Debate partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek
Please visit the debate frequently as we need voters! The winner of last weeks debate is @salmanbukhari54 with a commanding 13 votes and @roundhouseranch has won the steem for contributing a vote to the winning post! Congratulations. The debate for week 8 saw a LOT of participation and I hope people were well rewarded for their efforts. Well done.
Week 9 debate topic - Legitimacy of Government
What keeps most governments in power is the participation of the people. However, there is a threshold, when met, that the legitimacy granted to the government by the people reaches a point where it is lost. When a government loses their legitimacy to govern, the government falls. As such, most governments do anything to ensure that does not happen, even declare martial law and engage in coercion and violence to prevent such an event. What do you think?
This weeks Debate Forum question: Do you feel modern governments have lost their legitimacy to govern and are holding onto power through violence or are the people still supporting the state willingly or even naively?
The rules of this debate:
- Keep comments on topic.
- No personal attacks, name calling or yelling.
- Be respectful, thoughtful and articulate with your thoughts and views.
- Participants can ask questions but lets limit the discussion threads to three deep. That means the individual can respond to the question posed and then the thread must stop.
- The post with the highest vote count will win the debate. Highest value will not be used to determine the winner but will naturally reward commenters who make excellent points. That way everyone's vote counts the same when it comes to the final prize. I will break any ties.
- Debate deadline is 10pm MST January 27, 2018. At which point I will then tabulate the results and send the prize to the winner.
- Curators are encourage to vote as well, giving higher percentage upvotes for well thought out and written responses, lower or no vote for anybody who breaks the rules or fails to articulate their position.
- Winner will receive all the SBD that I receive from this post, complements of the curators who are participating and partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek.
- Out of the winning post, the voter on the bottom of the list with 100% upvote will receive all the Steem from the debate post, to encourage more voting!
- I am the moderator and as such I disqualify myself from winning. My decisions are final. I will not tolerate covert or overt violence in this debate. Please keep it respectful and on topic.
- For this debate, I will disqualify those who fail to follow the spirit of the debate.
The spirit of this contest is to engage the readers with thoughtful debate and to explore ideas that are not commonly made available to the average Jane and Joe. I also want to see if this is a good way to get low steem users participating and being rewarded with steem to help them build influence on this platform. Readers are reminded that all comments are the opinions of those who are posting and as such it is your responsibility to do your own research and make up your own mind on these topics. There is no write or wrong answer. Let us debate this issue with respect, honour, dignity, heart and intelligence. I am now on steemit.chat, user id @wwf. If you want to private chat, you can contact me there.
Past debates
Week 8 - Guaranteed Income - won by @salmanbukhari54
Week 7 - Sectarianism & Dogma - won by @shai-hulud
Week 6 - Spirit vs Letter of the law - won by @shai-hulud
Week 5 - Indigenous Reconciliation - won by @dubem-eu
Week 4 - Net Neutrality - won by @skycae
Week 3 - Geoengineering - won by @cheneats
Week 2 - Government sponsored vaccination programs - won by @cheneats
Week 1 - Fixing government vs self-governance - won by @yulem
I want to start with the assumption that governments are or ever were legitimate to govern or hold power. In order for government to be ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’ we have to start with the premise that people have rights and powers that can be delegated. And that is where the problem begins.
Can I give anyone or any entity a right or power that I, myself, do not have? If I do not have the right to take money from someone else, how can I give that right to anyone else – even if they call themselves ‘king,’ or ‘government,’ or ‘Revenue Agency’? Do I have the right to initiate violence against someone else just because I do not like the way they decorate their yard, or the kinds of plants or herbs they want to use in the privacy of their own home? If I do not have that right; how can I give that right to anyone else?
Can I write words on a piece of paper, write it in fancy lettering, add ribbons & press melted wax onto it, and go through some form of ritual or ceremony and magically turn those words into a law that is binding upon anyone but myself? Then how can I give the right to do that to anyone else?
If I do not have the right to take someone’s life. How can I delegate that right to someone else? If I do not have the right to steal money from someone else to fund some project I want to do; how can I delegate or give that right to someone else?
Government has never been legitimate. Rulership in any form is a violation of everything that is good.
So far as I can see, governments have never had any legitimacy to rule/govern and the only way they hold power is by the use of violence or the threat of violence or implied violence. And the way they fund their existence and their violence is by stealing money from the people (called taxes).
We have been hoodwinked into believing a superstition. And that superstition is that government in any form, is legitimate, and that it has authority. Government is the one thing that has caused more suffering, violence, death, misery, theft, destruction of creativity and beauty and pain, and has violated more human rights down through history than anything else. The historical records bear this out.
Mankind is a naive creation. And we have been duped into naively believing that government can make our lives better. When in truth, government does the worst possible job at anything it has ever done.
We have been hypnotized into believing that government is good, or at best, a necessary evil. We are terrified at the thought of not having a government so most people willingly support the government, even though all the evidence around them shows that the government does the worst job possible at whatever task it takes on.
So, in conclusion, do I 'feel modern governments have lost their legitimacy to govern and are holding onto power through violence or are the people still supporting the state willingly or even naively?'
