- #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
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?
it?
Well, unless retaliative measures can be indulged in, non-violent persons will be dominated by violent ones.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?
arildno said:Well, unless retaliative measures can be indulged in, non-violent persons will be dominated by violent ones.
Well, you can be a bully without having bullets. For example, you can use your teeth and bite those you don't like.wolram said:Well i could be a Rambo but who is going to make my bullets?
So without government we become a wolf pack?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.
wolram said:So without government we become a wolf pack?
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.wolram said:suppose some catastrophe wiped out your countries government, would there be a priority to replace it?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
russ_watters said:They certainly can't prevent all crime, but at the very least, the fear of punishment prevents a lot of crime.
There are two giant flaws in this line of reasoning (if indeed, the question is rhetorical).Moridin said:The death penalty does not work as a deterrent, so why should lesser punishments work?
That depends on the crime.lisab said:IMO, it's not so much the severity of the punishment that deters crime, it's the certainty of it.
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.
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.
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.
That makes absolutely no sense, Moridin. I made no assertions about murder rates. I merely pointed out logical flaws in your argument.Moridin said:The fact that murder rates in the states is pretty high despite the death penalty contradicts your assertions.
Ivan Seeking said: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.
jimmysnyder said:Government is a kind of slow motion pillage with reduced levels of rape. I expect that without it, these things would run more efficiently.
lisab said:There are places on Earth with little or no government. Somalia comes to mind. No where I'd like to be, thanks anyway.