It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The conspiracy of the necessity of government

page: 7
38
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I think it's time to examine social contract theory:




According to social contract theory (SCT),

“morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior, that rational people would accept, on the condition that others accept them as well.”

(Rachels, p. 145)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

“A State of Nature” = anarchy Makes life “poor, nasty, brutish and short”

This is because of 4 features of the human condition:
· equality of need
· scarcity
· the essential equality of human power
· limited altruism

In a “state of nature”, there are no social goods… No

Farming
Industry
Education
Housing
Technology
Etc.

….because the social cooperation needed to produce these things doesn’t exist.

In order to avoid this fate,

(1) there must be guarantees that people will not harm one another, and
(2) people must be able to rely on one another to keep their agreements.

Only a government can provide for (1) and (2). Therefore, we need a government. In establishing a government, people give up some of their personal freedom (the freedom of anarchy, such as it is) and give the government the authority to enforce laws and agreements.

Those living under a government are parties to a social contract. Each person agrees to follow the laws of the state on the condition that everyone else does the same. That way, we are all relatively safe from each other and we all benefit from the other social goods that will result.

According to SCT, “the state exists to enforce the rules necessary for social living, while morality consists in the whole set of rules that facilitate social living”. (Rachels, p. 144) Thus, government is needed to enforce the basic rules of social living (e.g. don’t rob people, don’t break agreements), while morality may encompass some rules that are important for social living but are outside the scope of the state (this might include, for example, “Don’t insult people for no reason”.)

cscu.edu

So there's a good start for why government is needed. Now, I'm sure there's going to be some arguments -- about how "I never signed a contract!" -- No, but you were born into a society in which it is implied, and unless you leave the society, you take advantage of and participate in the society -- thereby giving your consent to the social contract.




posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

When did we use to think long term? I can't think of a single time during American history where that was the case. Heck the American Civil War happened because politicians kept playing "Kick the Can" with the slavery issue until it blew up in everyone's face, and that issue started with the creation of the country.



The FRAMERS used to think long term. otherwise we would have no constitution.


Ok, they thought long term when they wrote the Constitution, but many of the framers went on to be politicians in the new government and IMMEDIATELY stopped thinking long term.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
“A State of Nature” = anarchy Makes life “poor, nasty, brutish and short”

Why would it necessarily mean, that life would be poor, nasty, brutish and short?
It all depends on your own definition of wealth and how you treat others.
Some claim that it's human nature to fight each other and start wars.
It's also human nature to have sympathy and compassion, unless you're a psychopath.
The problem nowadays is, that we are governed (on higher levels anyway) by psychopaths in my opinion.
In order for a society to succeed for everyone, equality is the single most important factor.
I think that in truly equal societies, there would be no need to fight each other anymore.
Todays societies are far from equal, not by chance, but as intended and therein lies the problem.
The system isn't broken, it's build that way.
Also scarcity is artificially created by corporations and governments for profit and to divide the people in order to maintain a certain level of control and dependance.


“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.”
Mahatma Gandhi



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79

Well, we have to give government and (which gives us stable society) credit -- for without it, we wouldn't be able to discuss this over the internet.

I guess if you want to hunt things with sharp pointy sticks, wear flea ridden animal skins, and live in fear of being eaten by wild animals or killed by other humans...

If we stand back and look at human history, humans have always looked out for themselves, numero uno. If that means taking from someone who has more, or conquering someone -- that's what they'll do. Human beings will go to great lengths to survive.

People have this misguided notion that everyone can just wander around, alone, and still maintain some semblance of normalcy and society. People also seem to have over inflated ideas about their capacity to survive in a "Mad Max" like world. The vast majority of these people would die from starvation or be slaughtered by rivals.

At their most basic level, human beings are nothing more than animals with the amazing ability to adapt. When push comes to shove in order to survive, we'll kill, steal, and commit unspeakable acts and crimes.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
At their most basic level, human beings are nothing more than animals with the amazing ability to adapt. When push comes to shove in order to survive, we'll kill, steal, and commit unspeakable acts and crimes.

