The Political Thread

[Mikey]

If 66.1% of the tribe pray to the Volcano God asking for it to please not erupt and to bestow blessings on the tribe, that does not prove the existence of the Volcano God.

This seems apt

[The Legendary Shark]

I see. So, it's "not nice" for me to compare belief in the magical entity of "government" with belief in the magical entity of a "volcano god" but it's okay to call my "considered viewpoint" nonsense?
.
H&S and Food Standard laws? Do you really need someone else to tell you when an activity is dangerous or whether something is safe to eat? The core of your argument here is that people cannot be trusted. If a butcher continually sells rotten or substandard meat, his customers will punish him by shopping elsewhere or suing him in court. It is in the interests of every butcher to trade in the best quality products for the best prices he can. Similarly, it is in the interests of employers to provide as safe a working environment as they can otherwise nobody will work for them.
.
Furthermore, there is nothing to stop a group of people, like the H&SE, from assessing such things and making their findings public in, for example, local or national media. With this information you can decide for yourself whether or not to patronise certain establishments. Such bodies might be organised through local councils and funded via social money creation. It does not require government coercion, only social cooperation and organisation. Removing the only thing that "government" brings to the table, the threat of immoral violence, in no way diminishes the will of the people for safe services.
.
Yes, we should all take responsibility for our own minds and decisions. This is the concept of self-ownership. I own me and you have no right to boss me about or take my money but that's okay because you own you and I have no right to boss you about or take your money. This is true for us all, I think.
.
The rest of your argument hinges on the evils of multinational corporations fixated on profit over people. Here we are mostly in agreement, yet consider this: often the greatest supporters of the myth of government are these corporations themselves. They fund election campaigns, throw millions, if not billions, of pounds at lobbying and pen legislation for the high priests of government MPs to push through parliament and generally do everything they can to increase their profits. Remove "government" and suddenly they have to operate on a level playing field. If a supermarket is found to be putting sawdust in bread, lack of "government" control will allow for a thousand local bakeries to spring up, bakeries owned and run by people from your own community in whose interest it is to bake the best bread they can containing the best ingredients they can procure. Removing government would, therefore, be a boon to employment and the economy.
.
But, to be brutally frank, any ideas I have are just that - ideas. There are over seven billion people on this planet, each and every one of us a creature of infinite worth and infinite potential. Out of all those minds will emerge ideas and inventions far superior to anything I can come up with, and far superior to anything some deluded politician can come up with. The rest of us will assess and consider those ideas and inventions for running parts of our societies and implement the ones that make sense. This is the direct opposite of having ideas and systems forced on us under threat of violence.
.
In a world without government there will still be leaders - but these will be people who lead by example, with voluntary followers, not people who lead by implied right and threats of violence.

[Jim_Campbell]

H&S and Food Standard laws? Do you really need someone else to tell you when an activity is dangerous or whether something is safe to eat? The core of your argument here is that people cannot be trusted. If a butcher continually sells rotten or substandard meat, his customers will punish him by shopping elsewhere or suing him in court. It is in the interests of every butcher to trade in the best quality products for the best prices he can. Similarly, it is in the interests of employers to provide as safe a working environment as they can otherwise nobody will work for them.

And the people who just plain die from fucking botulism are just an acceptable price to pay in your Brave New World, are they?

Jesus.

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

DP, sorry.

[The Legendary Shark]

Certainly not, Jim. Every human life is priceless and irreplaceable.
.
However, the deaths caused by the irrational belief in "government" do seem insignificant to most of us. It has been estimated that the number of people killed by their own governments between 1900 and 1999 is 262,000,000.
.
"Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times."
.
Botulism can be cured by modern medicine (not modern politicians) but democide cannot be cured by continued belief in "government."

[Professor Bear]

I suggested we get together and murder our government in a series of terrorist atrocities, but you weren't having it.  I put it to you that you are as invested in the status quo as the government is - you're certainly getting plenty of mileage out of discussing it.