I feel modern governments, just like all governments before, were never legitimate from the start, and the only way they have ever held power is through violence and/or the threat of violence. And I believe the people support government willingly because we are naïve and out of fear of the unknown, support the government in hopes that it will eventually do the 'right' thing. Respectfully.
Welcome @angelfire808 , what an awesome entry to the debate, i totally agree:)
She is one of my best friends! Can you tell! hahaha
Thank you. Very much!
Amazing thoughts with full of logic :)
Totally Agreed
Stay Blessed :)
Thank you. And blessing on you as well.
Boom! So happy to see you participate! Beautiful response. I love it!!! I just hope that people come and vote before the deadline!
Thank you, @wwf. I give a lot of credit to you for starting me on this journey. As I have said many times: We in these times are standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before: they have suffered torture, had their families destroyed, been publicly mocked, abandoned by their friends and families and died so we can learn this in the comfort of our homes. I am grateful for and humbled by that.
Well said! I too stand on their shoulders as well. It has been nearly 10 years when we first met and you sat in the court room for that one DL ticket the Crown wanted to pin on me. We were all stunned when they dismissed the charges and made a VERY clear point that it was NOT a precedent setting case. I will never forget that or the fact that you were there as well.
I believe that people are still supporting the government willingly. I see no indication of true revolt, just many groups fighting over who should have the controlling power within the government. With over 5,000 years of conditioning and selective breeding (people born with the tendency to revolt have been continually culled in mass through execution, war, and genocide), I believe it's going to take centuries of peaceful revolt and the creation and growth of sanctuary communities before the threshold reaches a critical mass.
I think more so than at any other time, people view the State as a protective matriarchal entity that regulates nature, culture, and commerce to guarantee the safety of it's citizens. They have a dependent relationship with their new mother and look to all of her institutions for truth, guidance, and affirmation. This is why both the far right and far left have a visibly unhealthy desire for the institutions to mirror their world view. I see no major group or movement questioning the very legitimacy of the government itself. The debate is centered around the "role" of government and not if it should exist in the first place.
With that said, I do believe the government and it's corporate plutocracy are engaging in the usual efforts of culling the rebels, and publicly shaming those who do not believe in its authority or fear it. These measures are to keep the prospect of a critical mass from ever blooming. They delegate their military, institutions, military, police, and media to put out the fires that are seem to be spreading, but they do not see it as a threat yet. We are all too dependent on their infrastructure, amenities, and currencies to create a real threat. Until it can no longer provide these for its citizens or we form models for sanctuary communities that are independent from these, I believe the legitimacy of government will continue to go unthreatened.
Welcome to the debate :) This is an excellent post, not many are aware of the planned removal of Alpha males in society through war. i believe Stefan Molyneux did an excellent interview on this with Mike Cernovich. However i do hope that you are wrong and it is not centuries before we can achieve freedom from government. i have to believe i can help achieve freedom from tyrannical government interference for the sake of my children and their children in the future.
Regarding your belief that they are taking measures to cull and keep us under control, preventing us from forming groups etc, i know this to be true for a fact, and they do see us as a threat and will positively target individuals if they start to get a following or form groups. With decentralisation using block-chain technology, we may finally have the ability to have roots that cannot be pulled up. Up-vote from me and the wife. i wish you all the best :)
Thank you for your response and upvote. I’m not keen on the term “Alpha male” as it implies the misconception that human hiarchies are similar to wolves or lobsters. They are not, the great apes and humans have much more complex hiarchies that are more political in nature than physical or dominating. I believe masculinity and femininity need to be balanced. As of now we have the caricaturization of the masculine, and commodification of the feminine. Neither are accurate portrayals of their true essence or power. Masculinity and feminity are also not entirely gender exclusive, though they most often manifest as such, there are exceptions.
I do think it will take a few centuries before we can see the dissolution of government, primarily because there aren’t enough people with the genetics to operate outside of its structure. Theoretically it takes a lot less time for an organism that has been domesticated to return to its wild state, than it does to domesticate it. So a few centuries seems relatively quick compared to the thousands of years it took for humans to move from self governing small tribes to the massive states we operate within now. Secondly, if the change happens to fast it will leave room for fascists and dictators to take power through manipulating the scared niave people. I believe having working models of what a society without government looks like is the first step. Until we have these models in existence, it’s all just empty chatter.
I totally agree with the premise that we have been domesticated by the government and though the tools and methods used to accomplish this were more psychological they still qualify as violent and forceful. Just some of the institutions that they have infiltrated or commandeered to ensure their control include education, medical, religous, entertainment, economic, agricultural, and family.
As proof of just how far this domestication has progressed, my daughter who works with teens at her church said that almost all of the graduates future plans included living off the government in some shape or form. It was just a given.
I have seen some progress in developing decentralized and self sustaining models that free us from this tyranny but we still have a long way to go. Steem-it seems like a good base of operations.
I agree. Well said.
I've not see or ever heard of anybody who described the current state as a 'protective matriarchal entity'. I don't see it as being protective, nurturing or exhibiting any matriarchal characteristics. I'm interested how you came to that description.
