Do you trust your government?

@RemovedUsername8862 What is the necessity of having something you dont trust?

@L33TH4X0R Because I prefer stability to anarchy and warlordism.

@L33TH4X0R I'm rather Hobbnesian in my beliefs regarding the role of government.

@RemovedUsername8862 A monarchist, I get the notion, but I still hanker for Anarchism as it offer the best solution. Anarchy is life without rulers, no without rules.

@L33TH4X0R The way that I see it is that the only way rules have authority is if a single body with enforcement power sets them and enforces them. If there are no rulers, the rules are paper tigers, and the first person who decides that they don't have to apply to them can be the new warlord, until someone kills them.

@RemovedUsername8862 That is not how Anarchy works, people would come together for a common good and anyone not would be outcast and excluded.

@L33TH4X0R I think that that's how anarchy would work in an ideal environment, with ideal participants, but I think that the history of various utopian settlements indicates that humans follow predictable behavior when given free reign without a check on their abilities from a superior force.

But, I could be wrong. Nothing is certain, after all.

@RemovedUsername8862 There are regions of the earth that have survived in unity and harmony for thousands of years even in todays modern society. Anarchy has never been given a chance to work, and people often dismiss it, but what is the alternative? To constantly be ripped off and brutalized by a corrupt government because the next idea "might" not work?

@L33TH4X0R I guess? What areas are you speaking of?

@RemovedUsername8862 North Sentinel Island for one, but there are many others. Never has government encroached upon them and they live as if the world around them does not exist. Are they in a state of collapse? NO, why because they all get on, they work as a community and together for the common good.

@L33TH4X0R Isn't North Sentinel Island best known for violently attacking and killing all outsiders? I'm not sure that supports your case, but I'll confess general ignorance on that point.

@RemovedUsername8862 ...you mean dare I say it invaders? They are protecting their way of life from people they don't know and can't understand. They are happy how they are and surviving. Another case in point, I cant for the life of me remember which, but in the US, the entire police force walked out in protest and weirdly enough the crime rate did not spiral without a dominating police force. People are generally good and want to get on, with or without the government.

@L33TH4X0R I really don't know about the invaders thing. I've only seen them mentioned in an article where it talked about some shipwrecked sailors who washed up and were immediately butchered while search planes flew overhead. I really have no other information.

Anyway, I certainly agree with your last sentence - so long as there is an adequate level of resources. I think one of the best aspects of a centralized government is the ability to manage resource use in the face of scarcity. Nothing turns people against each other quite like starvation. Besides, all it takes is a handful of people to irrevocably ruin trust and mutual reliance, it seems to me.

@RemovedUsername8862 While I agree in the principle of your argument, you fail to mention how, where and what resources the government grows? As I see it farmers, normal people grow things, the government does nothing but impose rules and takes taxes from its people. This is how it works; farmers grow things, engineers build things, doctors mend people, workers repair and maintain the roads etc etc...so tell me what the government actually does but impose unjust laws and taxes?

@L33TH4X0R Mutual defense is one thing, coordination another. Also, sponsoring schools so that doctors and engineers can learn, building infrastructure like aqueducts and roads so farmers can produce and transport their goods, establishing common currency to facilitate trade, providing a formalized means of community debate to settle and mediate disputes, and also ensuring that doctors, engineers, and technicians actually know what they claim to know, and aren't malpracticing.

@RemovedUsername8862 Coodination; Yes because people would not have a clue what to do without the government telling them. Sponsoring schools...erm I think you'll find YOU sponsor schools...90% of the above actually. This is how it works; You go out to work, the government say I'll take 60% in tax and then it uses a fraction of that money to sponsor schools. Schools lead to university for the doctors etc where they leave with hundreds and hundreds of thousands in debt for an education to work...to then give 60% to the government for taxes. You mentioned "Security", like the Pentagon who lost over 51 Trillion and didn't know where it went? Or the illegal wars? The illegal arms trades to foreign countries? Maybe, just maybe if the US war machine didn't go bombing and invading other countries then the "security" budget would be less as there would be less people hating the US. Your tax dollars at work.

@L33TH4X0R Sure, I can definitely agree that the military budget is out of control, but let's not go moving the goal posts here - the governments in the EU seem to be doing fairly well, and so do many governments in Asia and parts of Central America and the Caribbean. It's important not to overgeneralize when discussing topics of such importance.

Okay let me ask you one simple question as a "John Q" citizen. If the government quit tomorrow, what would you do differently? Would you go out and rape or murder? Commit armed robbery for supplies or even dinner for the evening meal? No, or at least I would hope not. Nothing much would change. The farmers would still farm, the doctors would still cure people, the delivery trucks would still run. And why is that? Because it is business, people would still get paid, commerce would still continue.

@L33TH4X0R Honestly, if the government quit tomorrow, I think that an armed militia would show up at my door the same day. If not random thugs, I suspect that we'd just become corporate slaves, and our nation would look like Bioshock's Rapture with less grandeur.

@L33TH4X0R As much as I mistrust the government, I trust them far more than I trust corporations, which I think should be broken up and removed from the halls of power.

@RemovedUsername8862 on his we can agree, but ask yourself this...who gave them that power? The government did for cash. Then you have firms like Nestle saying opening that water is not a public right as the government gave them water rights and then Nestle just bottles the free water and sold it to the people.

@L33TH4X0R Yes, and that's an example of corruption in government, which requires reform and punishment. I don't think it requires dismantling our system entirely, though.

@RemovedUsername8862 "The government has inspected itself and we have found ourselves innocent of all wrongdoing"...you cant get to the heart of the problem because it is not just in one place. How about you start by getting rid of the supreme court and imposing term limits...oh yes, you cant! There is no way of doing this.

@L33TH4X0R There certainly are. Recall elections come to mind, as well as votes of no confidence, and failing that, the formation of a new government. I'm pretty sure there's more of a sliding scale than a binary "gov or an" choice system.

@RemovedUsername8862 while this is true in principle, the supreme court is not elected by the people and a vote of no confidence is only against the government and the supreme court is unaffected by this vote. You cannot hire or fire any of the supreme court judges.