The Decline of Violence

[Kshartle]

I do not doubt that we are progressing, but that is not because of governments. There have always been governments. Some small some big, but I do not know of a time where there was no government. In that sense I find his claim to be bogus.

If you study history, you will see that as humans transitioned from hunter gathering to settled agricultural societies there were no centralized governments....

First, are you disputing the anthropological and archeological studies that indicate that early societies had murder rates that compare to Pointedstick's Khmer Rouge example? If you are, then we have a disagreement about the facts...which makes any future discussion difficult.

I'm willing to admit that early societies had higher murder rates, possibly much higher. Can we all agree with that for the sake of argument and continue the discussion?

[Kshartle]

I am not that smart but if I debated Plinker on this issue I would destroy him in 3 minutes...and that's if he got a 2 minute opening statement. Well he's from Harvard what would you expect, look at the humans they've pumped out lately (Bush, Obama)

Just opened Yahoo and this was the first story that popped up:

http://news.yahoo.com/whats-the-capital ... 10532.html

[edsanville]

Nice picture, but it's a strong case for reuse of design, not for Darwinian evolution, which can't explain software in the cell and overwhelming evidence of design (which we must always remind ourselves is only "apparent" even though it's light years beyond anything humans can dream of engineering).  Design and information invariably originate from a mind, not a mindless process.

What about the fact that whales have vestigial leg bones?

[smurff]

Governments have improved aggresive violence to such a high degree that if you truly want to express your violent tendancies there is no better place than in the government. Armies, police, you name it.....liscense to kill. So few even oppose it they can do the most insane things.....and it just keeps getting more violent and worse.

Don't forget the TSA, especially at airports.  Lots of unwanted touching--violence--every minute.  Maybe not the kind to cause death, but violence nevertheless.

The problem with Pinker's work is his definition of violence.  While he does address individual acts of violence, his focus seems to be on organized wars.  He also seems to focus on the kind that could have directly resulted in death from the act itself.  But there are lots of other forms of physical violence and psychologically target violence which leaves victims so traumatized that suicide is a common result.  Rape and other forms of sexual violence are one set of examples, but there are others. Is he including that in his stats?  (I admit I haven't read the entire book, just summaries, sample chapters, and excerpts.)  There are forms of violence that would have almost always caused death in the past, but which today might mean a trip to the ER, followed by a few days of recuperation at home with a tray full of medicines. 

And some forms of violence are dependent on the technological environment in which the perps and victims find themselves.  If you had told Ben Franklin that one day people would make movies of themselves beating or raping their friends just so they could post the movies on Facebook, he would think you'd lost your mind.  (He'd think that even if you could translate what you're talking about in terms that would be vaguely familiar to him.)  If you had told him that people would commit suicide because a bunch of people called them an @$$hole on Facebook postings, at best he might quote something like, "sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me."  He would still think you were nuts.  Child porn (violent at least in the making, if not also in the viewing) did not exist.  There's all this amazing technology out there, but some of the more prominent uses of it involve nonlethal violence, or the kind where the lethality of the violence is shifted to the victims.

Medical technology has developed to the point where fewer people would die from events of what we would consider "minor" violence.  Antibiotics, for example, taken after injuries that involve broken skin and/or bones were not available 100 years ago but are common now, as are routine treatments for shock.  Riots and mass rumblings resulting in scrapes and punctures that would have killed thousands at a time in the past but rarely kill now because of antibiotics, triage, and treatment for shock.  People still riot and rumble today, all over the world.  The violence is still there, but the death rate is not.

I don't know whether Pinker's assertions can take technological variation into account.  I'm not saying he's wrong, but like many of the elite ilk there is a tendency to focus on Big Man History--which are macro accounts of what tribal leaders, kings, presidents, etc. did and the interactions among them leading to harnessing technology for war--while not giving as much attention to social/cultural history and others that involve micro accounts of ordinary life.  The elite focus is on death as the ultimate outcome to violence, probably because that's easier to measure.  Outcomes other than death don't get a lot of attention.