[The Legendary Shark]

Even the life of a politician is important and priceless, so my position against violence stands. I think it would be hypocritical of me to say, "you shouldn't kill anyone except these people..."
.
And you're right. Heh, maybe I should apply for a government grant to explore these ideas... ;-)

[M.I.K.]

I don't think I'm insane

When did you change your mind?

You were pretty adamant you were completely mental a couple of years ago, (and rather dismissive of any views to the contrary, if I remember correctly). Not trying to be smart - I'm genuinely interested. Did you reach the conclusion that it was all just down to depression?

[Modern Panther]

but it's okay to call my "considered viewpoint" nonsense?

You started it.  Would you prefer "magical"?  "Irrational"?.  Both terms you have used in the last page to describe the opinions of others, whose differences of opinion you value and appreciate.

It is in the interests of every butcher to trade in the best quality products for the best prices he can.

Its in the interests of any company to make profit.  I'm sure you could quickly compile a list of companies who have fucked over their customers, polluted the planet and abused their workers.  I'm sure that this list would include a very large number of companies which continue to run at a sizeable profit.

his customers will punish him by shopping elsewhere or suing him in court

Suing him in court would require an acceptance of the authority of that court.  Authority does not exist.

The rest of your argument hinges on the evils of multinational corporations fixated on profit over people. Here we are mostly in agreement

So the butcher stuff was nonsense...sorry, "irrational".

often the greatest supporters of the myth of government are these corporations themselves. They fund election campaigns, throw millions, if not billions, of pounds at lobbying and pen legislation for the high priests of government MPs to push through parliament and generally do everything they can to increase their profits. Remove "government" and suddenly they have to operate on a level playing field.

Because they would suddenly start being nice if they didn't have to pay bribes anymore? 

If a supermarket is found to be putting sawdust in bread, lack of "government" control will allow for a thousand local bakeries to spring up, bakeries owned and run by people from your own community in whose interest it is to bake the best bread they can containing the best ingredients they can procure

Because of all of the legislation currently limiting small businesses.  Free from having to pay a decent wage, meet any standards, or, more importantly, pay any taxes, suddenly the small business man will flourish and work for the benefit of his community. (It's true, just ask all the thriving bakers in Eritrea.) 

Botulism can be cured by modern medicine

if you can afford it.  Since we're not funding a health service through national taxation anymore, you better hope you live in a nice area and the small council running your hospital think you're worth saving.  Failing that, there's always Kickstarter.

Such bodies might be organised through local councils

or "government", as we called it in the Before Times.

Removing the only thing that "government" brings to the table, the threat of immoral violence

or "Acts of Parliament" as we called them in the  Before Times.

In a world without government there will still be leaders - but these will be people who lead by example, with voluntary followers, not people who lead by implied right and threats of violence.

These will be the people with money, who can afford the biggest army.

It has been estimated that the number of people killed by their own governments between 1900 and 1999 is 262,000,000

That article consists mostly of a list of non-democratic, totalitarian governments.  Unelected leaders who seized power through force and fear.  We elect our leaders and have very few concentration camps.

You're entitled to your opinions, Sharky.  But the whole libertarian, free man of the land thing was old when Ayn Rand was selling it.  People aren't disagreeing with you because they are uninformed, or brainwashed, or have a religiously dogmatic learned obedience to authority.  Everyone else has the same reasoning power as you and, as free and reasoned people, we have chosen to agree with the notion of government.

[TordelBack]

Even if you accept those numbers at face value, by every measure aggregate levels of violence and violent death have declined and declined as the global dominance of the state has grown, and the state has grown more democratic.  There's a LOT needs fixing about the way the modern state operates, and how decision making and - yes - authority work, with how personal freedom and accountability play out, and with really big problems like long-term planning and (for me) the humanity-obscuring identification of nation and race with state and borders, but these can be addressed as they almost always are, within the existing framework of law and democracy - it's just bloody hard to do, but easier one imagines than starting all over again. Babies, bathwater,all that.

