Nah, all government is fundamentally wrong. On a practical level, the best you can say, is it's a necessary evil.
Overall I disagree, we don't need them to survive or live happy. There are places with no government where this exists. Not many, of course.
There are? I'd be super curious to learn more about government-free locations...
Michoacan.
Not the video I was looking for. I think Luke Rudkowski has more a documentary-style one where he goes around the town and talks to locals.
There are others that are like communes in the US, but this is more of a traditional town.
It is a necessary evil ...
Yes? What do you need the evil for?
OK, at least we agree somewhat fundamentally. Saying that it is necessary or unnecessary on a pragmatic level is tough because that requires reading the future. I don't trust academia-sponsored history. And even if you argue that there is plenty of truth to go on, technology, culture, and civilizations change by problem solving.
I think it's pessimistic, in the end, about humans, that we need to be controlled and coerced by violence in order to live peaceful happy lives.
The problem, in most cases I've witnessed is not that "we don't know how to manage ourselves without a government authority" but that the government becomes the opponent, interferes, coerces, causes violence, and does generally anything they can when people renounce government rule and do without.
In my understanding a state is sovereign that forms at some point and then evolves /devolves into what it becomes.
or we have had kings/queens as supreme leaders.
Sure, there is plenty of evidence that it's just the beginning of a new government.
But if people understand that they might just be building another government, and want to avoid it, why can't solutions be developed an applied? Blockchain is far from perfect, but it's an attempt. The problem being the Byzantine General problem. What happens if we completely solve that, for all practical intents and purposes?
I see government, here, as a problem just needing to be solved. We should at least attempt to work toward it because I think everyone is, in their purest form, an anarchist(meaning rules but no ruler in this context)
Why would you want someone else in charge of you? No one does unless they think it's a necessary evil.
I narrow the world down to those who want to control others and those who do not. I do not. It is very frustrating to me too that so many seemingly intelligent people cannot understand even the basic principles being discussed.
A good example is the difference between rules and rulers as you pointed out, and another is how government is not the same as governance. Our objective is not chaos either. It is individual liberty. Sadly though, the vast majority of people around us don't want the individual responsibility that is required to have individual liberty.
Government implies a ruling class, so again, as you wrote, there's no such thing as good government. It isn't a necessary evil either. It's just evil. Controlling people against their wishes and subjecting them to a double standard under the law will always be evil.
It doesn't matter what reasons people have for doing it too. It's still evil. Either you want to control other people or you do not. That's really how simple it is. I don't need to control other people and don't want other people controlling other people either.
They say it is impossible, but look at any crowded place like an amusement park. All of those people are interacting peacefully and voluntarily naturally. It is the natural state of 99% of humanity. Then you have a small minority of predators.
Those predators love governments, for it gives them the perfect place to work.
I agree with the sentiments. I am also someone who doesn't want to control others. There's moral problems with it, obviously.
I see a pragmatic problem too though. Liberty requires a sort of leap of faith or understanding. It takes courage to embrace. You have to essentially believe that it works.
I think this is where most people stop.
"If there's no government then who will take care of us!"
They think all their neighbors are going to turn into rabid thugs.
I think it's more likely that those neighbors share the same fear and band together to help each other out.
If noone is in charge of anyone , how are we doing conflict resolution ? are we going back to mexican standoffs and the sharpest shooter is always correct.
To conclude , once such an alternative solution emerges , I am open to giving a fair ( and skeptical) look but as of now , my understanding is that some form of rules need to be in place for modern society to exist.
With difficult moral situations, I tend to separate survival from morality. They aren't always separable, but it helps me to make sense of my own compulsions.
The sharpest sharp shooter wins the argument for survival, because it's pretty black and white, no philosophy needed. The survivor survives.
Morally speaking, was the sharpest sharp shooter defending his family from violent self-serving thugs? Then he's right on both accounts. I think it's a better solution than abiding by thugs who declared themselves the presiding authority.
I don't think society improves by designating better quality authorities. I think society improves by each individual improving himself.
Human history tells us that answer to this question has not been evidence based and mostly used as an excuse to propel agenda of vested parties.
Not having a structured approach will inevitably get us back to the same situation.
Peace out !!