel you are saying this too.

In some cases,yes.As it is now I believe the states (which couldn't be considered a small group) are responsible for our rights; followed by the supreme court. What happens when the laws the federal government create aren't fair?

[Ladewig]

As it is now I believe the states (which couldn't be considered a small group) are responsible for our rights; followed by the supreme court.

In protecting the rights enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government (through the Supreme Court) trumps any actions by the states. If a state tried to restrict free speech or freedom of religion, then the federal courts (including the S.C.) would rule against it and if necessary, federal troops would be sent to enforce those rights. States may ensure rights not listed in the Constitution and then the state itself would be responsible for protecting those rights.

In general I am a strong supporter of states' rights. I believe the federal government is wrong to strongarm the states into passing laws requiring the drinking age to be 21. However, finding the right balance between federal power and state power is difficult. I believe that reasonable people can disagree about how to best achieve that.



What happens when the laws the federal government create aren't fair?

I would classify those laws into two categories: those that clearly violate the Constitution and those that do not. The first category is generally remedied by filing suit in a federal court and getting the law overturned. The second category is more troublesome. The only solution seems to be to elect different people who run on a platform of overturning those particular laws.


Maybe you should be the one who has to prove that the federal government is better at protecting rights.

Just look at some Supreme Court decisions: ensuring blacks in all states have equal access to public facilities including schools (Brown v. Board of Education - 1954), overturning state laws preventing interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia - 1967), protecting black defendants from states that allow blacks to be excluded from juries (Batson v. Kentucky - 1986), overturning state laws prohibiting same-sex activity (Lawrence v. Texas - 2003).

[ServiceSoon]

In protecting the rights enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government (through the Supreme Court) trumps any actions by the states. If a state tried to restrict free speech or freedom of religion, then the federal courts (including the S.C.) would rule against it and if necessary, federal troops would be sent to enforce those rights. States may ensure rights not listed in the Constitution and then the state itself would be responsible for protecting those rights.I don't think the federal government trumps any actions by the state. I think these disputes are settled in the court system. Unless we are talking about the Civil War; then war.

In general I am a strong supporter of states' rights. I believe the federal government is wrong to strongarm the states into passing laws requiring the drinking age to be 21. However, finding the right balance between federal power and state power is difficult. I believe that reasonable people can disagree about how to best achieve that.Agreed. I think the states right verse federal rights is the underlined cause of the Civil War.

I would classify those laws into two categories: those that clearly violate the Constitution and those that do not. The first category is generally remedied by filing suit in a federal court and getting the law overturned. The second category is more troublesome. The only solution seems to be to elect different people who run on a platform of overturning those particular laws.It is a lot harder and requires a lot more money to get a federal law changed.

Just look at some Supreme Court decisions: ensuring blacks in all states have equal access to public facilities including schools (Brown v. Board of Education - 1954), overturning state laws preventing interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia - 1967), protecting black defendants from states that allow blacks to be excluded from juries (Batson v. Kentucky - 1986), overturning state laws prohibiting same-sex activity (Lawrence v. Texas - 2003).I could just as easily find district decisions confirming certain rights or find supreme court decisions denying certain rights.

[Ladewig]

I could just as easily find district decisions confirming certain rights or find supreme court decisions denying certain rights.

Dudalb's response was "in some cases" the federal government protects rights better than state governments. I agree with that. Your finding cases where state court decisions protected rights better than federal court decisions does not disprove the claim that in some cases the federal system does a better job.

On the other hand, I am interested in which cases you would cite.

[Ladewig]

I don't think the federal government trumps any actions by the state.

It does when the state actions clearly violate rights protected by the Constitution. If a state tried to outlaw Islam, the federal government would most certainly trump state law and the president would bring the full force of the federal government (up to and including federal troops) to ensure that the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens were protected.

[ServiceSoon]

It does when the state actions clearly violate rights protected by the Constitution. If a state tried to outlaw Islam, the federal government would most certainly trump state law and the president would bring the full force of the federal government (up to and including federal troops) to ensure that the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens were protected.Don't the disputes have to be settled in the court system first? I think it makes more sense to settle disputes in the court system first and then move to coercion. It isn't like the federal government can just send troops and straighten everything out.

Dudalb's response was "in some cases" the federal government protects rights better than state governments. I agree with that. Your finding cases where state court decisions protected rights better than federal court decisions does not disprove the claim that in some cases the federal system does a better job.

On the other hand, I am interested in which cases you would cite.I took your examples as more of anocedal evidence. That is why I suggested that I could also find evidence that the state governments have protected certain rights. I'm not going to spend any time investigating these cases.

[Ladewig]

I took your examples as more of anecdotal evidence. That is why I suggested that I could also find evidence that the state governments have protected certain rights. I'm not going to spend any time investigating these cases.