Good question. What I intended to convey with that statement was that our expectations are that of such. Not that people believe the state to behave in that manner, but they desire it to. And that's what's driving a lot of the political discussion. People go to the grocery stores and feel safe buying anything there, not because they trust the corporations and farmers, but because they trust the USDA and FDA to be the good mother and be sure her children can only eat what is best and safe for them. While I do believe that all should have access to healthcare, we expect the government to behave like a good mother and care for us when we are sick. We expect our government to protect us from hurtful words, people, and ideas like our mother would censor the world for her young children.
An antidotal example of this is the Tide Pods fiasco, where Chuck Schumer is now calling for a ban on colorful packaging of the Tide Pods because they look "candy." This is assuming a matriarchal role. I think "hillicopter mom" is a more appropriate analogy on how the government behaves in these manners.
Ahhhhh, yes. Okay. I see your point now. The good old nanny state. Thank you for the clarification.
Most modern governments at least need an optimal level of legitimacy to govern. It does not mean though that the government needs to be popular among the citizens. Some governments actually thrive because they are considered legitimate by the influential group of elites. Most modern governments thrive because they follow the rule of law and they are working under the guise of established institutions that are considered to be the authority by the people. With the increasing population, higher level of apathy among the citizens and different institutional limitations as well as challenging ways in implementing reforms that are actually responsive to the people's needs, it is very hard to measure the level of people's support to the government in the modern times. Even the conduct of elections of the leaders that lead the government are questionable if the results are actually reflective of the people's will as it is not the people who choose the candidates but they just choose from among those who are capable to run for office. In the modern times, my take is legitimacy of the government is no longer important and will not actually dictate if the government can thrive. The system and institutions that are considered to be the norm by the people are where most modern governments depend their existence. They can either use it to their benefit or implement reforms that could be reflective of the people's will. Most modern governments use these systems and institutions even if they are oppressive as means to justify their actions and assert their right to govern over the people.
This is pretty much what i should have writen
thank you
Boom!!!! Well said! I love it!
thank you
It is glaring today that modern governments has completely lost its legitimacy to govern, they therefore tend to use violence and coercion to hold onto power. Violence are now directly or indirectly instigated by governments for one selfish interest or another.
Gone are the days when governments are entrusted with the responsibility of securing lives and properties of its citizens. Most citizens especially the elites today are engaging the services of private security companies to provide their needed security at extra cost due to the fact the government is no longer trusted.
A closer look at the supporters of governments today reveals that the so called supports are not given by citizens based on patriotism but rather on sentiments. Some of these supporters are simply supporting government just to be able to put food on their tables and if they are given opportunity of livelihood outside the government, they will not support such governments. While a handful of other supporters are very naïve about governance and how it ought to be hence they blindly follow what they couldn’t have supported if education.
The level of masses reliability on the government is so alarming, all hands should be on deck to be self independent and financially stable
Government have depended on coercion and violence since the beginning of time. I think what has changed is to the degree it is being used against the people. However, throughout time populations have been wiped out in the name of king and country. So does this provide the 'legitimacy' to govern or does it come from the people's willingness to turn a blind eye to this violence and participate with the state no matter how violent it becomes?
The legitimacy governments had before actually had coercive tendency but was ignored because the masses seemed to have no say over it unlike now that education has sharpened and opened a new level of understanding to the society that many can boldly voice out now than before. I thinking that the problem now is the inability of governments to adapt to a new governance policy which will accommodate the modernization, they rather felt that the old system will remain unchanged.
This is a complicated issue and not as easy to debate as first thought. I’ve covered some of this in my Blog “who owns Australia” As “governments” are not actually governments, but a business and therefore have no legitimacy at all. The fact that all governments assume that they have authority over the people, whether they agree to be subservient or not, and they rely on lies and deceit to maintain their position over the people, are full of corruption and fraud, means that no current government could ever attain legitimacy and the only way forward would be to start with a clean slate.
For a government to be legitimate for me, would mean that they would be required to have my "CONSENT" and register as a corporation. They would then be required to redistribute the wealth equally among the shareholders, which in my mind would be the land and the resources of the country in which you live. It would also require a democratic vote of the people to agree with its function, there would also have to be an option for opting out for those that wish to be self reliant, and that would not mean giving up your land as a shareholder, only the benefits and privileges of being governed upon the land. If the benefits and privileges provided by the government are actually billed for use, and not taken as TAX, more people would be happy to support the government functions giving it legitimacy. That's just the start.
I do believe they are 'registered' as a corporation through the US Securities and Exchange Commission and your 'consent' has been acquired if you hold any of their documents, applied or registered for anything, receive benefits, privileges or anything like that. So they do have that consent from the VAST majority of people on this planet. So how to you reconcile that based on your comment above? You mentioned 'opting out', so what does that look like to you?
Why would Australia register with US S&E unless it was owned by the US? interesting. i do not believe everyone has given consent even by accepting so called benefits and privileges. The law of contracts is quite clear that all elements must be disclosed. For example, a man cannot have a driving licence, only his person - and at no time does the agreement remove the private right of the man to travel freely without let nor hindrance.
As most people are paying for the things they receive, in most instances i think people believe they are a service and not a benefit or privilege. A man may receive these things as a service, but for a citizen/person they are classed as a benefit or privilege.
Surely all consent to be governed is therefore assumed over the person which is legitimate because they own the person and is lawful because it is not rebutted as the man believes himself to be a person - in truth, this is not legitimate because the man does not know that he is not a person and all elements of the contract have not been disclosed and consent is therefore not legitimate.
