The Essence of Government

Afraid I don't know what WP and LAP are. I did place the link under source, and sendtoscott has given the link in his post. I didn't know how to post the whole thing without typing it in myself which I didn't want to. Just don't have the time (I should be somewhere else right now.) I would be happy to see it posted but can't do it myself.

Once you have the stencil, you can substitute lots of things: Christianity was probably the original. Have you heard the Leonard Cohen song "Democracy is comin' to the USA" - wonderful; on his album "The Future". Unfortunately, I think that particular prediction is one case where Cohen got it wrong; the title song seems to me much more prophetic.

Out of curiosity, do you know what type of government the UK has as a type? Also, do you have a link on the formal theoretical differences between republics, democracies and other forms of government?

I didn't like the author's reference to Palestine either. But Medaeval France is no better example. The past simply doesn't provide much guide to the modern world.

The author muses that the need for government has been obviated by modern technology. I, too, have had the same thought. People can defend themselves quite nicely against any criminal other than government itself.

Another big change is that, thanks to the rise of capitalism, we have all become rich, relatively speaking. Propertied people don't commit crimes.

In reality, almost all crime is caused directly by government. Through their War on the family, marginalizing men and fathers. Through their War on Drugs, turning people who harm no one other than themselves into criminals. Through their divorce courts and welfare policies. Through their crime schools which they call prisons.

By Aurelius said, government is evil. And until you get your mind screwed around to that truth, you are going to be repeatedly surprized by the evil things it does.

I'm no expert on this. UK is a monarchy, but of course would also claim to be a democracy. In a direct democracy, the people would vote on measures themselves, rather than elect representatives who vote on the measure to be enacted in law, the latter being characteristic of the republican form. Switzerland is closer to being a direct democracy than we are as most of its measures, passed in the Cantons, are done by direct referendum. All forms are to some extent mixed, with pure forms rare or non existent. e.g. Britain wanting to be a democracy as well as a monarchy. Again, I have at best a smattering of knowedge on such matters, and don't want to appear to be claiming full knowledge, much less expertize. Perhaps someone else can give more accurate answers. Remember, of course, our form of government was supposed to be republican, however much the politicians insist on referring to it as a democracy.

I owe you an apology, just realized your link was to an earlier thread. I did search on the title and your post didn't seem to come up. Maybe I did something wrong. I'm embarassed because this is the second time this has happened to me recently. Sorry.

Being pernickety, I never referred to medieval France. I referred to C16 France, an entirely different place. And I don't agree that the past is "not much guide to the modern world".

You say that people can defend themselves against any criminal besides the government. That is patently, obviously, not true -- a group of people can gang together and decide to rape and pillage on an enormous scale and there is not a single effective thing that I can do about it, if they are well armed (think B1 bombers, for instance), unless I can persuade my neighbours to join forces with me in sufficient numbers and with sufficient force and organisation to repel them.

You also say that propertied people don't commit crimes. That, too, is patently not true. Osama Bin Laden, for one, owns property. He would commit crimes against a bunch of happy American anarchists just as soon as against the US. He wants to impose sharia on *everyone*, after all. There are and have been plenty of propertied criminals throughout history. They have used all and every lever of power from private armies to the organs of states.

And while I don't disagree that the government both criminalises acts that needn't (or shouldn't) be criminal and exposes others to criminality (eg in prisons), it also prevents crimes. There are plenty of countries out there where government is weak and where things are pretty much self-policing. None of them is an inspiring place to live. None has a low crime rate. Set up an alternative that is inspiring, and you may persuade people to join you.

Finally, I want to point out that while governments have killed lots of people in the C20, they also saved more lives than any other agency. The C20 saw an enormous rise in life expectancy, primarily due to sewage and clean drinking water. The vast majority of these installations were government projects.

You seem to be about where I am in terms of knowledge of this. I wondered if anyone knew more of the theory. BTW, I'm British -- that's why I asked. I know I don't live in a republic. I don't know what I really do live in.

So, just as a matter of curiosity, when you were searching Amazon, was it the uk site, I assume there is one?

The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. FR was involved in a copyright lawsuit with them recently and a judge ordered that full postings from them be bared on this site.

When I have posted articles (not many), in most cases I can just highlight, copy and paste the body of the article. Some times, I right click over the article, View Source then highlight and copy the source to a file. Then I clean the file up of enveloping HTML and paste into the posting box.

The main reason to post the whole article is that many times an article linked to is temporary. When it is pulled there is a broken link in the archives and base for the discussion on that thread is lost.

You mention bin Laden. The events of 9-11 are a fine example of how governments create criminals and crime. Assume for the moment, he was the mastermind behind this atrocity (something which is not known in the least). Consider how much the American government has incited his actions. 1) For more than sixty years, they backed the government which made him rich. 2) They financed him in Afghanistan and Kosovo. 3) Their foreign policies in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Israel have enraged him against the US. 4) They forbade pilots, passengers and airlines from defending themselves against hijackings. All of these things had to come to together in order for the attack to a) be planned b) be financed and c) to succeed.

What did the government did in response to the attack? It threw away the enormous reservoir of sympathy and good will which America had gained. Bombing Afghani peasants will not punish bin Laden, nor is it likely to bring down the Taliban. It will, however, destabilize pro-western governments from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. It will cement anti-American feelings throughout the Moslem world. Most important, it will enrage another generation of Moslem youth to devote their lives to avenging the deaths of their fathers and mothers and their infant children.

Government creates criminals, usually out of the poor and the marginalized (think black men) but occasionally out of the rich and powerful too. In the latter case, it does so by favoring causes they oppose.

The role of government in protecting us from criminal organizations, legal or illegal, is also vastly overrated. Costa Rica has not had an army in more than fifty years. Yet, despite its location in one of the most strife-ridden areas of the world, it has not been invaded. Not by leftist insurgents nor by right-wing death squads. The secret of avoiding invasion is to make sure that you are too costly to take over, while simultaneously not being a threat to anyone. The Swiss understand this lesson very well.

The neat thing about modern technology is that it is easy to follow this rule by using it. Bombing is ruinous. But it’s also expensive and it doesn’t gain any territory. Nobody is going to do it unless they have something to gain. This something may be removal of a threat, perceived or real, or acquisition of territory. So long as you are neither a threat nor a patsy, people will leave you alone. Just as they ignored the Swiss and the Costa Ricans.

As for your notion about governments and clean water – come on jack, be serious. When people get rich enough to worry about things besides the source of their next meal, they start to clean up the environment around them – with or without gubermint. Do you really believe that people wouldn’t have used private companies to install sanitation systems if they didn’t have gubermint to do it for “free”?

I know I don't live in a republic. I don't know what I really do live in.

You live in a monarchy. Of course, the Queen has no real power so the difference between a republic and a monarchy is largely academic. The more important differences between American and British governance relate to the form which democracy takes in each country.

Britian uses the parliamentary system and doesn't have a written constitution. The effect is that Tony Blair is a god, bound to some undefined extent by tradition, who can be overthrown at some moment in the future.

The US has separation of powers between the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. The effect is to create a myriad of small fiefdoms, each ruled over by its own dictator and all of which negotiate how to waste the money stolen from the taxpayer. Meanwhile, the unelected Supreme Court makes decisions about which of these negotiations should have the force of law -- and does so irrecoverably.

The choice between the two is a matter of taste. In theory, I prefer the elected god system. After all, he is reversible, unlike the Supreme Court.