[Pointedstick]

Brilliant post, smurff. I heartily agree. Focusing like such a laser on death can lead to blindness to substitution effects and alternative bad outcomes, and this isn't just Pinker: I feel I run up against this mindset anytime when I encounter someone arguing anything from the perspective of reducing death being worth any conceivable cost. Is it worth saving one life if it has the side effect of causing 5 rapes? Or 20 birth defects? Or 50 maimings? These are ridiculous examples of course, but I think it's always important to look at things like substitution effects and unseen consequences.

ditto well said smurf.... less war death/death does not equal less violence

[doodle]

It's impossible to convince you guys I think, but here is more in depth data from Pinker.

http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-his ... nce-pinker

The other method of measuring violence in pre-state societies is ethnographic vital statistics. What is the rate of death by violence in people who have recently lived outside of state control, namely hunter-gatherers, hunter-horticulturalists, and other tribal groups?

There are 27 samples that I know of, where ethnographic demographers that have done the calculation. I've plotted them as war deaths per 100,000 people per year. They go as high as 1500, but the average across these 27 non-state societies is a little bit more than 500. Again, let's stack the deck against modernity by picking some of the most violent modern societies for comparison, such as, for example, Germany in the 20th century, with its two world war: its rate is around 135, compared to 524 for the non-state societies. Russia in the 20th century, with two world wars, a revolution, and a civil war, is about 130. Japan in the 20th century, about 30. United States in the 20th century, with two world wars plus five wars in Asia, is about a pixel.

[doodle]

I removed slide because it was too large and I couldn't resize. It and others are available here:

http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-his ... nce-pinker

[smurff]

Is it worth saving one life if it has the side effect of causing 5 rapes? Or 20 birth defects? Or 50 maimings? These are ridiculous examples of course, but I think it's always important to look at things like substitution effects and unseen consequences.

Thanks, Pointedstick; actually these are common examples in the debates about the current vaccination schedule, about GMOs in food and feed, the terrorism police state, and similar hot issues. 

[smurff]

Actually, doodle, my main issue with Pinker is his use of violent death, especially during war, as a proxy for all forms of violence (lethal and nonlethal) that may have ever happened on Earth over time--especially without acknowledging that this is a major shortcoming of his thesis.  That's a lot of human activity left under the table in his discussion, and it could be that if other forms of violence were considered, his thesis might have little merit.

Now that I see it, I can also take issue with this chart.  It is supposed to tell the story about how violence has declined for the world as a whole, yet (except for 2005, labeled "World" on the far right side of the chart) it only shows death from war data from discrete tribes and nations over prehistory and history, and only a few handfuls of examples from some of the inhabited continents.  Even trying to state what the chart represents shows what a jumbled mess it is.

Example:  It shows two sets of confusing data for Nubia site 117 (12,000 BCE) at opposite ends of the chart:  One showing 45-46 deaths in warfare and the other showing maybe 5 deaths, with no explanation for the disparity and why that site should be represented twice.   

You can't just jumble a bunch of data together ranging from around 14,000 B.C./BCE (more than 16,000 years ago) to 1770 A.D./CE (less than 250 years ago), from a handful of diverse archeological sites (No tribal warfare in South America or Australia?  Ever?), average them up to get a number, then imply that this number represents the world's prehistoric deaths in war.  That's nonsense; it's reification at its worst.  (Maybe someone was under a "publish or perish" deadline.) 

IMO, the chart designers need to go back to skool.   

[doodle]

Actually, doodle, my main issue with Pinker is his use of violent death, especially during war, as a proxy for all forms of violence (lethal and nonlethal) that may have ever happened on Earth over time--especially without acknowledging that this is a major shortcoming of his thesis.  That's a lot of human activity left under the table in his discussion, and it could be that if other forms of violence were considered, his thesis might have little merit.