Opting out for me, in its simplest form would mean that i can buy land with allodial title and any goods, benefits, services i choose to receive , are billed. That way my choice to opt-out would be as simple as not choosing to receive any goods or services provided by government.
Australia:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=0000805157&action=getcompany
We are not dealing with contract with our relationship with the state, we are dealing with feudalism. Big difference!
Thank you for the link, i think the registration is for the embassy? i need to learn feudalism now... The person who registered is "ADRIAN J.S. DEITZ, ESQ" signed off by a David Pearl.
COMPANY DATA:
COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000805157
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: UNKNOWN SIC - 8880 [8880]
IRS NUMBER: 000000000
FISCAL YEAR END: 0630
FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: POS AM SEC ACT: 1933 Act SEC FILE NUMBER: 333-163307 FILM NUMBER: 11983593 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: 1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW STREET 2: C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY CITY: WASHINGTON STATE: DC ZIP: 20036The embassy is the business address within Washington DC (city state). That city state along with the other two (London and Vatican) are the three states that control the planet. The Vatican is the feudal master and head, London controls the financial aspect and Washington DC is the corporate and military branch of the empire.
I speak about the feudal state within my book and I've also mentioned feudalism within my blog along with books that you can read. A Treatise on Copyhold and Blackstone Commentaries are two that I recommend. They both explain the feudal system in place today which I've given an outline within my first book "Graduating Life with Honours"
What should we this type of government corporate communism.
There are two basic types of government with modern thinking, Left wing and Right wing.
It could be said that national socialists are extreme right wing, that is what Wikipedia will tell you, and extreme communism is left wing.
Left wing governments remove the private rights of the people for the benefit of the state; they want big government more rules, more control, less rights, less freedom. That sounds like communism.
Extreme right wing governments, “national socialists” remove the private rights of the people for the benefit of the state; they want big government more rules, more control, less rights less freedom. “Papers please” Wait that doesn’t sound like right wing, it sounds the same as communism!
It doesn't matter whether they are national socialists or communist, they are both left wing, both the same, simular to our governments of today.
What i have described is at the other end of the spectrum, a true right wing government. There is a lot of fake news and a propaganda war against anarchy and the belief in a right wing solution; they have deliberately associated the right with National Socialism – Nazis.
One day I hope someone can give me a good argument for anarchy that doesn't lead directly to government.
Yeah the political horse shoe theory just a different way of saying "different wings same dam turkey"
The redistributing of land is difficult.
1:The land currently held as private by individuals represents the the fruits of their labour and redistribution would be theft.
2: Given that the land I own is the product of my labour any attempt to redistributed it would require threat or coercion which would be an effort to exercise authority over me that would leave me financially worse off. So we can see that any government that attempted this could not legitimately claim anarchism and that first act would dissolve any honesty and integrity.
3:Pretending that we lived in a world where land ownership had not existed and we could divide it in a fair manner.
Clearly we can't divide up the country into lots and randomly assign lots to individuals because not all land is equal so the alternative becomes I guess is establishing a standardised lot sizing and providing everyone with a vote weight on every lots use.
The number of issues with such a strategy are immense but the biggest is are these two 1. The shear volume and responsibility of voting on such a massive scale is overly cumbersome on the individual and so incredibly inefficient as to be a negligent waste of the resource. 2.It does not fundamentally change the status quo the vote of the majority over powers the minority anarchy by any other name is democracy.
The closest we could come to anarchy would be the Flux party. Any other method would require coercion or force which would represent power through violence as per the debates question.
All land in common law countries is owned by the crown. There is no no true ownership through alodium title. And i didn't say your land should be re-distributed, what i'm saying is that you should have the right to hold title to your land and not have to pay fealty to the crown ie "TAX" This is something @wwf is currently trying to achieve. If you do not wish to own land, then the income from renting that land "TAX" should be re-distributed to the people. i don't think you understand what anarchy is and the purpose of a right wing government is to decrease in size until it is no longer required. @wwf lives a true anarchistic life, there is no force, show of power or violence. Anarchy needs no political party or government or religion. We believe in peace, love and harmony. :)
Private property and equality of land ownership appear to be in direct conflict.
@wwf by living of grid has an amazing privilege to be able to free himself from much of the usual issues faced by many however if tomorrow the whole of Canada was to demand anarchistic equitable distribution of the land could Canada's land mass provide them all with same privilege he has?
If not then then life wwf has is immediately brought into conflict with with a fair and equitable redistribution with out even adding the fact that all land is not equal.
I think the left/right wing argument has, over time, shifted from a libertarian to a socialist/fascist/communist paradigm. By keeping people focused on the left/right argument, the don't notice the shift from freedom to slavery. This shift has taken place over decades, perhaps even centuries. So I don't think one can make an argument like that without taking this covert shift into consideration as well. The left and right is VERY different than they were 100 years ago.
i totally agree that there has been a shift from freedom to slavery over the centuries, they play a long game and with the creation of the person in the c'est que vie act in 1666, shows that we see little or no change in our short lifetimes. History is often re-written to support their long term goal. With regards left/right politics. i believe this is just smoke and mirrors to give the illusion of control to the masses. Like voting for a new shepherd but the farmer is still leading them to slaughter.
