Could civilisation survive without central government?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government Life
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
45 replies · 12K views
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
552
Could there be a civilised way to live without central government? suppose some catastrophe wiped out your countries government, would there be a priority to replace
it?
 

Discussion

Physics news on Phys.org
That would be the wrong way to create an anarchy, since you have a massive power vacuum.
 
If it would be possible to maintain laws without a governement, yes. I don't see how though.
 
Belgium seems to be ticking over nicely.
 
wolram said:
Could there be a civilised way to live without central government? suppose some catastrophe wiped out your countries government, would there be a priority to replace
it?
Well, unless retaliative measures can be indulged in, non-violent persons will be dominated by violent ones.
 
arildno said:
Well, unless retaliative measures can be indulged in, non-violent persons will be dominated by violent ones.

Well i could be a Rambo but who is going to make my bullets?
 
wolram said:
Well i could be a Rambo but who is going to make my bullets?
Well, you can be a bully without having bullets. For example, you can use your teeth and bite those you don't like.
 
arildno said:
Well, you can be a bully without having bullets. For example, you can use your teeth and bite those you don't like.
So without government we become a wolf pack?
 
wolram said:
So without government we become a wolf pack?

It is enough that some of us already are wolves.

And that is not a controversial hypothesis.
 
Anarchy only works in small communities, well at least compared to democracy. Anarchy is pretty much useless, maybe even more so than communism.
 
Think of it this way, wolram:
It only takes a single bully within a population of otherwise nice, inoffensive persons to spread misery.

That is, an altruistic, benevolent anarchy is an unstable equilibrium with respect to a "bully perturbation". Only if the population acknowledges its own right to retaliate can its social system becom stable. But that in effect, amounts to some form of invested authority.
 
wolram said:
suppose some catastrophe wiped out your countries government, would there be a priority to replace it?
I think most democratic nations put a rather large priority in ensuring that such a catastrophe does not wipe out government in its entirety. In the US, for instance, there is a long chain of succession set up to replace the P, VP should anything happen to them, and all the members of this line can never be found within some specified radius of each other, should some catastrophe strike (if for no other reason than to give someone the responsibility to call for a nuclear strike, should the threat arise). If a giant chandelier fell on the President's podium during a State of the Union address, incapacitating Bush, Cheney and Pelosi, the person with his finger on the nuclear button would be a 91 year old man. They take the continuance of government pretty seriously out here.
 
Last edited:
"Life without government" and "live without central government" are two different matters.

Some form of government would exist in a society, if only to settle disputes/conflicts and ensure some level of stability.

An interesting form of government is that of the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) peoples.
 
Last edited:
Whether you call it government or not, certainly some form of leadership needs to exist to prevent chaos. Basically, someone needs to be in charge of ensuring everyone gets their fair share of common resources, especially when those resources are spread out over great distances. You see this happening in any group situation. If everyone is trying to make decisions, or everyone just wants to follow orders, nothing gets accomplished, but if one or two people emerge as leaders, and the rest of the group sorts out into followers, or one group leader delegates leadership of smaller tasks to individuals, things will function more smoothly.

Government is basically a way of delegating the levels of leadership so you avoid fighting amongst the potential leaders (except during campaign years of course :wink:).
 
Gokul43201 said:
I think most democratic nations put a rather large priority in ensuring that such a catastrophe does not wipe out government in its entirety. In the US, for instance, there is a long chain of succession set up to replace the P, VP should anything happen to them, and all the members of this line can never be found within some specified radius of each other, should some catastrophe strike (if for no other reason than to give someone the responsibility to call for a nuclear strike, should the threat arise). If a giant chandelier fell on the President's podium during a State of the Union address, incapacitating Bush, Cheney and Pelosi, the person with his finger on the nuclear button would be a 91 year old man. They take the continuance of government pretty seriously out here.
Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor" ends with a 9/11 style terrorist attack taking out pretty much the entire federal goverenment during the President's State of the Union Address. The sequel, aptly named, "Executive Orders" is how the government is rebuilt by our hero, Jack Ryan. Very interesting scenarios presented there.
 
Moonbear's description of government could be expanded to saying it is a power distribution system. Oligarchies, democracies, aristocracies, and authoritarian are different categories of whom having power over whom.
 
Last edited:
Governments are generally used to oppress people (or protect us from others that want to oppress us) and, since there are a lot of people out there that like to oppress other people, other governments would be immediately organized. This would be done both by people wanting to oppress and others who want to protect themselves from the first group.

Those who refuse to join one group or the other will become slaves of the oppressors.
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
I think most democratic nations put a rather large priority in ensuring that such a catastrophe does not wipe out government in its entirety. In the US, for instance, there is a long chain of succession set up to replace the P, VP should anything happen to them, and all the members of this line can never be found within some specified radius of each other, should some catastrophe strike (if for no other reason than to give someone the responsibility to call for a nuclear strike, should the threat arise). If a giant chandelier fell on the President's podium during a State of the Union address, incapacitating Bush, Cheney and Pelosi, the person with his finger on the nuclear button would be a 91 year old man. They take the continuance of government pretty seriously out here.