Frankly, I don't think you have even taken the time to read the link that I posted. If you did you would see that Pinker doesn't just discuss violent death during war...

http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-his ... nce-pinker

He goes into slavery, hate crime, genocide, judicial torture, the death penalty, rape, domestic violence, school violence, corporal punishment, spanking etc. etc.

It is frustrating to have a discussion with a dogmatic ideologue that has obviously already made up his mind.

[Kshartle]

Do you guys think the North Korean government has reduced violence inside the North Korean borders?

Did the Soviet Union reduce violence inside their borders?

I would bet there are fewer murders per capita in those countries compared to other, democratic countries. So do you guys think they've reduced violence, or perfected it?


The point is you can debate endlessly about whether or not wars and genocide kill a greater percentage than guy running around clubbing people for food or whatever.......

You can debate whether or not 1 muder = 5 rapes = 25 assaults or whatever until the cows come home.

You can do that and more and you'll never cut to the heart of the matter. When you threaten someone's life, just because they sumbit doesn't mean there wasn't any violence.

Government's enforce all the laws of society through violent threat. Modern government's are so meanacing that you learn at a tender young age to always submit. Resistance is irrational because you can't win. It's so well ingrained that you should submit it's like the law of gravity.

They are constantly improving their violent techniques. It's the culmination of violence in society that no one resists. But make no mistake, modern countries are far, far more violent than any of the past, it's just that everyone submits to their master who decides what they are allowed to eat, drive, do for a living, smoke, live, takes a huge chunck of their property each year etc. etc.  They submit because they can't resist the violent threat.

[Rien]

Government's enforce all the laws of society through violent threat. Modern government's are so meanacing that you learn at a tender young age to always submit. Resistance is irrational because you can't win. It's so well ingrained that you should submit it's like the law of gravity.

One of my worries has to do with this: the government assumes an ever bigger slice of the pie for themselves and their cronies. The higher surveillance today is necessary because they are now taking more than is sustainable. I am absolutely convinced that they will continue this until the system breaks. And when it breaks the sudden falling away of all restraints can easily lead to unimaginable consequences. Just look at countries where something similar happened. It is as if the government has contained the pressure, and the sudden disappearance of that containment leads to an explosion.

And when that explosion happens people will say "See, this is what anarchism gets you, lets get a new government pronto...." and then the cycle starts again.

I am just hoping that I am very wrong on this.

[doodle]

Government's enforce all the laws of society through violent threat. Modern government's are so meanacing that you learn at a tender young age to always submit. Resistance is irrational because you can't win. It's so well ingrained that you should submit it's like the law of gravity.

One of my worries has to do with this: the government assumes an ever bigger slice of the pie for themselves and their cronies. The higher surveillance today is necessary because they are now taking more than is sustainable. I am absolutely convinced that they will continue this until the system breaks. And when it breaks the sudden falling away of all restraints can easily lead to unimaginable consequences. Just look at countries where something similar happened. It is as if the government has contained the pressure, and the sudden disappearance of that containment leads to an explosion.

And when that explosion happens people will say "See, this is what anarchism gets you, lets get a new government pronto...." and then the cycle starts again.

I am just hoping that I am very wrong on this.

First of all, who is "the government"? In a democracy it is comprised of the people. I have worked for the government before, then I left, then I came back, and then I left again...my dad has worked for the government with an extremely high security clearance and now he is back in the private sector again. There is no "they" and "us"....that is nonsense.

We create governments for the same reasons we create condo boards or have city councils. Someone must make decisions and enforce rules and regulations. I really am starting to wonder about this forum...do you people live in reality? Have you ever tried to organize  thousands of people? It just doesn't happen spontaneously. Humans are not hive animals like bees or ants. We aren't genetically programmed to function in large groups. In order for large groups of humans to work and cooperate together there must be overarching institutions like religion, culture, shared beliefs and moral systems as well as a means of enforcing these social norms. Sure a small closely related band of 50 humans could probably function without any formal government. But millions of people who share no blood connection, look different, speak different languages, will not just seamlessly come together.