First of all I am Really thankful to all My fellow Steemians for Huge Appreciation & Support, indeed a Big Thanks to Selfless Personalty one and only My Best Friend @wwf
Well My take on this debate is; Govts are basically for the governace and welfare of the Masses. To make startgies and plans to ensure the betterment of the citizen of any country. Way of Govern is really questionable because every country has it's own type of Govt. e.g In my country we have Democracy with Dictatorship approach.
Authority given to the Politicians and Bureaucrats is really misleading their way of governing. Bureaucrats make such policies which give boost to Elite Class of the country while working and lower class face hatred and damage at the end of the day. Such policies are set to do more corruption in different projects that is why i considered the bureaucrats the most Negative bunch of people who do not care of the lives of people nor they care about the dignity of the Nation. Indeed they are Looting Mafia and symbol of Curse all over.
As far as Politicians are concerned they are the machines of Acting and Slogans only. They have nothing to do with the miseries of People, they themselves kill the people across the boundary lines of the country just to stay in News. Every Single institution is in the Pocket of Politician specifically in my country.
People don't hate eachothers becuase All men are equal and born with same natural of Love. It is our Media and Higher Authorities of the Govt. who spread Anarchy and Hatred among different parts of the world by promoting Terrorism, which is Really Really below the standard of evilness. These are the people who has made this World and System a very corrupt place.
Let me ask a question, When we know them fully then why do we select such Culprits to Govern us??
It is like we are the responsible for the corruption of the System as we are not taking step to confront them, to kick them away from the system.
It is like that As You Sow, So Shall You Reap. This is what mentioned in Qur'an
My point is there is very less Harmony among the Masses and the Governments as a whole all over the World, especially the modern form of the Govt. has lost it's charm by promoting Violence both Physically and Mentally.
Need of hour is to get freedom from such Puppets who are using the Masses just for their personal Gains. Because such Governments are supporting Feudal Lords and many such others like them.
Looking forward to Logical Responses Guys :)
We are responsible for the systems that govern us
Well said @shai-hulud we are responsible for all this but what is the solution to this root cause My Friend ? How can we alter the scenario as a whole ?
Step one take responsibility for your action and inaction.
In a "free" society you have multiple options.
1: Use your voice encourage others to your point of view there is power in numbers or perhaps your already inside the majority in wich case encourage them to action.
2: you have a vote if you don't use it don't ask me to respect your voice when you complain your non participation means your just making a lot of noise signifying nothing.
3: put up or shut up. If your legitimately for change get involved in politics join a party that reflects your views if that doesn't exist then make one and if your views win the majority then change happens if not then maybe its time for some self reflection maybe your views aren't the best and your belief that everyone should comform to them is delusional.
4: radical resistance
If you live under a non democratic system like totalitarianism you still have choices you may not like them they may be harder or more dangerous to choose.
I truly struggle to think of any government in the world that could withstand a true up rising of its people.
Which is why I say we are responsible for thesystems that govern us and that no government exists with out the will of its people.
Quite interesting points you elaborated and i absorb all of those points My Friend :)
What's the worth of that Vote when the system is going to hi-jacked the whole Electoral Process? What one should do when the Rigged election is prevailed all over the country?
Do the people agree? Do the overwhelming majority of your countrymen believe that your government has lost its right to govern?
Or is it something you and a bunch of other people think?
If its the first one kick the government out, fight over throw it, a government cannot withstand its people.
I agree. I've yet to see a majority view that the government as no longer fit to govern. So to answer the question of the debate, that means they still have the legitimacy to govern given to them by the people no matter how much they bitch and complain about it!
I'm curious when you used the word 'anarchy' if in fact you were thinking of the word 'chaos'. Anarchy is defined as 'absence of government', so in context it does not make sense with what you are saying.
Appreciations for @wwf for arranging such an amazing and interesting contest here, also thankful to @fulltimegeek for sponsoring.
Impressive comments here by @salmanbukhari54 and your contribution in debate as newbie are also appreciated. keep it up.
Let me explain this @wwf
Anarchy in the sense of restless used in above comment. Look when there is restless all over, no freedom of expression and corruption at it's peak then Anarchy will prevail definitely under such circumstances, this is what i was trying to convey My Friend :)
Wonderful. Thank you for clarifying. I know there are many where English is their second language, so I don't want to assume anything, especially in debates. That is why I wanted a clarification to make sure I comprehended what you were saying. Thank you.
You are welcome to participate and make a post about your thoughts on the question of the week. :)
Thanks for nice comment.
I m continoue supporting and upvote
I think that Governments are a a double edged sword. Without them, we would have complete anarchy and if people are left to their own moral compass, we know historically that this would be disastrous! Humans are not passive creatures, we seek and destroy. However, I also don't think that the governments are well equip enough to make decisions for individuals as they cannot know their personal circumstances. I think a better way forward would be to have communities that look out for each other and make decisions based on knowing each other. It is a tough one. I wish there was a higher being governing us all tbh, it would make things so much easier
I agree. What you describe is a movement back to tribal based societies, where government functions are provided by a community of people you know, and whom know you. People actually have both tendencies, one to destroy, and one to help, cooperate, and colaborate. As long as there isn’t a group or entity swaying the scale in one way or the other, I think you’ll see 50/50 split with behavior and outcome.
