Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Forms of Government
There are all sorts of theories of governments out there in the world, but which one has the best chance of working out the best for its people? Should a government worry about that? Is the solution the far right of Fascism? After all, Mussolini did make the trains run on time, and Hitler rebuilt up a stable, viable German economy from depression. The far leftist Socialism doesn't sound too bad either, no more alienation due to your work, owning the means of production and getting a 100% collective return on your labor. Or maybe you don't fall anywhere on the political spectrum, choosing rather that we should live in a state of natural Anarchy, making our own decisions and fending for ourselves. Does democracy actually work, and is there such thing as true democracy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Mike, you ignorant slut. (Sorry--flashing back to old Saturday Night Live)
Where do I begin? I think it was Bill Hicks who said it best: "All governments are lying cocksuckers."
I am a follower of the Non-Aggression Principle. Simply stated thus: "No one has the right to initiate force against another person for any reason." Now don't get me wrong--I'm definitely not a pacifist. I firmly believe in the right to use force--even deadly force--in self defense or the defense of others. But, simply stated, the person who "started it" is wrong.
So, to logically extend from this principle, all governments are based on initiated force--somewhere along the line, every form of government is fundamentally based on initiating (or at least threatening to initiate--which is morally equivalent) force against an otherwise peaceful individual in order to force that individual to do something they would not otherwise do.
Thus, all forms of coercive/non-voluntary government are immoral.
Furthermore, simple common sense demonstrates that as soon as there is a government, it will always be filled with the absolute worst sort of people--Those who want to run other people's lives, and who do not shrink at using initiatory aggression to do so.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?"
I also like: "The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself... Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable."~H.L. Mencken
So the absolute best form of government, both from a moral and a practical standpoint (the latter of which I grant I haven't argued here, but I am willing to do so later) is none--the truly Free society, in which all individuals are free to do as they will so long as they respect the property rights of others--and in which individuals are allowed to defend their rights via whatever means they find necessary--so long as they understand there is no such animal as "Acceptable collateral damage."
and to sum up: "Men cannot be governed and remain men. Domesticate the wolf and he changes both physically and mentally. His muzzle shrinks, his teeth diminish, he loses size, speed, and strength, He grows spots. His ears flop. His brain withers. He becomes a dog. Men are on the verge of becoming dogs -- the changes are underway already -- unless we do something to stop it." L. Neil Smith
Incidentally, a joke about Mussolini making the trains run on time: Sure, they ran on time--but no one had permission to go anywhere!
As to Hitler reviving the German economy, that's not precisely true--although modern fascist governments (which most of them are these days) would have everyone believe otherwise.
As for socialism (of which fascism is merely a form) it is nothing less than total enslavement--everyone is a slave belonging to the state--thus, as all forms of collectivism (involuntary collectivism, at least) it is the absolute opposite of freedom.
It looks like nobody but the Mikes like this topic haha.
First, let me preface this by saying that I believe in limiting government as much as is possible. I agree with you when you say "Thus, all forms of coercive/non-voluntary government are immoral"; it's only logical. From a moral standpoint, it may be that the best form of government is non-government. However, can men be trusted to remain moral in a free society?
I think that men crave, above all else, power. This power comes in many forms...physical strength, property ownership, etc. However, I believe the most important and salient power desired by man is to have persuasion over other men. Why else would it be so desirable for people to enter into government?
I think there are some flaws with your free society. If men are free to defend their property using whatever means they themselves deem appropriate, isn't it possible that a "bully in the playground" scenario will develop? If I stockpile nuclear arms to "defend" my property, but then start to abuse somebody using a picket fence to defend theirs, how are they going to fight back? And then what is going to stop the strongest person from laying down ground rules and establishing a dictatorship? It's government all over again. The problem with basing a society on non-aggression is that everybody has to agree to those rules. It seems that everybody would need to be forced to live on equal footing to prevent this from happening, and probably would be forced by the strongest citizen. That sounds like fascist socialism to me.
Second, now that people live under a government, it is going to be impossible to convert to a free society. People who have lived under order for so long are going to try to establish order as best they can in a free society. Alliances will be forged, people will be excluded, enemies will be made, power will be centralized and the cycle will begin anew.
Third, are you suggesting some form of social Darwinism here? What would trade be like in a free society? Would there be money circulated? How would a country as populous as the United States be able to live under a barter system? What of those too old, young, or feeble to contribute? Would they be forced to rely on the goodwill of those who are not? In a free society, would people be obligated to help anyone who could not help them back? Logistically, I can't see free society working on a large scale.
So there's some thoughts for you to mull over, I'm sure you've heard them plenty of before and are more than prepared to shoot holes in them haha.
First of all, let me say that you tread on dangerous ground whenever you deviate from principle on account of "necessity." In the words of William Pitt (the Elder, if I remember correctly)"Necessity is the constant plea of tyrants."
I understand your fears of true freedom--indeed, it is the primary activity of government beyond theft and murder to instill those fears in the captive populace. In fact, I will be writing a short (I hope) book soon dealing with precisely that issue.
Second, the wonderful thing about a truly free society, as opposed to the assorted shades of Statist Collectivism (i.e. any sort of political ideology or system) is that it DOESN'T depend on the morality of men--indeed, it is predicated upon their self-interest.
To put it simply, the difference between Freedom advocates like myself, and anyone who defends any sort of Statist system, is that they develop an ideology based on their notions of how men SHOULD be, and then try to construct a system to force men to be that way; whereas Freedom advocates look at how man is, and say "So how do we deal with that?" And from there, we work to provide incentives and positive reinforcement of those behaviors we like, and disincentives and negative reinforcement for those we don't.
Please refer again to the Thomas Jefferson quote I provided in my initial post in this thread.
I could discuss the other points you made, but I'll leave them for now--I suspect we'll all be moving on to the other topics, and thus going into great length wouldn't be beneficial at this time. Perhaps this topic can be revisited in the future if you lack for a topic some week.
Post a Comment