So basically what you're saying is, the only thing that keeps you from murdering and stealing from your neighbours right now, is the government that is in place.
Wouldn't want to live next door to ya




People have this misguided notion that everyone can just wander around, alone, and still maintain some semblance of normalcy and society. People also seem to have over inflated ideas about their capacity to survive in a "Mad Max" like world. The vast majority of these people would die from starvation or be slaughtered by rivals.


You do know that there is a whole lot of grey area between overregulated statism and above description of society.
Clearly todays capitalism and socalled democracy is failing on every level, because it serves only a few and not the majority.

Maybe it's getting time we all start to think how we could improve society to serve the majority and not the few.
My first suggestion is to decentralise power and decision making and give it back to the local people in an area.
Also ever larger growing cities is not in the best interest of mankind, because it's not sustainable and creates to many dependant people.
I'm not saying to revert back to the stone age, however we could gradually turn the tide demographically to, let's say, pre-industrial times.
Modern big cities only serve the factories and corporations, just look at how the population has grown exponentially over the last 100 yrs.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, we have to give government and (which gives us stable society) credit -- for without it, we wouldn't be able to discuss this over the internet.

If it means to loose the internet in exchange for limited government and global equality, then yeah, I would gladly discuss this face to face over a glass of beer anyday.
Internet is a luxury, not a necessaty.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

When did we use to think long term? I can't think of a single time during American history where that was the case. Heck the American Civil War happened because politicians kept playing "Kick the Can" with the slavery issue until it blew up in everyone's face, and that issue started with the creation of the country.



The FRAMERS used to think long term. otherwise we would have no constitution.


Ok, they thought long term when they wrote the Constitution, but many of the framers went on to be politicians in the new government and IMMEDIATELY stopped thinking long term.


And when they did the U S immediatly failed. Im sure they prolly regret it.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Public services and utilities are needed......politicians, politics and big government are not - especially with the advent of computers - we could build a program to direct all taxation to go into education, infrastructure maintenance, health, no wars (imagine the cash cow from a massively reduced defense budget that focuses on domestic defense only?) and a myriad of other things - all without politicians even existing - they are the quintessential oxygen thieving wastes of space.


And who decides how much revenue is collected, and the percentages of that distributed to education, infrastructure, and all the rest?



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
Local communities can function just fine without the Fed's. In fact, lives would be saved if the Federal Government was completely eliminated. No local community is going to send their kids around the world to shoot at people in some desert in the Middle East. Only a corrupt and bloated Federal entity does stupid crap like that.


And what would happen to communities like mine which are among the poorest in the nation? We have no industry, no jobs, and no tax base.

The population would starve and there would be no schools. How is that a net benefit?

Personally, I would prefer to not have to drop out of school and sacrifice any future to simply try and get by day to day. It's thanks to the government that I have that opportunity.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Shamrock6

Then, if we are talking about a 1st world country with established infrastructure that NEEDS to be maintained by the government that tons of people rely on suddenly stopping, things will get messy. Look at the inner cities NOW, WITH government, will that magically improve without government? Cities would devolve into warzones.



I think a lot of people want to live in a war zone for some screwed up reason. It's like the middle class kid that replicates ghetto life to seem more legit.
edit on 5-11-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
So we all do our own jobs but we also log-in and do the job of politicians as well (that should consume about 3 minutes per day).


We all log in and do our job as politicians to solve an issue with Mexico. They're currently unhappy about the state of the Colorado River, namely that we're taking all of the water for our own cities before it gets to their border. How do you propose properly educating 317 million people on the geopolitics of that situation?
edit on 5-11-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
Exactly. We used to think long term though. W e need to get back to that solution is to put non negotiable and changable things in place to force them to think long term again. Ripping the fed funds off any faster would kill th e country for sure.


The realities of elections prevent long term planning in a Democracy or Republic. People vote based on short term results. No one is getting credit with the voters for enacting a policy that takes 50 years to come to fruition.

Long term planning is only possible under a dictatorship where the same individual/party can ensure they'll have power long enough to see something through.


originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: intrptr

except that no one knows how to do those basic things anymore....
how many know how to take the wool from a sheep and turn it into a roll of cloth so someone can sew it into a piece of clothing? or do the same with cotton? will your community even be able to grow cotton? how many factories in your area are equipped to mass produce clothing, or anything else that is really of use?