I am worried that I may be misunderstanding your position. You seem to be dismissing my evidence by referring to it as anecdotal without providing any evidence of the opposite position (i.e. states are always better at protecting rights than the federal government is). I am quite surprised at your unwillingness to acknowledge that Brown v. Board of Education as overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that sometimes the federal government is better at protecting civil rights. I would be flabbergasted if you could find any respectable lawyer, judge, civil rights advocate, professor, legislator, or political philosopher that would deny that this case is the very epitome of the federal government protecting inalienable rights better than state governments.

Please let me know what your position is and what evidence you have to support it.

[billydkid]

I don't think I'm in bad company. I'm embarrassed to say, even though I do have Common Sense laying around somewhere, I have only ever read the most famous bits of Thomas Paine. He say's what I am incapable of saying.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/paine1.html

[billydkid]

I'm saying that allowing groups of one or two hundred people to determine, in billykid's words, "what sorts of behaviors are unacceptable" is less desirable than having groups of tens or hundreds of millions of people determining what is unacceptable.

That may not be a sufficient answer so let me focus directly on that question. I believe that all humans have rights and that a federal government is better able to ensure that those rights are protected than city governments or community councils are. I would be willing to reconsider that position, if billykid provides compelling evidence that smaller groups are better able to protect rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.Well, no, I hold that there are basic "unalienable" rights which it is the legitimate role of the federal government to protect and that no more local authority has the right to infringe, but in terms personal behaviors I look at it this way - the more personal the behavior the more local the authority should be. For example, in terms of what I eat or ingest, whether I bath or pick my nose, who I marry or sleep with - that should be under my own authority and no one else's. If you take a step further up - say, whether I can drive 90 miles per hour on the highway, that sort of thing that impacts the safety of others should not be left to my discretion alone. The problem is, issues that are as personal as you can get are now being debated and controlled at the highest level of government. If you look at it as though there are spheres of influence around you - to the extent your behavior has a sphere of influence in terms of impacting others - self, then family, then community, then, say, city, then state, then country - those are the levels at which behaviors should be governed. All this independent of the fundamental rights which the national goverment should guarantee.

[Ladewig]

All this independent of the fundamental rights which the national goverment should guarantee.

So what exactly is your viewpoint? In the opening post you seemed rather unenamored of the federal government and in this post you appear to admit that the federal government can sometimes be useful in guaranteeing fundamental rights.

Also, I still want to know how accused rapists and murderers are treated in the society that you envision. Or more precisely, how will it differ from the current system?

[billydkid]

So what exactly is your viewpoint? In the opening post you seemed rather unenamored of the federal government and in this post you appear to admit that the federal government can sometimes be useful in guaranteeing fundamental rights.

Also, I still want to know how accused rapists and murderers are treated in the society that you envision. Or more precisely, how will it differ from the current system?Okay, I would like a federal government like that envisioned by the founders - limited in it's role as prescribed by the Constitution. I don't think it's exactly any secret that the federal government has expanded in its role exponentially beyond anything originally intended. Good lord, we have the congress holding hearing on the use of steriods in major league baseball. I never said there shouldn't be sanctions against infringing on the rights of others, but all you have to do is look at any population center and beauracratic corruption is the rule and not the exception. It seems to me that justice is achieved, when it is, in spite of the system and not because of it. I believe in the rule of law, but when those we put in charge of the law break it or disregard it the concept is meaningless. There is clearly something fundamentally wrong and I don't have to have the answer to recognize that.

My argument is basically this - if humans are flawed, and they are, the worst thing you can do is give some people particular power over others. In any beauracracy the people involved spend much of their time looking for ways to justify their existence and expanding their influence. I want goverment to do less and to do only those things that are necessary to protect our individual rights. People take it forgranted that we need government to get things done. I think government is generally the worst way to get things done.

[Ladewig]

Okay, I would like a federal government like that envisioned by the founders - limited in it's role as prescribed by the Constitution.

I suppose I can agree that some things the federal government does would be better served at a state or local level. I guess states could grade their meat in a safe and consistent manner without the USDA. On the other hand, I am not convinced that states or the free market can do everything the National Hurricane Center does. The Founding Fathers never imagined a national CDC tracking diseases; but again, I am satisfied by having the federal government do it.

I've been known to cast a ballot for the odd libertarian candidate, but cannot subscribe to hard core Libertarian principles (e.g. selling off all national parks including the Grand Canyon).

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
I think people are capable of self ruling. You know, we see so much injustice and confusion within our extremely complicated justice system - horrible miscarriages of justice. And this happens on a routine and nearly predictable basis so my argument would be that credentialing and formalizing and beauracratizing our governmental system in no way assures or even is conducive to any kind of consistent justice.



In any case, I am still interested in how accused rapists and murderers are treated in the society that you envision. Or more precisely, how will it differ from the current system which produces "horrible miscarriages of justice" on a "routine and nearly predictable basis."