Life without government

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
wolram
Gold Member
4,236
554

Main Question or Discussion Point

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?
 

Answers and Replies

648
3
That would be the wrong way to create an anarchy, since you have a massive power vacuum.
 
107
0
If it would be possible to maintain laws without a governement, yes. I don't see how though.
 
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,769
6
Belgium seems to be ticking over nicely.
 
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
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.
 
wolram
Gold Member
4,236
554
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?
 
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
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.
 
wolram
Gold Member
4,236
554
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?
 
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
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.
 
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
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.
 
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
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:
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,543
1,685
"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:
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
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:).
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,168
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.
 
Mk
1,963
3
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:
26
3
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:
1,040
4
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.
 
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
"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.
 
wolram
Gold Member
4,236
554
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.
 
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,769
6
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 realise.
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,168
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.
 
648
3
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?
 
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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.
 
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
616
IMO, it's not so much the severity of the punishment that deters crime, it's the certainty of it.
 

Related Threads for: Life without government

Replies
35
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
8K
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
5K
Top