What pre-conditions/ingredients are needed for a republic and a market economy?

[doodle]

Would these private vigilante entities all follow the same legal code? What if I decide I want to hire a security firm and court system that abides by Hammurabis code? What if the guy down the street is a muslim and wants to live according to sharia law?

[moda0306]

PS,

The reason the condo association doesn't have to kill or jail people to have authority is becaus since we've signed a contract, the association knows the government will do that for them if people quit paying their dues or break the rules too often.

If I didn't think there was any mechanism for a contract to be enforced by force by SOMEONE, the contract would mean very little... so at the base of any society where contracts are entered into quite often you're going to have to have some bite eventually, whether that be a government or the interpretation of some other party.  Of course, if we think we can put up a fight against their interpretation and possibly win, we will a lot of the time.

Social organization is almost impossible without rules that govern how we interact with each ther and promises of productivity we make with each other at some point... especially as you get more and more people competing with fewer and fewer resources.

And in the end, both doodle and I realize that we are in a "might makes right" scenario whether government dictates who owns private property or if we battle over it like cave men.  I doubt too many libertarians will acknowledge the idea though.  Usually they think of land as naturally the property of whoever holds a deed to it or can build a fence around it the fastest.  What doodle and I are saying is that, even with the risks associated with a central "mighty force" vs a bunch of little mighty forces running around, there are huge benefits to be had as well.

Government-free societies are remarkably rare, which shows me that they're inherantly fragile (probably a big part has to do with other governments coming in to take their resources.  If there were examples all over the place of these societies working, we might have something to build on, but in the end they usually end up in some sort of violent power struggle either by big mighty forces (other governments) or smaller mighty forces (gangs and groups of thugs trying to control things).

These thug forces, by their very nature, resemble or actually ARE governments.  A peaceful organization would never commit genocide. It takes a thug force resembling a military in ways to do so, so naturally we can point to "governments" as being responsible for genocides.  No individual or book club or widget-factory company has any benefit or means to killing thousands or millions of a different race.  Only things that resemble or claim to be government-like authorities do so.

One question I'd ask is how many genocides were prevented by having a stronger, more benevolent government force protecting their people?

[Pointedstick]

I'm loving this discussion, guys.

Moda, I think we're in agreement for your first four paragraphs. I also agree with you that government-free societies are incredibly rare to the point of virtual nonexistence because of their weakness in the face of agression by governments--of the "big-mighty" or "small-mighty" variety. I have a lot to say on that point but will save it for later.

Regarding doodle's points, yes, at some point the club must indeed come out. If there is a conflict and the boyfriend is a Muslim living according to Sharia law, or the court that the condo has engaged subscribes to Hammurabi's code, then maybe this conflict will lead to a complicated, drawn-out legal battle, or a bitter feud, or a neighborhood going down the tubes due to tension and violence. I'll grant you that, easily.

But this is just a microcosm of the exact same struggle played out among nations. For example, when middle-eastern nations want to practice Sharia law and we want to have an English common law system, we become the victims of terrorist attacks and retaliate by invading their countries, killing hundreds of thousands of their people. Same thing, writ large.

There's no question in my mind that benevolent governments have prevented genocides, but again, this is just a larger version of the same struggle that would take place at a smaller level without governments.

In many ways, the struggles of government against government and people against government merely mirror ages-old human struggles that we have played out time and time again at smaller levels. I'm not claiming to have the answer to how to prevent these struggles. All I'm saying is that government clearly isn't the answer either, and attempting to use it as one merely ratchets up these conflicts in terms of size, severity, and damage dealt to the victims and innocent bystanders. We're no better off in terms of living harmoniously, and left with the additional problem of how to govern government.

Now, we as Americans have the luxury of mostly not needing to worry about becoming victims in these types of struggles because we have the most powerful government that is capable of bossing everybody else around, so most Americans don't have any direct experience in having a rival government deeply harm us because of a philosophical or utilitarian dispute. But the rest of humanity isn't so lucky, and we shouldn't forget that our privileged position isn't enjoyed by everyone. A "might makes right" government maybe doesn't seem so bad if the mightiest government is your own and mostly leaves you alone and hurts outsiders. We might be singing a different tune if China takes over the world and oppresses everyone else to enrich itself.