Predelegation certainly existed during Eisenhower's and Kennedy's administrations. Early in the Johnson tenure, predelegation became clasified and remains so. It is quite possible that a Navy Commander in Chicago has the button as well.
 
Astronuc said:
"Life without government" and "live without central government" are two different matters.

Some form of government would exist in a society, if only to settle disputes/conflicts and ensure some level of stability.

An interesting form of government is that of the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) peoples.

From what I know of it, it was an actual source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers, along with Enlightenment thoughts from the continent.
 
When i think about it governments do not prevent crime or bullying, they punish after the fact, if they can catch the perps that is.
 
wolram said:
When i think about it governments do not prevent crime or bullying, they punish after the fact, if they can catch the perps that is.

I think the threat of being held accountable for your actions by the society you live in is a deterrent to many people. Obviously not all of them, but perhaps more than you realize.
 
wolram said:
When i think about it governments do not prevent crime or bullying, they punish after the fact, if they can catch the perps that is.
They certainly can't prevent all crime, but at the very least, the fear of punishment prevents a lot of crime.
 
russ_watters said:
They certainly can't prevent all crime, but at the very least, the fear of punishment prevents a lot of crime.

The death penalty does not work as a deterrent, so why should lesser punishments work?
 
I think this goes back to the idea that locks are designed to keep an honest man honest.

A crook is a crook regardless of deterrents.
 
IMO, it's not so much the severity of the punishment that deters crime, it's the certainty of it.
 
Moridin said:
The death penalty does not work as a deterrent, so why should lesser punishments work?
There are two giant flaws in this line of reasoning (if indeed, the question is rhetorical).

1. If at all, we only know that the death penalty as an alternative to life imprisonment, does not serve as a deterrent. There has been no study, to my knowledge that has compared the death penalty with the alternative option of walking scot-free. I highly doubt you'd find the same result, were such a study conducted in a fantasy land where a murderer or rapist would not be incarcerated for his/her actions.

2. The second flaw is in the implicit assumption that deterrence of crime depends only on the nature of the punishment and is independent of the nature of crime. If there was a life sentence for jay walking, I think you find fewer jay walkers on the street.
 
lisab said:
IMO, it's not so much the severity of the punishment that deters crime, it's the certainty of it.
That depends on the crime.
For example, that minority of crimes which involves cool reasoning and the willingness to take risks will be significantly affected by the severity level.

This would include high-level fraud and other white collar crimes.


For other types of crimes, the performance of them requires mentalities so wrapped up in themselves with minimal attachments to the rest of the world that severity level, or even just certainty level has very little effect.

That would include on-the-spur crimes of passion (say, committed out of jealousy), along with compulsive sexual exploitation crimes like child molestation, serial killings etc.
 
arildno said:
For other types of crimes, the performance of them requires mentalities so wrapped up in themselves with minimal attachments to the rest of the world that severity level, or even just certainty level has very little effect.

That would include on-the-spur crimes of passion (say, committed out of jealousy), along with compulsive sexual exploitation crimes like child molestation, serial killings etc.

There are also crimes committed by those disillusioned with or who feel separated, ostracised or let down by society for whatever reason. To these people the punishment has very little bearing on their decision to commit crimes. All too often however people have the revenge reflex and call for more severe punishments rather than solving the root of the problem, which is why these people feel removed from society and helping reintegrate them.
 
arildno said:
That depends on the crime.
For example, that minority of crimes which involves cool reasoning and the willingness to take risks will be significantly affected by the severity level.

This would include high-level fraud and other white collar crimes.


For other types of crimes, the performance of them requires mentalities so wrapped up in themselves with minimal attachments to the rest of the world that severity level, or even just certainty level has very little effect.

That would include on-the-spur crimes of passion (say, committed out of jealousy), along with compulsive sexual exploitation crimes like child molestation, serial killings etc.

Point taken; I suppose a criminally insane person would not think to do a risk-benefit analysis.
 
Gokul43201 said:
There are two giant flaws in this line of reasoning (if indeed, the question is rhetorical).

1. If at all, we only know that the death penalty as an alternative to life imprisonment, does not serve as a deterrent. There has been no study, to my knowledge that has compared the death penalty with the alternative option of walking scot-free. I highly doubt you'd find the same result, were such a study conducted in a fantasy land where a murderer or rapist would not be incarcerated for his/her actions.

2. The second flaw is in the implicit assumption that deterrence of crime depends only on the nature of the punishment and is independent of the nature of crime. If there was a life sentence for jay walking, I think you find fewer jay walkers on the street.

The fact that murder rates in the states is pretty high despite the death penalty contradicts your assertions.