[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is like saying guns are bad because they kill people. Government has it's uses, that's what I'm saying. You seem to imply that "educated and non-violent populace" is some sort of exogenous variable that we can just plug into the equation. The entire point of my argument is that some sort of governing institution is necessary to create this "educated and non-violent populace".



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have this backwards. You are saying governments are good because they help people. Which is interesting but all im asking is some evidence supporting your theory. The point I was trying to make was that there is no correlation between 'government' and how that government treats its society. So there has to be some other variable. IMO governments are a reflection of the values of the people that put that government into power, how could it be otherwise? Government is the gun, and its the people that are responsible for how that it gets used.

If people are uneducated and violent where is this education and non-violence going to come from? 1st world governments have education and protection for property rights specifically because the majority of the population have these values. Get rid of government and these people still have these values.

[/ QUOTE ]

The long and storied history of the human race, of our ascent (if you will) from apes to whatever it is that walk this earth today, is not so easily broken down into "this caused that". You can't just say that "people put the government into power" because that has never, ever been how things went down. The government, the culture, the economy and every other facet of society are all part of a complex, dynamic network of cause and effect. People change the government, the government changes the people. This is how it has always been.

What property rights do we really have in this, or other, countries? Every first world country was established by the brutal slaughter of some tribe or peoples that previously held these properties. The governments you see around you today have evolved from the ones that existed in those days, and it is only through their blatant disregard for the property of others that we have come to be here today. Some instititutions, some philosophies and some ideals still linger, while others have been outgrown or discarded. But to act as though we simply had a group of people who cared strongly for something, and that these people are not the direct result of the societies that came before them, that is lunacy.

I support, as I said, a governing institution. I support a cohesive social unit that extends beyond a man, and beyond merely his family. This means social goals, social planning, social problem solving. We need institutions that mediate between people, that work on behalf of the people, that secure the rights of people to self-determination in the face of external pressure. Is it possible that the market could provide the services of policing, education, mediating property disputes and so forth? Certainly it is conceivable. It is simply that I have little desire to live in such a "cold" society. I prefer my institutions to have history, to have character, to have stories behind them. This is not possible or even desirable in every arena, but the world that ACists paint is simply unappealing to me in it's entirety. To each his own.

What we do agree on, however, is what is needed. Much as you said that we currently have property rights and education because this is what is valued, we currently have lost our freedom because this is not was is valued. It is a shame that the principles which are those that are country was supposedly built on have been left by the way side, and it is our duty, if we are to take seriously our political beliefs, to be vigilent on behalf of these principles.