Governments have existed since the beginning of human civilization and when one falls apart another takes its place. It is how humans operate. Should we try to make government better?  Of course. But to say that they answer is to eliminate it entirely is utter nonsense.

[Jan Van]

Some of you might find this documentary interesting:

Tony Judt's Last Will (VPRO Backlight 2010)

Uploaded on Mar 25, 2011
On August 6 2010 Tony Judt passed away at 62 due to the complications of the neuro-muscular disease ALS. Judt was a historian specializing in post-war Europe. But above all he was a great thinker about the political landscape we inhabit. His last will was the lecture 'What is Living and What is Dead in Social Democracy', in the fall of 2009 in New York.

In this lecture Judt explains how the Western welfare state had its roots in the horrors of the first half of the last century. The years after World War II were drenched with the widely supported insight that a welfare state was needed to prevent a recurring of the wartime violence of recent decades: Europe had just experienced the bloody consequences of inequality and insecurity.

But Judt also observed how these carefully constructed social arrangements had been demolished at a breathtaking pace during the last thirty years. Social-democracy suffered from its own success. Precisely the prosperity and the social peace that where its main results made people forget the reasons for the existence of the welfare state. In the recent past we thought about public arrangements in moral terms of good and bad, today everything is measured by economic output.

Today we witness an attenuation of the political debate and a hollowing out of concepts like solidarity. This is both regrettable and dangerous, warned Judt. And foremost Judt was angry about the fact that the demise of neo-liberal politics did not lead to a renewed cry for a more just society.

In his last public appearance Judt's passionate plea therefore was to vividly remember social-democracy. In 'Tony Judt's Last Will' Backlight shows crucial parts of Judts appeal. And his words ring through in three portraits of current victims of the market-fundamentalism Judt so despises. John Gerrits from Sittard in the south of The Netherlands, where Wilders's populist Freedom Party has gained a lot of votes, witnessed the demolition of the community-centre he ran for thirty years because the municipality wanted to speculate with the plot. Mark Goossens worked in the Opel-factory in Antwerp, Belgium for fifteen years when General Motors decided to close the plant by December 2010. And Laurent Giacomelli lost his job and his health due to the privatization of the French public telephone-service France Télécom.




Director: Chris Kijne/Maren Merckx/Alain Hertoghe
Research: William de Bruijn/Maren Merckx
Production: Bella Boender
Commissioning editors: Henneke Hagen/Jos de Putter

We would like to thank the Remarque Institute and victoriadeluxe.be

[Pointedstick]

We create governments for the same reasons we create condo boards or have city councils. Someone must make decisions and enforce rules and regulations. I really am starting to wonder about this forum...do you people live in reality? Have you ever tried to organize  thousands of people? It just doesn't happen spontaneously.

Well, I think I live in the world where governments are just one way to organize thousands of people. The corporation I work for employs more than 80,000, for instance.

Nobody's claiming that people can spontaneously organize themselves without any rule-based social institutions… in fact, people crave them and create such institutions constantly. But "government" is just one type. Corporations, churches, and online forums such as this one are example of social institutions that are fully capable of organizing thousands--even hundreds of thousands or millions--for a common purpose without resorting to the type of claimed violence monopoly that makes an institution into a government.

[moda0306]

PS,

A corporation is an organization built around productive output and economic profit. 

A church may serve some important social functions, but is mostly a place of common values and religious organization

An internet forum is just a sounding board for ideas.

When we talk about a way of enforcing social norms and defending life/property, these are very specific roles that if there isn't a well-respected or at least well-known codification of laws and due process, force is going to be seen by too many as illegitimate and all those other institutions may unravel.

