should government decrease as humanity improves?

[Metric]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

How many of you actively disagree with the above quote? Apparently, as humanity becomes more educated, ethically advanced, etc. etc. this would seem to imply that government would become less and less necessary and pervasive. Yet of course this is the opposite of what actually seems to occur. What is the explanation?

[cambraceres]

Simple, terribly so. The same thing that makes us as great as we are in comparison to everything else we know of is the same thing that keeps us at odds with one another.

We have creative power, and pure choice. We can use our rationalities for anything we wish, using the stars and planets as marbles and dice, however, this means we have the ability to cause harm to our fellow man through carelessness and ill-intent. How could we ever cause a situation short of slavery which accomplishes the thing you say?

The ability to do good as well as evil is a basic fragment of what makes us what we are.

When men have free choice, they will use it.

There are a cadre of validations for this. Now I said "meaningful period of time" above because I concede that evolutionary changes may elicit the situation you speak of, but I simultaneously contend that the resultant species could not be refferred to as human.

Cam

[Metric]

So can we summarize by saying that becoming better educated, more ethically advanced, etc. etc. actually takes us farther from the "angelic" case and thus MORE government is apparently necessary?

[MidGe]

It seems that humanity progress, in direct contradiction withm AC'ers views, is, whilst not perfect, a lot better, the most laws a society has.

Compare lifestyle of 100 or 200 or more years ago with today (eliminate the impact of technology, just add the gradual refinement of the statutes). And, no, I don't subscribe to the romantic version of the wild west, as a desirable state, when laws were fewer. I leave that to those that were fed, as youths, on John Wayne movies and super heroes comic strips, and took those as a description of their reality.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that humanity progress, in direct contradiction withm AC'ers views, is, whilst not perfect, a lot better, the most laws a society has.

Compare lifestyle of 100 or 200 or more years ago with today (eliminate the impact of technology, just add the gradual refinement of the statutes). And, no, I don't subscribe to the romantic version of the wild west, as a desirable state, when laws were fewer. I leave that to those that were fed, as youths, on John Wayne movies and super heroes comic strips, and took those as a description of their reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc...

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, the AC'ers claims are even more presumptuous, for they have NEVER been validated in any way, not even by coincidental correlation! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


Thanks for pointing this out!

As for my view point, go back 400. 800, 2000 or even 5000 years you will see more laws (more refined statutes at least) and a better standard of living. In between there have been a few regressive eras, without a shadow of a doubt, but the overall is clear unless you have little information about historical living conditions.

[Metric]

Your position seems to be that as people become more "angelic", more government will be necessary. Correct?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
eliminate the impact of technology

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who takes your posts after this is wasting his time. You cannot discuss improvements in the human condition and casually dismiss technology. All improvements in living conditions stem from our ability to provide food and shelter, avoid disease and find things that bring individual happiness.
Furthermore large scale governing is not even possible without signifigant technoligy availible as uniform codes of law and enforcement over large distances require complex communication networks. Offering the growth of legal codes in correlation to improvements in society and asking the reader to dismiss or ignore technology is retarded.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
As for my view point, go back 400. 800, 2000 or even 5000 years you will see more laws (more refined statutes at least) and a better standard of living. In between there have been a few regressive eras, without a shadow of a doubt, but the overall is clear unless you have little information about historical living conditions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain how more refined statutes cause a better standard of living?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems that humanity progress, in direct contradiction withm AC'ers views, is, whilst not perfect, a lot better, the most laws a society has.

[/ QUOTE ]
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc...

[/ QUOTE ]

So, when ACists claim anarchy in Somalia is so bad because the government that was present before anarchy ruined the country -- another example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy on display, right?

When identifying fallacies, it's not sufficient to just say "see, I know a fallacy, and what you just claimed could be one".

For instance, imagine I drank some brown water, then, folliwng that, I had explosive diarrhea. Then I go to my doctor and say "first, I drank this brown water, then I [censored] my brains out."

I'd hate to think the doctor would say "but that's a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy! Just because you drank brown water before you had diarrhea doesn't mean that the brown water is the cause of your diarrhea!", because chances are pretty good that brown water is related to my digestive problems.

So, yes, it's true, what MidGe claimed *might* be a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. And it's true, MidGe has to do more than point to a correlation if he wants to make a compelling case for causation. But ACists, then, have to do more than just say "I can identify possible fallacies", which is about all your response did.

Summary: this discussion has potential but sucks so far.