[moda0306]

Yes, but when my neighbor is beating up his girlfriend I dont call my condo association. At some point, physical coercion must take place if rules are to be enforced. If my condo association evicts someone because they keep trying to set the building on fire and this person refuses to leave, then what? Thats where a higher power has to step in and use coercive measures. Absent government, i guess we could band together as an association and forcibly beat down the residents door and throw him out. As Moda said, we are not free floating independent entities. We are tied together for better or worse to the same limited surface area on this rock. At some point disputes will arise that need to be dealt with. What exactly do you propose to deal with these problems in a non coercive manner? Rules without consequences are merely suggestions...

I suggest that these problems be dealt with in a very much coercive manner: with force. I just advocate that private individuals such as yourself be empowered to carry it out without facing punishment from the powers that be.

After all, what moral difference does it make whether you beat down your neighbor's door and save his girlfriend's life or health or you telephone someone else to do it? He's still left with a broken door and faced with someone forcibly stopping him.

And if you're okay with outsourcing the necessary violence to a third party, why not a private third party? There's no magic behind a policeman kicking down the door. I bet Domestic Violence Prevention International LLC could do just as good a job--probably better, since that's what they're paid exclusively to do and if they do a lousy job, they get sued and can go out of business. In fact, perhaps in the Private Society, your condo association has already entered into a contract with DVPI and paid them to have officers ready for dispatch.

So what's the diff?

First off, do women individually sign up with DVPI LLC or do they call them on command?  If DVPI LLC shows up to the house, do I not have a right  to defend my property from intruders?  Just because they think they have the authority to use their guns on me and my wife was scared I'd hurt her doesn't remove my property rights.

Further, if we break out in a gun fight, who settles the case when the final death tole is taken?  We'd have these mini-wars all over the place.  You need some sort of mutually recognized force monopoly (and understand the fact that if you resist it you will most likely die or lose the case in court) for this to hold any weight.  Otherwise, you'd have a lot of people shooting the agents of these "private security companies."

The whole idea is that these private companies have neither any universally recognized authority nor any universally recognized power superiority.  If some guy from "Cell Phone Collections LLC" what's to stop me from telling him to get off my lawn, and shooting him if he doesn't.  Who decides who was at fault?  There needs to be a final say, otherwise it's the wild west.

You need to have some sort of authority to prevent these "use of force" incidents from breaking out into disorganized battles.  There's no containment mechanism.

[moda0306]

One other thing I'd ask... does having government do "nice" things like provide healthcare and a social safety net actually increase the risk of genocidal tendencies?

I'd argue that the biggest contributor to genocides is a Nationalistic/xenophobic attitude that pentrates a military force.  Somehow I tend to see very little reason to fear that the Social Security administration will start to decide that, due to "fund balance considerations," its members will have to start taking certain old people and putting them in gas chambers.  I wouldn't expect anything similar from the Veterans Administration, Department of the Interior, or SNAP benefit program.

Where I fear it is from our federal military, as well as federal and state law enforcement agencies that actually lock people up or kill people as a daily part of their activity.  Maybe I'm naive... not sarcasm.  I could be utterly blind to where the "next great horror" will come from.

It seems to me that as long as there is an institutional respect for the individual from the standpoint of detainment or extermination in any and all scenarios the risk of things resembling genocide is much lower.  I'm a lot more scared that certain folks in favor of

[Pointedstick]

The real thing that prevents this "wild west" situation is our mutual desire to live in a civilized society. If I shoot the bill collector for walking onto my front lawn, then the bill collector's spouse, parents, or company will probably pay someone to have me hauled off to a court, if not shoot me themselves. My wife will be horrified and take my son and leave me, and I'll never see the two people most precious to me ever again. Nobody else is going to want to have anything to do with me, either. Nobody who knows about my act will want to hire me. No company that sells products with monthly bills attached (up to and including rent, most likely) will sell anything to me. And so on and so forth.

So you see, I believe that the real thing that prevents incidents like this is not some heavy-handed entity constantly threatening us with violence if we misbehave: it's us. It's our own innate morality coupled with our natural senses of self-preservation and social cooperation. It's our understanding that we are stronger together, that we're not solitary predators, that we do share this rock hurtling through space and no matter how angry we get, we aren't wild beasts that can afford to have no regard for what happens 5 minutes in the future.

I mean if you imagine a hypothetical society with a government where people routinely shoot the bill collectors, what's the government supposed to do about that? Turn the whole of society into a prison camp? Shooting the bill collector is a profound act of anti-civilization. Societies exist because the people within want them to exist; government doesn't change that, and if a society is made up of violent barbarians, well, it's not going to remain a society for long.