We may be kind of goofy for needing such a specific institution for those roles, but as soon a community gives another group of people (or license to their own people) to ENFORCE certain morals, rather than just asking us to unite and talk about them, or work together to build a better widget, you basically have government, even if it's just a bunch of farmers with pitch-forks with public approval to burn the town witch.

So better put: we, as human beings, tend to desire an organized agent of enforcement of our most important laws/morals, and even more, to act as an infrastructural agent atop-which we can build a productive economy (two different roles, but requiring similar blunt force in just being able to say certain things WILL be so (though preferably with a process to reach what those things are that involves public banter)).

That entity might have links to church or corporations... maybe way too tight of links... but that agent of enforcement is going to look like a government on one extreme, and on the other, a sort of mob rule... but in the end even the latter is a sort of loose form of government.

[Kshartle]

We create governments for the same reasons we create condo boards or have city councils. Someone must make decisions and enforce rules and regulations. I really am starting to wonder about this forum...do you people live in reality? Have you ever tried to organize  thousands of people? It just doesn't happen spontaneously.

Well, I think I live in the world where governments are just one way to organize thousands of people. The corporation I work for employs more than 80,000, for instance.

Nobody's claiming that people can spontaneously organize themselves without any rule-based social institutions… in fact, people crave them and create such institutions constantly. But "government" is just one type. Corporations, churches, and online forums such as this one are example of social institutions that are fully capable of organizing thousands--even hundreds of thousands or millions--for a common purpose without resorting to the type of claimed violence monopoly that makes an institution into a government.

Why do you think people need to be organized through violence? Why is violence superior to voluntary consent?

The only reason people need to be organized through violence is to force them to do things they don't want to do and do things the organizers want to do.

You think it's a government but it's really just a mafia. The mafia is so powerful you never question whether it should even exist. The mafia trains you in their schools for 13 years that they are the fabric that holds society together.

The mafia outlaws things like theft and murder....which we all know are bad and don't need laws against. They do this then grant themselves an exception to steal and murder. They enforce all the other insane nonsense like telling you it's unacceptable for you to smoke a plant. They use the money they steal from you to pay other people to threaten and kidnap you if you don't obey.

Get out of the matrix guys and get into reality. Some of you are close, some of you are really, really far. You ask questions like, "if we don't have people threatning to attack us who will be around to threaten to attack us if we don't obey/organize"?

The government is the violence and theft. It is the cause of the misery for humans because it's the ultimate expression of violence and theft. Ridding ourselves of the notion that violence and theft solve problems will solve it because then the government (it's ultimate expression) will melt away.

[Pointedstick]

I don't hate government, moda. I just find that its institutions and traditions are obsolete and anachronistic when compared to how far the rest of the world--including people's moral consciousnesses--have advanced in the last 300 years.

For example, one major problem is that unlike corporations and churches, governments recognize no moral means of shutting them down, meaning that if you don't like the one you have, the chances of even being able to replace it with a better one will be resisted through bloody violence. It would be like if the Ford Motor Company tried to kill the people who attempted to set up Chevrolet and Dodge. Ridiculous!

Another problem is that governments face almost no competition; elections are intra-organization competition which is basically akin to the board of directors squabbling over who the new CEO will be. Totally different from the type of competition created by a whole different company trying to eat their lunch. The only real competition governments ever face is during wartime, which is IMHO why war is the only thing government ever really shows any regular proficiency at. Being ruled by a single government--even a representative one--is like if Wal-Mart were the only corporation in the whole economy.

A government that faced peaceful external competitive pressure and could be peacefully replaced with another whole new one would actually be a pretty good government, I think. But if you tried to implement such things, they would try to kill you. Literally try to kill you! And I think that's a problem, because it's out of step with the rest of the modern world that has mostly rejected the morality of such naked violence for the purpose of maintaining power over others. My boss can't try to kill me if I move to another team or quit or even start my own company in competition with my former employer.

[Kshartle]

First of all, who is "the government"? In a democracy it is comprised of the people.

First of all, who are the murders and theives? In every group of people it is comprised of some of the people.