With communities looking out for each other, have you not just described how we could work without government? Do we still, as small communities, seek and destroy? Wars and armies are organised by governments, not the people.
yes, as I said, that is the only way I can see it working without a government, People still need protection and communities could be the support network providing this rather than a government that currently causes more harm than good imo
Thank you for clarifying. I feel that going back to communities offers a much less easily corruptable support network. We probably would need something that would organise countrywide things like upkeep of highways, but having them as separate entities avoids handing over complete power to one entity.
There are great tools that blockchain technology is building to manage consensus and contract fulfillment that can actually make decentralized creation, ownership and maintenance of infrastructure possible. It won't be long before we have autonomous flying passenger drones though, which would rid the world of the need for most highways, roads, and bridges. I can't wait for that day, but maybe I'm being optimistic. There is a lot of money to be made on fossil fuels, asphalt, concrete, steel, and construction. And I don't think those corporations would let that entire industry fade easily.
Well it's your opinion that I must obey government. It's my opinion I don't have any obligation to obey your government
She made no such claim and I ask that you keep this debate respectful and focus on the issues rather than making assumptions on what others are saying. Ask questions if you are not clear on what is being said.
Ok thank you for letting me know, I will be more careful in the future.
I didn't meant to be disrespectful though. But I see how it came across like that.
Peace.
I forgive you. Thank you for 'hearing' me and working on being peaceful. <3
I don't believe I said anything of the sort! In fact I was also saying the the governments are a waste of time and do more harm than good! you seem extremely angry my friend
Sorry for the reply it was not my intention and I'm not angry, not now not when I wrote it. I hope I set that straight, in this comment, but it's hard to get another tone just picture me as a calm and smiling.
Peace. :)
Big or small communities fight comparatively small tribal groups from indigenous Australia fought other tribes for resources for ever same for American Indians, same for Amazonian tribes, same for the tribes of Isreal.
Every single group of humans throughout history has fought and the vast majority of that historic fighting was done with out centralised government.
We currently live in the most civilised, prosperous time ever in the whole of human history and the main contributor to that prosperity is our systems of government.
Tribal fighting is different than war. Within the tribes they were self governing and generally much more peaceful. It’s a much better functioning system that aligns with our biology. The problem is how do you prevent tribes/communities/groups from fighting each other and instead collaborate. Native Americans definitely waged tribal warfare, but they also gave us some of the best models of peaceful trading and collaboration across tribal groups. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water and assume that chapter is closed. There’s a lot we need to look back at in our history and reintegrate to build societies that match with our biology.
I agree there is an incredible amount that we can learn from almost every culture but we don't learn anything by romanticising history.
The idea that Indigenous peoples lived in some perfect harmony with nature is in my opinion a myth it isn't a function of nobility but a function of need a tribe didn't more on from an area solely for the purpose of being in harmony with the land they moved on from an area because food became scarce and could not meet their needs in tribal times when your child starts starving its time to move on.
While the US army is responsible for the final extinction of the buffalo the American Indian had already exterminated it across multiple areas of the states.
The Australian aboriginal was responsible for hunting some of our mega fauna to extinction.
The New Zealand Mouri tribes hunted the giant Moa bird to extinction.
None of these represent harmony or balance.
The idea that these early tribe represent a purity of man and and a nobility we have lost is flawed.
The truth is that in big groups or small men do the terrible things that men do we build hierarchy because its in our blood and government is born from mans nature.
Peaceful trade works while doth side have excess of a necessary resource but fails when there is a vital need from one side what cannot be spared by the other.
Now lets look at most modern democratic governments many of them actually write laws to protect minorities from discrimination, even to give them equal opportunities ca you believe that isn't that amazing a system of government that is meant to represent the will of the majority actually protecting those not the majority.
Some might call this protection of a minority groups a break in the legitimacy of a true democratic government some might even argue that we should disband a government that forces it will upon the majority in such an evil way. I say no system is perfect
I never made any of the claims you are arguing against. Humans have a tendency to take as much as they can, just like every other creature. This is neither good nor bad, it's just biology. I never claimed they lived in "perfect harmony" with nature. There is no such thing as "perfect harmony," but only balance. As human population and technology grow, we become out of balance with an ecosystem and our presence degrades it. In a low tech world this means we simply move on and the land heals, in a high tech world it means we mine the earth, externalize our costs, and transport what we need to subsidize our out of balance existence.
I do not believe in the "noble savage" but I do believe tribal, hunter gatherer peoples exist in a more biologically appropriate structure. When I say "biologically appropriate" I mean that structure is what we evolved to function within. With that said, from my perspective, your points seem just as imbalanced as the "noble savage" ideology, and sound dangerously close to the excuses used to justify the extermination of indigenous people and cultures. There was so much European propaganda during the many colonization campaigns that our history books are still recovering. While there were war like expansion based tribes in the Americas there were many tribes and groups that would fit the "perfect harmony with nature" description. A perfect example would be the Taino people vs. the Carib people of the Caribbean. The Taino were peaceful, by Christopher Columbus' own admission, while the Carib were a warring expansion minded tribe. Overall though, the native American tribes were far more egalitarian than any European society. I know many tribes had slaves, I know they engaged in organized warfare, I know they killed animals to extinction. However, unlike western civilizations, there was massive diversity amongst groups, so we can't make blanket statements to invalidate their existence.