IMHO. 

[moda0306]

The real thing that prevents this "wild west" situation is our mutual desire to live in a civilized society. If I shoot the bill collector for walking onto my front lawn, then the bill collector's spouse, parents, or company will probably pay someone to have me hauled off to a court, if not shoot me themselves. My wife will be horrified and take my son and leave me, and I'll never see the two people most precious to me ever again. Nobody else is going to want to have anything to do with me, either. Nobody who knows about my act will want to hire me. No company that sells products with monthly bills attached (up to and including rent, most likely) will sell anything to me. And so on and so forth.

So you see, I believe that the real thing that prevents incidents like this is not some heavy-handed entity constantly threatening us with violence if we misbehave: it's us. It's our own innate morality coupled with our natural senses of self-preservation and social cooperation. It's our understanding that we are stronger together, that we're not solitary predators, that we do share this rock hurtling through space and no matter how angry we get, we aren't wild beasts that can afford to have no regard for what happens 5 minutes in the future.

I mean if you imagine a hypothetical society with a government where people routinely shoot the bill collectors, what's the government supposed to do about that? Turn the whole of society into a prison camp? Shooting the bill collector is a profound act of anti-civilization. Societies exist because the people within want them to exist; government doesn't change that, and if a society is made up of violent barbarians, well, it's not going to remain a society for long.

IMHO. 

PS,

So when you see a movie or read a book about what depths some "civilized" people will sink to when the rule system is broken down, do you think it's wholly over-exaggerated?

I am not saying you and I as neighbors would be ramming bayonets into each other, but judged by our current standards on what our neighborhood has to be like for us to "feel safe," it wouldn't take many of these incidents at all to cause a ton of societal distrust.  I truly think our laws and social norms are the only thing keeping certain sociopathic tendencies from coming out of a far-too-large chunk of the population (even if it's just 10%).  When we don't trust others, as a result of this, then they truly becom "others," and it makes it that much easier for us to judge first and ask questions later, so it's like a spreading poison... not just the initial group.

Government is probably just catalyst to how we'd want to behave anyway, but it does tend to push the fringe elements enough into the utilitarian calculus of immoral decisions to keep us spending more time getting along with each other and less time guarding our caves with spears and clubs.

When I see movies about "good people" who do crazy things because they can get away with it, or because they're in a desperate situation, I absolutely devour the subject. Because I wonder sometimes where I'd fall if the zombie apocolypse ever came and my moral compass was truly tested... though surely my shotgun blasts out my window will keep them away .

Maybe a better microcosm of this is when you find out some nice accountant lady embezzles millions of dollars from a church or from her company... they usually say there are three elements to fraud on that scale:

- Opportunity
- Justification
- Need

If they have medical bills piling up, hate their boss, and can get away due to lax accounting standards, you have a recipe for seeing someone do something you'd never expect them to do.

I'd imagine those same three standards could be carried to public discourse... it's just the cost/benefit scenario of running a bayonet into your neighbor because he stole some carrots from your garden isn't quite enticing enough yet... maybe someday!

[moda0306]

I mean if you imagine a hypothetical society with a government where people routinely shoot the bill collectors, what's the government supposed to do about that? Turn the whole of society into a prison camp? Shooting the bill collector is a profound act of anti-civilization. Societies exist because the people within want them to exist; government doesn't change that, and if a society is made up of violent barbarians, well, it's not going to remain a society for long.

IMHO. 

Directly to this, a big reason we don't kill bill collectors is because we know, at the end of the day, we'll pay for it.  If we knew that we could get away with ignoring some perceived entity's authority (ignoring a police car's lights behind you), we probably would a big chunk of the time.

I still would love to rig a spike strip mechanism to the back of my car for the next time a cop tries to pull me over for (insert ridiculous "reasonable suspicion" excuse here).

[Pointedstick]

I mean if you imagine a hypothetical society with a government where people routinely shoot the bill collectors, what's the government supposed to do about that? Turn the whole of society into a prison camp? Shooting the bill collector is a profound act of anti-civilization. Societies exist because the people within want them to exist; government doesn't change that, and if a society is made up of violent barbarians, well, it's not going to remain a society for long.

IMHO. 