If you create an organization that has the moral support and overwhelming power to kill, kidnap, control, and rob all the other people.....who do you think such an organization is going to attract?

When it's a democracy, power is gained by getting votes. How do you get votes? You promise people things. You don't promise people they will get to be left alone and keep what's theres (the libertarians try this....how many elections do they win). You promise people you will give them stuff for free. You make other promises like..."I will make the economy better and I will keep you safe". These promises can't be kept since the government can't improve the economy and it violates your rights, it doesn't defend them.

So in a democracy the one who gets elected is almost always the biggest theif and the biggest liar. No wonder they drown in debt. They have to borrow to even attempt to fullfill their promise because if they directly stole more than they paid out they couldn't keep up the sham.

Regardless.....claiming Democracy is somehow moral is just assinine. If two guys and a girl vote on an island whether or not rape should be enforced by law and she gets outvoted does that make rape ok? I mean....the people HAVE spoken right? They could even elect one of the guys to be the president to execute the rape law. and he'd be from the people. 

[Kshartle]

I don't hate government, moda.

How do you feel about aggressive violence against people who haven't done anything to you or anyone else? How about stealing? How about borrowing money and ordering someone else to pay?

Government is a dragon, or a unicorn. It's not government people are truly opposed to, it's the use of force against other humans (not in defense) to steal from them and force them to do things they don't want to do.

[Pointedstick]

It gains me nothing to hate, Kshartle. Hate is a weakness. It's a way you can be manipulated.

[Kshartle]

So better put: we, as human beings, tend to desire an organized agent of enforcement of our most important laws/morals,

What morals would those be that you desire to be enforced?

[Kshartle]

It gains me nothing to hate, Kshartle. Hate is a weakness. It's a way you can be manipulated.

Ok. Well I didn't use that word in my questions. I hate the use of violence and theft by people to acheive their goals. I'm ok saying that.

Again though, I didn't use that word in my questions. I'll ask them again:

How do you feel about aggressive violence against people who haven't done anything to you or anyone else?
How about stealing?
How about borrowing money and ordering someone else to pay?

[moda0306]

So better put: we, as human beings, tend to desire an organized agent of enforcement of our most important laws/morals,

What morals would those be that you desire to be enforced?

It doesn't matter what I think... this is about how people feel in general that is going to result in a new government popping up as soon as you try to abolish the last one.  If you really must know:

- Establish a defense for negative rights against individuals by other individuals.
- Enforce property "rights," to a degree... understanding these are a social preference and economic tool rather than a 100% legitimate moral claim over the world around us.
- Provide a safety net so that there is a minimum level of human dignity that includes healthcare, shelter, food, education, emergency services, etc..
- Provide infrastructure, as left too loosely-enforced, property disputes become toxic to a productive economy and some public goods are better run by government (sewer, roads, freeways, etc).

But these are based on my moral code, as well as observations of history and the nature of the world around us.  If yours are different, I'm not going to accuse you of violence while absolving myself.

I don't hate government, moda. I just find that its institutions and traditions are obsolete and anachronistic when compared to how far the rest of the world--including people's moral consciousnesses--have advanced in the last 300 years.

For example, one major problem is that unlike corporations and churches, governments recognize no moral means of shutting them down, meaning that if you don't like the one you have, the chances of even being able to replace it with a better one will be resisted through bloody violence. It would be like if the Ford Motor Company tried to kill the people who attempted to set up Chevrolet and Dodge. Ridiculous!

Another problem is that governments face almost no competition; elections are intra-organization competition which is basically akin to the board of directors squabbling over who the new CEO will be. Totally different from the type of competition created by a whole different company trying to eat their lunch. The only real competition governments ever face is during wartime, which is IMHO why war is the only thing government ever really shows any regular proficiency at. Being ruled by a single government--even a representative one--is like if Wal-Mart were the only corporation in the whole economy.

