The air quality in New Delhi is a great example of a lack of effective government. The people there have largely just accepted their fate. Evidence like that is everywhere. The conversation is absurd, nobody should have to debate the need for government. The only valid perspective if you truly believe government is detrimental to society would be if you believe there should be no state, and we should revert to hunter-gatherers.
Agreed.
When I hear "you need government to not kill" I'm reminded of the age old argument that "you need religion to be moral".
Just because in practice it sounds true, in reality, we do things according to our own common sense and judgements.
If all we did was kill in a lawless society, that would imply we have no free will, or we can't think for ourselves. I wouldn't be any more tempted to kill with or without a government, if I always believed taking another life (that's not in self defense) is never justified.
And like I mentioned above, governments already found ways to circumvent this. Just because the official policy is "don't kill", the government can create any laws that grant exceptions.
"Don't kill, unless they're a different race"
"Don't kill, unless they espouse a different belief system"
"Don't kill, unless they have resources we want and they refuse to give it to us"
Leading theories on group dynamics say that people are swayed by their surroundings, and in a lawless society, violence always dictate the way. I don't think thats a free will argument (for or against)
Look at chimps- our closest primate relatives. They are naturally violent, oppressive and territorial.
It's just their nature. Just like our nature is to be violent. that doesn't mean we kill each other all the time. But all of human history have been destroying those that are weaker than those in your group. and it's not bad or unjust regardless if it's the british empire or the mongols. Because it's human nature. There is no major civilisation, there never has been, where this hasn't be true.
The government created the institutions that gave you a basic reasoning. Have you ever talked to people with no education at all? Have you ever met people who have no qualms about hurting other people and animals because they've not even taught the basics of putting yourself in other peoples shoes?
Your understanding and level of being civilized is not a given. Many people don't have it and are unable to navigate the world or righteousness with any nuance.
Many people with no education are however raised well by parents with good morales and ethics, but even their morales and ethics are based on the wisdom kept, maintained and nurtured by the safety and sanctuary of the governments mandate and rule of law.
I know it makes you uncomfortable to realize that the true face of humanity is not sunshine and rainbows. You need to take a look at the last 10,000 years of human behavior and observe situations where great deals of people have been living side by side in societies without a government, and seen how that has worked out.
You're wasting your time. They've been programmed to think that government is the answer to all problems.
Also, this ridiculous argument that without government, humans will descend into total chaos is too dumb. If that were true, how the hell did human species survive until the formation of a governing body (monarchy or government)?
People follow because laws because they are good people and believe in order. Even with laws, people still commit lots of crimes, but that's the distinction between law abiding citizens and non law abiding citizens. Some people choose the former and some choose the latter.
No. You're completely wrong.
First of all, we're talking about mass societies. Before the formation of government, people lived in small tribal communes; hunter-gatherer societies. At the dawn of agriculture, people built their huts and caves near the food supplies, and this created the first mass influx of people gathered in a single location; from that government was made to keep order.
People stealing the food, some try to take it, people don't know how to share it. Greed becomes a major factor as there aren't enough for everyone, so it's kill or be killed.
In small scale hunter-gatherer groups you can see the anthropological research on aboriginals people. The kindness, generosity and goodness in those small groups always evaporate once the group of people become large enough. AFAIK, there is no empirical evidence of a mass society of people(with millions of people) that has been able to act good, peacefully or kind with of government.?
Since then, humans have tried to make systems, philosophies, religions and other means to curb or control humans from destroying one another.
Without government, it's not a like a mass group of people will spontaneously kill. but history from collapsed governments across the world, tells us that the tendency is overwhelming to embrace killing, rape, looting and pillaging.
The local population end up begging for the government to control and protect people.
People are not following laws because they are good people. People follow laws because the consequences of not following them are dire. people know the ramifications of doing illegal activities and that is why they are not doing it. Yes, some people ignore them regardless, but most people are conditioned to still their selfish urges. You said it yourself; people are biased and have their own agendas. You cannot trust people to be good.
Good is also just a scape goat. Governments condition people to be good. Governments are trying to domesticate humans like golden retrievers. Imprison the hostile ones, until you're left with loving creatures that are far removed from the natural aggressive state.
200 years ago, people could barely think in abstraction and the nuanced levels of empathy we have today. That's why people have always throughout history been easily talked into harming other people over stupid ideas. Virtually all social progress of fairness and inclusiveness comes from mandated and disliked policies that was enforced on a predatory and hostile populous. When governments demanded slaves illegal, womens right to vote or that you shouldnt beat your children, it was all received negatively by a public whose natural affinity is to be selfish, territorial and tribal. Not to mention to act emotionally and with hostility.