Directly to this, a big reason we don't kill bill collectors is because we know, at the end of the day, we'll pay for it.  If we knew that we could get away with ignoring some perceived entity's authority (ignoring a police car's lights behind you), we probably would a big chunk of the time.

See, I don't agree. We'd still pay for killing the bill collectors even in the absence of government cops with guns. We would pay social costs, emotional costs, financial costs, even possibly costs to our own life. I agree with you that an environment of anti-social violence being cost-free encourages its expression dramatically more... but very few such environments exist.

[moda0306]

I mean if you imagine a hypothetical society with a government where people routinely shoot the bill collectors, what's the government supposed to do about that? Turn the whole of society into a prison camp? Shooting the bill collector is a profound act of anti-civilization. Societies exist because the people within want them to exist; government doesn't change that, and if a society is made up of violent barbarians, well, it's not going to remain a society for long.

IMHO. 

Directly to this, a big reason we don't kill bill collectors is because we know, at the end of the day, we'll pay for it.  If we knew that we could get away with ignoring some perceived entity's authority (ignoring a police car's lights behind you), we probably would a big chunk of the time.

See, I don't agree. We'd still pay for killing the bill collectors even in the absence of government cops with guns. We would pay social costs, emotional costs, financial costs, even possibly costs to our own life. I agree with you that an environment of anti-social violence being cost-free encourages its expression dramatically more... but very few such environments exist.

There is no "we" in human behavior, though (except maybe for family).  Society as a whole may suffer, but my decision as an individual on how to treat intruders that think they have authority over me because some cell phone company (that I probably despise) says they do isn't based on "well what if EVERYBODY acted this way," or "would I want to live in a violent neighborhood?"  It would be "Don't f*cking tread on me... AT&T sucks and I'll end you if you try to enforce that bill."

People may not want to upset their neighbors, but when push comes to shove, few people are going to listen to some rent-a-cop when emotions are high.  The only two logical conclusions to that are:

1) Rent-a-cop LLC fails out of business because they have no teeth
2) Issues start getting settled between a Rent-a-cop and a citizen with deadly force

Of course, an equilibrium would probably result where people just don't engage in risky contractual transactions with each other that may involve such unpleasantries, but then this has huge implications on what kind of production we could expect from such a society.

[Pointedstick]

I think it's fascinating that discussions like these usually come down to differing views of human nature. Moda, it seems like you're saying that you disagree with me that our innate desires to be social and cooperative will win out against our greed, violence and barbarism in the absence of some external force to keep us in line.

I hope I don't offend anyone here, but I believe that this was the original historical reason for the creation of religion. It serves a very profound and important social purpose: to give us an extrinsic motivation to behave. I don't think it's any coincidence that government--which has become an even more powerful extrinsic motivation to behave--has a relationship with religion that usually involves intertwining with religion or attempting to banish it.

There's a lot going for the idea that many--perhaps even most--do need extrinsic motivation to behave in a moral manner. But personally, I believe this is something on a level above human nature. You can find groups of people who are entirely extrinsically motivated, and groups of people entirely intrinsically motivated. IMHO, in order to work, an anarchic society would need either mostly intrinsically-motivated people, or religion to provide the necessary extrinsic motivation for everyone else.

If you're interested in exploring this some more, I have a video game to recommend: The Walking Dead. It's ostensibly a zombie apocalypse game, but that's really just the backdrop for a character drama in which you have to make difficult decisions in a lawless, authority-less environment. You get to explore the idea of a good person having the opportunity to do bad things and get away with it... and also see whether those society defined as bad people are capable of rising to the occasion when the chips are down. It's one of the most compelling, engaging games I've ever played.

Because I wonder sometimes where I'd fall if the zombie apocolypse ever came and my moral compass was truly tested... though surely my shotgun blasts out my window will keep them away .

Joe Biden would be proud! 

[moda0306]

I think it's fascinating that discussions like these usually come down to differing views of human nature. Moda, it seems like you're saying that you disagree with me that our innate desires to be social and cooperative will win out against our greed, violence and barbarism in the absence of some external force to keep us in line.

I hope I don't offend anyone here, but I believe that this was the original historical reason for the creation of religion. It serves a very profound and important social purpose: to give us an extrinsic motivation to behave. I don't think it's any coincidence that government--which has become an even more powerful extrinsic motivation to behave--has a relationship with religion that usually involves intertwining with religion or attempting to banish it.