A government that faced peaceful external competitive pressure and could be peacefully replaced with another whole new one would actually be a pretty good government, I think. But if you tried to implement such things, they would try to kill you. Literally try to kill you! And I think that's a problem, because it's out of step with the rest of the modern world that has mostly rejected the morality of such naked violence for the purpose of maintaining power over others. My boss can't try to kill me if I move to another team or quit or even start my own company in competition with my former employer.

Government's role as an infrastructure-management agent is still extremely useful, IMO, and government's role in protecting our property in much different ways (instead of standing armies, it takes covert operations and intel to prevent terror attacks or terrorist states gaining extremely damaging weaponry).

Governments may face low competition, but competition as a driving force doesn't ALWAYS lead to ideal outcomes.  Saying it does is a value-judgement, and I believe it's correct in a lot of instances, but competition is a double-edged sword at times, and it's good to have an entity in place to keep the competition healthy and productive, rather than dirty (IMO).  I truly believe that an environment that mixes cooperation and competition in the correct ways will be the most prosperous.  I think government can play a useful role in keeping that balance from swinging int an extremely destructive direction.  I think that it actually serves us well to have a profit-seeking individual and private sector, and to have something different (non-profit-seeking) operating as a stabilizing force.

I think it's good that we'll all get Social Security, and then compete and save for more.  That we all get fed and housed if we're a homeless kid, but if we want a life more than that, we have to work for it. 

This is all subjective, though.  How many different sub-units of political power for everyone to get the society they want?  Is it closer to 200, or 200 million mini-societies?  Is it up to me to decide?  I guess I don't know.  What I do know is that the federal government isn't going away, so if the monster is going to exist, it's ok to debate how to use its force for maximum social good.

[Pointedstick]

Government's role as an infrastructure-management agent is still extremely useful, IMO, and government's role in protecting our property in much different ways (instead of standing armies, it takes covert operations and intel to prevent terror attacks or terrorist states gaining extremely damaging weaponry).

Governments may face low competition, but competition as a driving force doesn't ALWAYS lead to ideal outcomes.  Saying it does is a value-judgement, and I believe it's correct in a lot of instances, but competition is a double-edged sword at times, and it's good to have an entity in place to keep the competition healthy and productive, rather than dirty (IMO).  I truly believe that an environment that mixes cooperation and competition in the correct ways will be the most prosperous.  I think government can play a useful role in keeping that balance from swinging int an extremely destructive direction.  I think that it actually serves us well to have a profit-seeking individual and private sector, and to have something different (non-profit-seeking) operating as a stabilizing force.

I think it's good that we'll all get Social Security, and then compete and save for more.  That we all get fed and housed if we're a homeless kid, but if we want a life more than that, we have to work for it. 

This is all subjective, though.  How many different sub-units of political power for everyone to get the society they want?  Is it closer to 200, or 200 million mini-societies?  Is it up to me to decide?  I guess I don't know.  What I do know is that the federal government isn't going away, so if the monster is going to exist, it's ok to debate how to use its force for maximum social good.

Believe it or not, I actually don't disagree with much of that. I too think we need a balance between the competitive and the cooperative, and that there are some things that competition might not do that well (I'm remembering that excellent article from a few weeks ago about how the decline of the church has left education and health care in shambles).

I just don't think government is necessarily the only possible organization that can accomplish these aims.  Today it does--very badly in many ways, I think we can both agree. But everything it does has been done at other times by other organizations, often better.

If we truly ever get to the point where government only continues to exist because people emotionally want it to because it's comfortable and engenders warm fuzzy feelings of patriotism and happy childhoods in (all-white) suburbs, that's the beginning of the end. Religion has been on this path for 40 years and now it's in deep decline. Nostalgia and emotion only keep a meme running for so long after it's outlived its practical usefulness.

That's why government needs to monopolize things with the threat and deployment of violence. To expose itself to competition would expose just how bad of a job it does at so many of the things we all believe it's necessary for.