I'm not trying to say that all tribal people were peaceful and lived in tune with nature. What I am saying is these societies were ripe with models that we should learn from and integrate. Lastly, I don't think "no system is perfect" is conducive when trying to critique a system and discover solutions. We aren't trying to find a perfect system, just a better one. And I believe it's good practice to look at all of what's been done, to pick the best of each, design them together, and trial something new.
Tribes are wandering groups who live of what nature provides within a given area. They don't cultivate that area, so they rely on moving around so that nature can replenish while they aren't there. They fight with other tribes to protect that area, because there are only so many resources and the area won't support another tribe. Tribes are more comparable to animals in behaviour.
A community is static and they work the land, continually replenishing in order to support themselves. The neighbouring community will be doing the same so they have no reason to fight, in fact they are more likely to trade with each other.
except that most resources are also static and that not all land is equal one community nay have a dire need for water but no reasonable access, another neighbouring community may feel that while they have ready access to water that it in only enough to meet the needs of their community and they have no ability to share that does not damage their own community.
How long before conflict over the resource happens even with the best intentions of both communities.
You can replace water with any resource that is useful to the advancement and survival of a community.
I'm not sure how this fits in with the legitimacy of government. Are you saying that because people by nature are violent we need governments for protection and safety? Until we get our tribes re-established the safety is in jeopardy because it is within our nature to be violent?
So would that then suggest that if we work on our tribes and strengthen our communities so that the bullies can no longer intimidate or threaten, then we could let go of the state?
Do you feel people are prepared to make such a transition and if not, would that not continue the legitimacy of the state that we are talking about? If so, how do you see that transition unfolding then if people are too afraid to 'let go' of the state in order to give peace and prosperity a try? After all, the state is doing everything it can to ensure dependency on it and discourage any efforts for independence and freedom. How do we counter those types of actions if safety is the primary concern?
yes, I believe some people 'think' that we need protection from each other, probably due to media coverage of constant destruction and killing, one of the reasons I don't watch or read the news anymore. I am not sure if this is the truth, but it is what we have been brainwashed to believe. So we legitimise the governments by allowing them to 'protect' us. I hate conflict and I am easily intimidated and when the riots and looting broke out in the UK a few years ago, I was terrified and stayed indoors the whole time, waiting for the govornment and the police to get on top of the situation. Without a govorning body, I think people like myself would be too scared to function properly in times like that, so yes, tribes would need to be established and communities developed before completely removing the government for people to feel safe.
If there were such things in place, I believe people would be happy to let go of the governments because they do so much damage and are making decisions that can ruin lives, but I truly believe that safety is an important aspect of why society continues to legitimise the government, whether this is reality or just a fearmongering response to another form of control.
The people are most definitely still naively supporting the state. I don't think most can conceive how things might be run without a government and view it as a necessary evil. Because of this the government doesn't even need us to give it legitimacy to govern.
As to whether they are holding onto power through violence, yes that is the way they are going, but this increasing show of force is actually what is turning more people off them. I believe that if they backed off, then they would actually gain more support.
As it is, they are pushing more and more things that they know the people aren't going to like, so they come with threats of fines from the start. As an example, a couple of years ago the census for Australia came out and it was accompanied by the threat saying it was mandatory and you would be fined if you didn't fill the form in completely. Why? Because this new census demanded a whole lot of extra personal information.
So if the people are naive, perhaps even to the point of completely unaware or even unconsciously supporting the state, does that constitute a legitimate government? After all, a 'legal contract' requires informed consent, but if people don't even bother to inform themselves and just follow along what others tell them to do, are we now beyond having a legitimate government and in fact live within a dictatorship or fascist state instead? Or would the legitimacy be considered valid just with our participation with it as it is up to each individual to do their due diligence and it is NOT the governments responsibility to teach people about how it works?
Very good question and lots of food for thought. Much of it is becomes a question of individual beliefs.
For me personally, I abhor lack of full disclosure which doesn't allow for people to make their own individual, informed decision. If they insist on making everyone play their game, then it should be their FULL responsibility to inform everyone of the rules of that game, how to play it and to inform of any rule changes. However, I see why they don't, because that would lead to full scale rebellion or civil war. The alternative would be to give the option to get out of the system, which would mean that they'd have to actually make it appealing to be in the system.
So ultimately we are in a dictatorship. How can it be anything else if there is no way to opt out? You have probably reached the closest anyone can to opting out, but you are still having to play that game in the form of property taxes in order to not have them forcibly remove you from the land.
At the moment our dictatorship allows for more freedom than some and I think that is used to the government's advantage via the media as they tell us how much worse it is elsewhere. In comparison to these places we have more freedom, so people continue to believe in that freedom, despite the fact that it is dwindling at a fast pace.
Legitimacy is just a word, a concept. Are they legitimate for me? No. For others? Quite likely, but while there is a large scale belief in them, they will continue to do what they wish to do and it's not going to benefit anyone, but themselves.