There's a lot going for the idea that many--perhaps even most--do need extrinsic motivation to behave in a moral manner. But personally, I believe this is something on a level above human nature. You can find groups of people who are entirely extrinsically motivated, and groups of people entirely intrinsically motivated. IMHO, in order to work, an anarchic society would need either mostly intrinsically-motivated people, or religion to provide the necessary extrinsic motivation for everyone else.

If you're interested in exploring this some more, I have a video game to recommend: The Walking Dead. It's ostensibly a zombie apocalypse game, but that's really just the backdrop for a character drama in which you have to make difficult decisions in a lawless, authority-less environment. You get to explore the idea of a good person having the opportunity to do bad things and get away with it... and also see whether those society defined as bad people are capable of rising to the occasion when the chips are down. It's one of the most compelling, engaging games I've ever played.

Because I wonder sometimes where I'd fall if the zombie apocolypse ever came and my moral compass was truly tested... though surely my shotgun blasts out my window will keep them away .

Joe Biden would be proud! 

The Walking Dead is another quiver in my arrow.  Friggin' love that show.

Edit: Swap "quiver" with "arrow."

I guess it's not that I think 90% of us are just animals waiting for government to go away so we can rape and pillage, but moreso that it only takes about 15% of us like that for the other 85% to either crawl into a cave and be scared, or all move into some sort of community and "collectively" hire some thugs (government) to keep the other 15% out!

So I think I agree with you on human nature, for the most part.  Maybe where we disagree is on what horrible behavior out of 15% of the population will cause the other 85% to do, especially if they're desperate.  I think they'd probably try to find a way to reorganize themselves with other peaceful people and build a government to keep others in check (because after watching people they trusted break down they probably won't trust the others in the 85%), with a lot of displacement, violence, and probably "corruption" of some of the 85% before we get there.... but then we're back to square one where we have this "coercive entity" again.

I just don't think there's any way to avoid the logical conclusion that government will exist.  Anything else looks like some kind of transitionary Somali state or tribal system that's ripe for picking by people looking to build a fence and deed all that lovely land they reside on.

A stateless society seems to me to be like these elements they make for a millisecond before they turn into Uranium or whatever.  Nice to think about, but impossible to study or rely upon.

[Pointedstick]

Aha! And it turns out that I agree with you that only about 15% or so (if even that many) people will turn out to be opportunistic monsters. But let's say it's 15%.

And you're right that historically, the remaining 85% created government to protect themselves from the others. But I believe there's a very important reason why they did this rather than simply defending themselves without government: because the barbarians could attack full time and devote all their time to honing their violence skills, while the peaceful people had to divide their time between peacefully farming and building and acquiring defensive skills.

In other words, you had something akin to the following equation:

Code: Select all

15% of the people * n violence-units (viols?)
vs.
85% of the people * 0.1n viols

Seeing this, you can see why the peaceful people decided to give some of their food to those among them who would become full-time defensive violence inflictors to defend against the barbarians. Even though those people became government, it remained a good deal as long as the alternative was being at the mercy of the barbarians.


However, in modern times, we don't have these restrictions. Firearms, explosives and other weapons are incredibly easy to use (as seen through various insurgencies, rebellions, and militias throughout the world), and put those who are not full-time violence inflictors on very close to equal footing with same. Suddenly, you have the following force equation:

Code: Select all

15% of the people * n viols
vs.
85% of the people * 0.8n viols

Now the full-time violence inflictors have less of an advantage, and the superior weapons allow the 85% peaceful people's numerical superiority to come to bear. They don't need to create a specialized violence-infliction squad to practice violence skills full time; they can inflict it themselves only when they need to as long as they have powerful enough weapons.

[moda0306]

PS,

This diving into and out of arguments based on a moral philosophy vs arguments based on the predictive functionality of a stateless society and whether that's "generally desireable" is running me in circles.

My head's about to f*cking explode, which either means we've got to put this off for me to think about it, or you're kinda right and our mutually assured destruction will keep us in Pleasantville.

Either way, in the mean time, may the 85% * .8n viols be with you.  Unless you have a 30-round-clip and low-recoil... then you're at 1.6 viols! 

[Pointedstick]

Take your time! And thank you very much for the incredibly stimulating and gratifying discussion. I dare say that this is one of the most pleasant and enlightening ones I've ever had on the internet. 

[Mountaineer]

I think it's fascinating that discussions like these usually come down to differing views of human nature. Moda, it seems like you're saying that you disagree with me that our innate desires to be social and cooperative will win out against our greed, violence and barbarism in the absence of some external force to keep us in line.