On the other hand I'm not sure I agree that the majority have ever considered and weighed the alternatives in the way many posters here obviously have - so the lone voice crying in the wilderness still has a role in promoting that process.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I'm going to throw in a discussion point here,  mainly because I know very little about it and would like to hear some more informed opinions than my own.

Catalonia, according to Noam Chomsky,  had a functional anarchist society before the Spanish Civil War.  It wasn't a libertarian,  Capitalist one (as was expounded by the aforementioned and dreadful Rand and is now being alluded to by Sharky) but one founded on Marxist principles - shared property, rotational allocation of unpleasant labour etc. Chomsky claims this system did not collapse from the inside but was crushed by opposing fascists from the outside.

George Orwell spent time living in Anarchist Catalonia, and was impressed enough to join its people against the fascists (though to be fair,  he really,  really hated fascism.)

It seems to be a functional  system (apart from the near-inevitable risk of invasion) but my information only really comes from the two lefty writers in question.

Just had a flick through tb's post; totally with you on the malevolent effects of national borders.  The thing is, there is absolutely no way we could just instantly vaporise the status quo and begin at, well,  Year Zero if that was our wont.  So we have to work within the framework we've got - changes can only realistically be made incrementally but they can be made.

[ZenArcade]

The POUM control of Barcelona and outlying areas was quickly crushed by the nascent Republican government at the urging of the NKVD agents prevalent within the said government.
In relation to your latter point, Angela Merkel has trashed the border agreements last week. Z

[The Legendary Shark]

Good question, M.I.K. I think the depression did have a lot to do with it but wasn't the sole cause. Some of it was my inability to make much sense of the world. I was always jealous of people like Modern Panther and Jim who seem able to make sense of things that elude me. The choice then seemed to be between either the world being insane or me being insane and it seemed arrogant and foolish to blame the world. I guess now I'm of the opinion that half of it is the world's insanity and half of it is my own.
.
Take Panther's last post, for example. It seems perfectly sane to me to expect people to cooperate for mutual benefit and it seems perfectly sane to Panther that people must be forced to cooperate. I agree that more people take Panther's view than mine but that doesn't prove anything either way.
.
Panther mentions Eritrea, completely disregarding its external debts to one of the most criminal entities on the planet, the world's central banking network. The same network making life difficult for so many other countries and peoples. The same network so vehemently supported by governments at the expense of their peoples' welfare and future. But no, it's the poor, stupid Eritreans at fault, not the governments who signed them up to such crippling and unpayable debts. But Panther seems to understand it so it must be me who's insane.
.
Panther further seems to understand that forced taxation is the only way to fund essential services and that social money creation, for example, is a complete non-starter. That only governments are capable of organising things, and that anything needing organisation must be organised under threat of violence. That the British government doesn't kill its own people by, for instance, stopping their benefits. That certain people have the right to rule over others, whether by consent or not. That courts in a world without government have no right to examine evidence and act on society's behalf where actual loss, harm or damage has been caused. That everything which is good and decent and right in the world exists only because governments will it and that everything bad and indecent and wrong in the world exists only because of a lack of government.
.
I question all these things so, yes, I have to at least consider the possibility that I might be insane.
.
I don't think I am, though. Well, at least no more than anyone else.
.

[The Legendary Shark]

JBC, I agree that changes must necessarily be incremental. Sweeping, overnight changes tend to lead to things like the USSR - and we all know how well that went.
.
I can't find the transcript, annoyingly, and Youtube doesn't work on this 'phone, but speaking of Noam Chomsky, in the video Chomsky on Hitchens, Harris and Skinner he also refers to belief in government as a religion (about two and a half minutes in, if this is the correct video - apologies if it's not. If it's not, let me know and I'll try to locate the correct one).

[JayzusB.Christ]

Got it, thanks, sharky. Interesting stuff;  think I may have watched it before at some point. I was never a fan of Christopher Hitchens personally; as an atheist myself I'd prefer a less smug and arrogant spokesman.