Forums → WEPR → What type of Government do YOU believe is right?

I mean no leaders. Anarchists appose Governments, Anarchists are not governments in themselves. Thus-full freedom
But then there's the idea that a people with full freedom would hurt themselves and others. I don't see how that's so bad, as we kill each other anyway, yet now with war you have an official license to kill, so full freedom would help.

Anarchy is a state in which people create rules in which they follow without the need for a government at all. It's an incredibly hard concept to imagine and it is a system that can not work unless people work their way into anarchist mentality. Anarchy isn't a system that can happen overnight. It is a system that would require generations of fine tuning. By pressing the "End Government Now" button, we would merely end up with a temporary state of disaster, followed by a new government.

To achieve anarchy, we will have to slowly eradicate the state. Each time we take part of the state away, we must give people time to adapt to what has been lost. When the people have adapted, more of the state can be abolished.

Hayek is a classical liberalist, which is totally different from an anarchist.

Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Anarchists on the other hand, believe in doing away entirely with government and the state.

In fact, he has outright disclaimed that he is an anarchist.

I'm glad you said this. It's interesting to think that anarchists and classical liberals are on the same side of the debate as of today. I believe that if we lived in a world where we lived with an incredibly small government, then it would be anarchists and classical liberals who would be debating one another, where liberals and conservatives would be, believe it or not, working together.

I believe this is why much of the world is confused as to why Americans seem so divided, because to most of the world, both liberals and conservatives are pretty far right, and therefore it's pointless for there to be debate. This is, however, only an idea that has been rumbling around in my head as of late.

daleks, good point. It is only a rough outline of a government but it would work very democratically and have little restrictions.

I can find lots of other holes in it and I will tell you them if you want to hear them.

Many argue for government, many against.

Happy median= Government that doesn't have tons of power or control over us but enough to keep things in check.

Do you want an example?

Sorry, I missed a few posts.

Full freedom would cause chaos. I agree that it would be fine if we lived in a Utopian environment but we don't. Therefore government is needed. Now how that government functions and gives rules is a different story.

We have this idea that total freedom indicates that we would have no rules. This leads to the conclusion that we need someone to enforce the rules, which leads to the idea that we need government.

As hard as it may be, imagine a way to have rules without needing a government. Can we really advance to a society where communities can govern themselves?

Is it possible for us, the people, to bake our cake and eat it too?

Can we really advance to a society where communities can govern themselves?

I wish but probably not.

Perhaps, you might share your obviously perfect government?

Did I ever say that it would be perfect? No I did not. There is no such thing.

Anyway, most of the power would be in the states. The main government would have power over major laws, such as war, some economics. All the rest of the power would be to the state. That way you could just find a state that suites what you want the best.

@NoName; That would be the perfect world. Thus, the unattainable. There's always the rotten apple, in that case the control freak

An anarchist society wouldn't be one where everyone is submissive together. If that was the case, then it would be easy for someone to stand up, take control, and form their own government or some other corrupt, coercive, power.

Anarchy wouldn't consist of equally submissive people. It would consist of people who can work and control means of making sure nobody abuses their power. I can't tell you how it would work though, I don't have any ideas myself. This is why we can't simply jump straight into an anarchist society.

As I said, we would have to slowly remove government one piece at a time. After we remove a government responsibility, we would have to find a solution to replace what it is that government once provided. For example, if we were to remove government power over national health care, we would have to find a way to provide health care without a government. After we do that, we would move onto something else, such as removing welfare, or some other government entitlement program.

The part that everyone gets stuck at is law enforcement and military. This is generally what divides many anarchists from libertarians.

Anything but obama's type of government--- socialism/communism/progressivism.

Not another ignorant person who thinks Obama is a socialist or Communist? Even if he is, which any informed person knows he isn't, what's so bad about those two?

Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state. I don't see how such a political idea is a bad one, change is inevitable and we have always experienced change.

Not another ignorant person who thinks Obama is a socialist or Communist? Even if he is, which any informed person knows he isn't, what's so bad about those two?

Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state. I don't see how such a political idea is a bad one, change is inevitable and we have always experienced change.

The problem with progressivism is that any action performed through the state is involuntary. Refusal to cooperate with the state will result in a fine and unpayed fines will result in arrest or the loss of property.

The idea behind socialism and liberalism is that the government can tax money from people and use that money to better the lives of other people. I can understand why people find this attractive, but I'm completely against it.

To support socialism and liberalism, you must accept the idea that it's okay to use coercion to force others to do "good". If you don't pay your taxes, police threaten to put you in a cell. If you're lucky, they'll just take all your stuff.

I do would love to see a plan where everyone has affordable health care, but I do not agree with the means in which progressives advocate. I do not believe people should be forced to pay into a system that they don't want to pay into.

When I say people shouldn't be forced to pay for national health care, many people make the assumption that the only people who wouldn't pay into national health care are those who want to be greedy and keep their own money. This may be the case, but it is by no means the only case.

Many people may not want to pay into health care because they find themselves needing the money more, and whether you like it or not, I believe people should be allowed to keep themselves as highest priority. Some people may want to pay into a different health care plan, something they feel is more responsible than the government, which is completely understandable since the government has a horrible record when it comes to responsibility with money. Then, you have people who really are selfish and want to hoard all their money for themselves. As much as I wish we could get these people to pay for other people's health care, I do not believe me or anyone else should have the power to force them to do what they don't want to do, especially since the money is their own property.

I was merely using health care as an example. It's very hard to argue health care, but this argument also applies to things such as education. I believe education needs to be completely redone, especially high school education. If schools had to make a profit, they would find ways of better educating children and focus less on getting sued (which results in students being treated like prisoners). The problem with education is that not everyone can afford to send their children to private schools. However, the principle is that many people would rather spend their money on their own children or their own idea school system. Again, many people would like to keep their money for themselves when they don't need it, but again, I feel it is their money and the reasons as to why they want to keep their money really isn't important as long as they have a right to do what they please with their own property.

Basically, everyone wants to achieve a certain end. Some people feel that taxation is a necessary means. Some of us feel that the means do not justify the ends and that a different means should be found.

What about small countries, like New Zealand, or maybe, say, France?

That is a problem. I guess you would have to split them up into states. Another problem with my method would be interstate commerce.

Do you have any solutions?

I do would love to see a plan where everyone has affordable health care, but I do not agree with the means in which progressives advocate. I do not believe people should be forced to pay into a system that they don't want to pay into.

Singapore has a system that has more or less worked for the elderly, but you would object. Every month an employed person has part of his income stored in a special account set up by the government, and his employer further contributes a percentage of the salary (extra, not docked from said pay) to the fund. We can use the fund to pay for public housing, or when we are older (around 60-ish), get the money back, which the government will add interest to.

It was set up to counter the problem that people might squander their money in their youth, so that they have sufficient funds to use when we get old. Goes against every rule a liberal would cherish, but at least we have enough money to tide us over in the end.