I hope I don't offend anyone here, but I believe that this was the original historical reason for the creation of religion. It serves a very profound and important social purpose: to give us an extrinsic motivation to behave. I don't think it's any coincidence that government--which has become an even more powerful extrinsic motivation to behave--has a relationship with religion that usually involves intertwining with religion or attempting to banish it.

There's a lot going for the idea that many--perhaps even most--do need extrinsic motivation to behave in a moral manner. But personally, I believe this is something on a level above human nature. You can find groups of people who are entirely extrinsically motivated, and groups of people entirely intrinsically motivated. IMHO, in order to work, an anarchic society would need either mostly intrinsically-motivated people, or religion to provide the necessary extrinsic motivation for everyone else.

If you're interested in exploring this some more, I have a video game to recommend: The Walking Dead. It's ostensibly a zombie apocalypse game, but that's really just the backdrop for a character drama in which you have to make difficult decisions in a lawless, authority-less environment. You get to explore the idea of a good person having the opportunity to do bad things and get away with it... and also see whether those society defined as bad people are capable of rising to the occasion when the chips are down. It's one of the most compelling, engaging games I've ever played.

Because I wonder sometimes where I'd fall if the zombie apocolypse ever came and my moral compass was truly tested... though surely my shotgun blasts out my window will keep them away .

Joe Biden would be proud! 

I think PS's opening statement in this post is right on.  For me, it is very simple.  I believe man has two fundamental opposing beliefs that are relative to this discussion and depending on which it is, the details of fleshing out those beliefs are markedly different.  The two fundamental beliefs are:
1. Man is inherently evil.
2. Man is inherently good.

Case 1 - This is my belief (which is based on there being absolute truths in Christianity - realm of God -  and science - realm of man).  Thus, when I get out of bed in the morning I scan the news, see all the various tragedies that have occurred in the last several hours/days and say, WOW, I am NOT surprised, it is pretty much what I have come to expect of a fallen world and sinful man (yes, I am religious) where people care mostly about themselves at the expense of others.  I am thankful those tragedies did not impact my life in the past day and I have hope that I and my neighbors may make it through one more day without seriously screwing up; I look forward to our once perfect world and us being restored to the way God intended at the outset.  I have hope.  If my worldview is wrong, no big deal, I have lost nothing of consequence.  If I am right, the Case 2 crowd is in a whole heap of trouble.  (Pascal's wager).

Case 2 - This seems to be the belief of most postmodern worldview (my definition - no absolutes, everything is relative, man makes his own truth and it may be different for each man, power is the only really important value) people I know.  They seem to believe that man's character/morals/actions are improving with time and believe big government, via the inherent goodness of its workers and leaders, will eventually solve all of man's problems if we only grow and expand the influence of that government.  Those with this world view (in my personal experience) tend toward either dispair as their life progresses and they see that no matter how great man's efforts, there seems to always be one more unintended consequence looming on the horizon, or, toward pride if they have been able to create a material life relatively free of problems and thus could care less about problems on the other side of the street/country/world.  This group tends not to have much hope for an eternal future.

[Libertarian666]

There's an analogue to MR here: I think we can both agree that a prosperous enough society that produces large amounts of wealth can sustain a large government without collapsing. But that in no way implies that a large government is a prerequisite of a prosperous society; the causation goes in the opposite direction.

it can sustain a large government up to a point, but it cannot sustain an ever expanding one without the effect of government intrusion killing the goose that lays the golden egg,  large numbers of government employes looking for new areas to meddle in and new things to spend tax dollars on will tend towards waste corruption and incompetence to justify ever bigger budgets and result in loss of liberty's, there is probably a sweet spot after which escalating diminished returns start taking effect,
how to find the sweet spot and freeze governments size, demanding old jobs get finished and old programs disbanded before new ones are allowed is a toughie

That is not just a "toughie", but a complete impossibility, because if any outside force (other than another government, in the case of a federal system) could keep a given government from doing whatever it wants, it would not be a government. That follows directly from the definition of government, which is that institution that has a monopoly on the use of violence. Thus, any attempt to limit the size or scope of government is doomed to failure in the long run.

[Pointedstick]

But if human nature is such that our innate desires to be social and cooperative will win out against greed, violence, and barbarism, why would government be necessarily awful?  Ater all, government is composed of the same humans with, presumably, the same innate desires.