Ok so for me the question is unclear.
The definition of government goes.
Let me preempt the query of the word authority more than one dictionary list power in its definition.
So at its simplest a government legitimacy is just a question of power.
This is true for all governments, military dictatorships, monarchies, democracy, communism.
Democracy as a method of government is an extention of the might is right principle.
Where a government acts in a way that you feel exceeds their mandate you have a choice fight to change it or accept that inaction in this case is consent.
All governments exist by the will of the people
i disagree with your last comment, history tells us that government frequently terminates any challenge to it's supremacy - look at Tienanmen Square incident, thousands killed and thousands hunted down after the protests and disappeared. i do not believe the people gave consent. i have no say, and the people have no say as to if we want government or not. Government existed a long time before i was born and will specifically target me if i step out of line. Only 54% of eligible people voted in America, How many would vote to have government totally dissolved if it was an option?
If a lion wants to eat you and you lay down and let it it has your consent but if a lion wants to eat you and you fight you may loose and it may still eat you but it does so without your consent.
Nothing in life is any different. I think it will be the fifth time I have said this on a post by @wwf but you have no rights, I don't mean this in a the government is bad and has stolen them sense I mean it in a fact of nature sense.
Coercion does not remove will if a man puts a gun to you head and says to kill another man or you die in his place you have a choice decide that his life is worth less than yours and shoot him or decide that thou shalt not kill if a commandment worth dying for.
Same principal with the government they make or try to enforce a rule that you don't like or try to coerce you by power of they authority you have a choice in the case of our Australian government you can change your vote, speak vocally and publicly and incite others to your cause, leave, or resist the system and revolt.
If the problem is so big that you think it needs radical change but you choose not to because of coercion or threat you have made your choice and decided that the ideology is not worth dying for.
I'm sorry but i do not understand most of your reply based on simple logic. If i have no right to life and a lion wants to eat me, then i would therefore have to let the lion eat me. In a nature sense, then i would kill and eat the lion. i disagree that i have no rights,# my rights end where yours begin. #
If i was ever placed in a situation to kill or die, i would kill. I may be the one that pulled the trigger but i would not be responsible for the death.
i don't vote despite being threatened with court, and i publicly support an anarchistic / anti- government view, i don't pay income tax and actively resist all government intrusion into my private affairs. (i have a no trespassing sign posted that removes implied rights of access to my property and clearly states that government officials will be forcibly removed if they refuse to leave when asked.)
You cannot fight a government that consists of people that have no clue what they are doing. They are following a system that is working as intended. If all government people were removed from office and replaced, nothing would change. The system remains in place. The only solution is to educate people in the truth as @wwf is doing. If people no longer believe in government, it has no legitimacy.
Apologies I usually go further in my explanation of people having no rights.
when I say you have no rights I mean none of those pretty little social rights like freedom, liberty, happiness, freedom of religion all those are privileges of society the only fundamental rights you have are those you can hold. Nature doesn't give a crap about your right to life or private property. the tiger cares that he is hungry.
The only rights you have are those you can hold. Can you defend your life? can you protect your freedom? can you hold your property against threat.
As for not being responsible for killing a man under duress pretty much all reasonable people would absolve you of guilt but being free of guilt this does not mean you don't bear the responsibility of your choice.
As for signs on your private property claiming total ownership off you land this seams at odds with your redistribution of the land. If Australia went anarchist tomorrow as wished to redistribute your land and resources would you take those signs down?
I think what you are suggesting is that you feel intimidated by the mob as the mob (majority) dictates what you can or cannot do. The government is more than happy to engage in violence, coercion or force to make it happen. But we are also dealing with covert manipulations of the majority to use it in order to direct the will of the people. So we are not dealing with conscious consent any more. We are dealing with unconscious manipulations by the few power hungry people who have learned how to direct and manipulate the power of the masses. So does even though the consent of the people exists, is it still legitimate even though it is manipulated by others or completely unconscious?
It's not that i'm intimidated, it's disappointing that the majority continually listen to the fake news and media and agree with the removal of their private rights. This pushes my person further into servitude. As the majority believe i am a person, it becomes harder and harder to be a man. Here in South Australia, the police do not require probable cause and they have open warrants that are filled in after the fact. If you try and educate someone in the truth, when the penny drops and they realise that what you are saying is true, they become angry. To quote Cypher from the "Matrix","Ignorance is bliss". Legitimacy must come from having full disclosure of the facts and the government will not disclose the facts for they will lose all control and the courts will maintain that control by enforcing the lie.
Yes! modern government have lose its legitimate power to rule. Democratically speaking, they have failed in their primary responsibility of providing welfare and security of lifes and property. The ideological benchmark of political parties in modern politics does not guarantee credibility as well as transparency in governance. This often result from the insatiable quest for seizure of state power which in turn incites violent transition of political power leading to electoral violence. Govt. no longer formulate policies to address the demands of the growing masses. For this reason, people rebel due to discontent.
The number of people rebelling is still rather small, so I'm not sure how your argument supports the position you took. Can you explain in more detail how a small group of people rebelling from the state constitutes a loss of legitimacy?
Thanks for update such a wonderful time debat @wwf.
Its all about govt fallen and discuss legitimate the political power.
nice posttt its good @wwf