So we revert to a pre industrial society of nothing but manual labor. For someone who has a background in tech like me, that sounds like absolute hell. Turning the clock back 300 years is not a solution, I would quite literally kill myself before living that lifestyle (then again, I suppose that solves my above issue about dead end jobs and lack of food in this area). There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a farmer, but forcing society back to a time when people had no time for any labor other than meeting subsistence requirements is ridiculous.

Also, I find it strange that it's usually the people with few modern skills that want to eliminate modern lifestyles.
edit on 6-11-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I just see it as a flaw in the way our government works. The only way to fix it is to completely rewrite the Constitution, which is something I don't want done because then there is a chance that nefarious interests could corrupt it AWAY from freedom instead of improving the system.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
And what would happen to communities like mine which are among the poorest in the nation? We have no industry, no jobs, and no tax base.

If you don't mind me asking, how did your town originate?
There must be a reason people settled there in the past, how come it's not viable anymore today?



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

I just see it as a flaw in the way our government works. The only way to fix it is to completely rewrite the Constitution, which is something I don't want done because then there is a chance that nefarious interests could corrupt it AWAY from freedom instead of improving the system.


True. although there are ways to make sure a re write that keeps the original intact by making it crystal clear the only thing being changed is a specific thing,and all 1-10 are off limits as well as the bill of rights. No need for a real rewrite just annotation aborgating a previous part within the stipulations i just mentioned so no one loses any rights.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Well that's just an Amendment. I'm not entirely sure that an Amendment would be good enough to fix this issue.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Most of your "modern skills" are useless excepting very specific circumstances. Really no different than a rote monkey putting together Lego pieces.

Now, put the average person with "modern skills" into the wild, and watch them whimper, cry, and then die. That's what I call incompetence, essentially at the level of an infant. Just look at all the people who can't even get around without using a GPS.

I can't blame you for being scared though- not everyone has what it takes, and when society turns you into a helpless infant, it's hard to pull yourself out of it.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
If you don't mind me asking, how did your town originate?
There must be a reason people settled there in the past, how come it's not viable anymore today?



It started up as a major shipping and industry center in Ohio because of it's adjacency to coal mines and sitting at the confluence of two rivers which was a real boon to shipping. Then those industries all went elsewhere and the town atrophied. Later on the town more or less invented the prescription drug epidemic (what a great legacy, right?) and things deteriorated further. Today it's a pretty miserable town but oddly enough it has a really good university for certain programs (which is why I'm here).

Minus the huge drug problem it's the same story as many small has been towns.


originally posted by: Talorc
I can't blame you for being scared though- not everyone has what it takes, and when society turns you into a helpless infant, it's hard to pull yourself out of it.


Scared? Not at all. I simply have no desire to exist in the type of world where we have to drink beer instead of water due to water sanitation, access to information is more limited, and labor is about meeting societies needs rather than it's wants.
edit on 6-11-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
Sorry to hear that it happened to your town in that way, like many others.
Couldn't it have been anticipated by the town council at the time when the mines started closing?
Harsh as it may sound, if there is no means to be there anymore, economically speaking, it's time to relocate or find new means to prosper (which local government should've done at that time imo).

It seems that prescription drugs are becoming a real problem in the U.S. nowadays.
For years I'm seeing America's War on Drugs being fought abroad, meanwhile the real problem seems to be within U.S. borders by the big pharma companies. I hope this trend will not reach my country, or any others that is.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   


"I can already hear the conditioned responses: “Anarchy as solution? No, anarchy means violence and chaos, we need social-systems to stay safe.” Now if you find yourself having a thought similar to this, you need to realize something basic first of all: Anarchy means “No ruler,” it means a society without social-systems of control, without forced government, it is not (despite the pervasive propaganda saying it is) synonymous with violence and chaos. Anarchy is against violence, the violence of the State that forces us to participate in the destruction of the Earth, individuals and communities. Anarchy, in its pure form, is an unwavering belief that slavery and acts of authoritarian aggression are always wrong; not really an extreme notion! But amazingly, in Orwellian fashion, this stance of non-violence has been totally distorted (by those it benefits to do so) into its complete opposite."

This is an excerpt taken from a blog that I stumbled upon. You can read the full version here:
The Root Injustice, & A Real Way Forward to a Sustainable Society
It's a rather long, although interesting article, that I wanted to share to compliment this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join