If indeed everyone were naturally peaceful and cooperative, then government wouldn't be awful… but on the flip side, we wouldn't need it at all. And if people's natural tendency is to be greedy and violent, then government is just more of the same.

In the end, I agree with Moda that only most of us follow the peaceful model, and the ones who don't become the barbarians and the government. My point is that we need barbarians of our own to defend against outside barbarians only if we're weak. But weapons can make us strong; so strong that we don't need our own barbarians to defend ourselves agains outside barbarians. That's where the true need for government breaks down if you subscribe to the "we need government to protect the peaceful 85% from the rampaging sociopathic 15%" theory.

[doodle]

But if human nature is such that our innate desires to be social and cooperative will win out against greed, violence, and barbarism, why would government be necessarily awful?  Ater all, government is composed of the same humans with, presumably, the same innate desires.

If indeed everyone were naturally peaceful and cooperative, then government wouldn't be awful… but on the flip side, we wouldn't need it at all. And if people's natural tendency is to be greedy and violent, then government is just more of the same.

In the end, I agree with Moda that only most of us follow the peaceful model, and the ones who don't become the barbarians and the government. My point is that we need barbarians of our own to defend against outside barbarians only if we're weak. But weapons can make us strong; so strong that we don't need our own barbarians to defend ourselves agains outside barbarians. That's where the true need for government breaks down if you subscribe to the "we need government to protect the 85% from the rampaging sociopathic 15%" theory.

I believe we need government to provide a stable and firm structure of rules, regulations, and safety from which to build a large technologically advanced economy. If we get rid of government, I think it is inevitable that we will return to a more low tech existence of small villages which will also have governments albeit smaller and closer to the people.

Why is it that in all cases where societies structures break down, (think post world war one Germany) it gives rise to very powerful and all encompassing government structures? People don't want chaos and uncertainty and they will gladly sacrifice their freedom for stability.

Maybe the problem that libertarians have isn't government, but human nature.

[Pointedstick]

I guess I could summarize my arguments thusly, categorized by how one views human nature:

Humans are basically good: Well then what do we even need government for, anyway?
Humans are basically bad: Then government just enables the worst among us to be even worse!
Humans are mostly good: With powerful enough weapons, the good don't need government to be protected from the bad.
Humans are mostly bad: Unless we can ensure that the government will be made up of the good minority, we'll just get the government from the "humans are basically bad" scenario.

[Pointedstick]

But doodle brings up an excellent point. Indeed, most people seem willing to sacrifice freedom for security. I believe something like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs comes into play here; we can't appreciate freedom until we have security. So in my mind, the Private Society is not going to emerge out of unarmed subsistence farmers at the mercy of bandits; it's going to happen after the fantastically wealthy, prosperous members of advanced first world societies realize they aren't really gaining anything from government anymore.

And yes, I realize how utopian this sounds. Maybe it'll never happen. I certainly don't expect it to happen within my lifetime. But if you believe that government is symbiotic with the rest of society, then it would make sense that if the symbiosis ever morphs into a predominately parasitic relationship, the host would find no need for the once-symbiote-now-parasite.

[doodle]

But doodle brings up an excellent point. Indeed, most people seem willing to sacrifice freedom for security. I believe something like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs comes into play here; we can't appreciate freedom until we have security. So in my mind, the Private Society is not going to emerge out of unarmed subsistence farmers at the mercy of bandits; it's going to happen after the fantastically wealthy, prosperous members of advanced first world societies realize they aren't really gaining anything from government anymore.

And yes, I realize how utopian this sounds. Maybe it'll never happen. I certainly don't expect it to happen within my lifetime. But if you believe that government is symbiotic with the rest of society, then it would make sense that if the symbiosis ever morphs into a predominately parasitic relationship, the host would find no need for the once-symbiote-now-parasite.

Didn't De Toqueville say something like "people get the government they deserve". If everyone is an enlightened ego-less pacifist who operates solely based on a rational decision making process then government probably isn't very necessary.

Does that sound like the average human being to you? I think an hour in bumper to bumper traffic will reveal how many humans behave...cutting, breaking rules, screaming, road rage etc. etc.

[Pointedstick]

Didn't De Toqueville say something like "people get the government they deserve". If everyone is an enlightened ego-less pacifist who operates solely based on a rational decision making process then government probably isn't very necessary.

Does that sound like the average human being to you? I think an hour in bumper to bumper traffic is pretty indicative of how most humans behave...cutting, breaking rules, screaming, road rage etc. etc.

First of all, I know for a fact that you believe human behavior to be highly situationally dependent. How we behave in bumper-to-bumper traffic is not how we behave in a park around laughing children.

Furthermore, what kind of bumper-to-bumper traffic are you basing this off of? I thought you didn't even have a car! I drive in the SF Bay area--one of the worst places in the country in terms of congestion--and I've almost never seen anything really bad. Plenty of collisions, but almost no road rage, swearing, or beating each other with tire irons. Is Florida some kind of sociopath magnet?

As for the human nature question, see my previous reply on this subject:

Humans are basically good: Well then what do we even need government for, anyway?
Humans are basically bad: Then government just enables the worst among us to be even worse!
Humans are mostly good: With powerful enough weapons, the good don't need government to be protected from the bad.
Humans are mostly bad: Unless we can ensure that the government will be made up of the good minority, we'll just get the government from the "humans are basically bad" scenario.

[doodle]

I don't drive partially because it was such a frustrating experience and I was a maniac behind the wheel. Im no different on a bicycle except my speed is limited by how fast I can pump my legs.

And yes, Florida is a sociopath magnet in some regards. You are enjoying the advantages of living in a peaceful liberal state full of tree hugging hippies. :-)

Humans are basically good: Well then what do we even need government for, anyway?
Humans are basically bad: Then government just enables the worst among us to be even worse!
Humans are mostly good: With powerful enough weapons, the good don't need government to be protected from the bad.
Humans are mostly bad: Unless we can ensure that the government will be made up of the good minority, we'll just get the government from the "humans are basically bad" scenario.

Government is more than just about safety and protection. It is about providing a stable set of rules and regulations from which a prosperous society can grow. It is also about leveling the playing field and providing equal opportunity for people so that our society is more meritocratic. I think you are way overestimating the private markets ability to self regulate. Im not saying that the private market sucks and the government has all the answers. Im saying that things function best with both....not all of one and none of the other.  Upton Sinclair's" book "The Jungle" is one such example. Why wasn't the private market doing its job?

For people to be productive and creative they need safety and stability. You mentioned Maslow and I think that is key. I cant think about creating the next supercomputer if I also have to be a full time police force....

Pretend you are a silk route trader in the 1400's. What type of setup would allow your trade to flourish? Would you prefer to pass through a route that was managed and protected by a government that supported trade and took a small tax for doing so....or would you prefer to pass through a lawless region where you not only needed a massive private security force with you but also had to worry about losing everything including your life to a bunch of bandits?

[Pointedstick]

I don't drive partially because it was such a frustrating experience and I was a maniac behind the wheel. Im no different on a bicycle except my speed is limited by how fast I can pump my legs.

You don't carry a gun because you fear you would murder someone… you don't drive because you're a maniac behind the wheel… I admire your self-knowledge but I'm starting to see a pattern here. Maybe it's YOU who's not ready for the Private Society! 

And yes, Florida is a sociopath magnet in some regards. You are enjoying the advantages of living in a peaceful liberal state full of tree hugging hippies. :-)

Heh, that's a good point! Hey, why don't you come out here to sunny hippie California? Sounds like it would suit you much better. Surely the 9% income tax and the 9.5% sales tax won't bother you too much, right? 

For people to be productive and creative they need safety and stability. You mentioned Maslow and I think that is key. I cant think about creating the next supercomputer if I also have to be a full time police force....

Pretend you are a silk route trader in the 1400's. What type of setup would allow your trade to flourish? Would you prefer to pass through a route that was managed and protected by a government that supported trade and took a small tax for doing so....or would you prefer to pass through a lawless region where you not only needed a massive private security force with you but also had to worry about losing everything including your life to a bunch of bandits?

I would prefer the safe government tax-financed road up to a point. When my choices are dealing with banditry and risking the loss of my goods and life, or paying a 5% tax and travel in safety, the answer is pretty clear. But once the bandits are snuffed out, and I can hire efficient guards cheaply, and the tax goes up to 50%, and the toll/tax collectors themselves start to resemble bandits in their enforcement strategy and violence toward me, then the balance tips in the other direction.

At that point, I'd prefer to take my chances with the bandits. I'd also accept a different government with more favorable tax terms, but unfortunately the present government has monopolized the road and bans competition.