Is an oppressive government better than no government?

[MAVA]

"An oppressive government is preferable to no government at all"

Discuss.

[trivas7]

Given that all government is oppressive of someone -- there's nothing to discuss.

[GPDP]

If by no government, you mean total chaos and "anarchy", perhaps. Not like it would make a difference, because out of the chaos will rise a new order in some form or another, likely an oppressive one at that. Power vacuums tend to do so, in the absence of any semblance of mass organization. Somalia is a good example. Tribalism is on the rise as a result of the collapse of the Somalian state.

Anyway, no one here AFAIK advocates the complete abolition of any and all government. Even anarchists call for some kind of government, though I suspect many would not call it by that name. The important thing to distinguish here is that government =/= state. I think it is possible to maintain some sort of stateless governing structure that would be heavily decentralized and profoundly democratic at all levels. It would, I suspect, be mostly concerned with providing the necessary structures for the administration of everyday matters with input by everyone affected by whatever issues are brought forth, than it would be about governing anything.


Given that all government is oppressive of someone -- there's nothing to discuss.

Ugh. You know what he means. Don't be silly.

[Dejavu]

This is like asking if North Korea is preferable to Somalia.

Any answer you give will suck.

Like GPDP, most anarchists want social order but do not typically call it a government.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Anarchy

[trivas7]

Anyway, no one here AFAIK advocates the complete abolition of any and all government. Even anarchists call for some kind of government, though I suspect many would not call it by that name. The important thing to distinguish here is that government =/= state. I think it is possible to maintain some sort of stateless governing structure that would be heavily decentralized and profoundly democratic at all levels. It would, I suspect, be mostly concerned with providing the necessary structures for the administration of everyday matters with input by everyone affected by whatever issues are brought forth, than it would be about governing anything.

This is confused and consequently so am I am. What would anarchists call "some kind of government"? Why not call it government?

Finally, distinguish government and the state. Can you put it in simple terms so a simpleton like me can understand?

[GPDP]

This is confused and consequently so am I am. What would anarchists call "some kind of government"? Why not call it government?

I'd say it's the connotations that come along with it. Government, to some anarchists, implies authority from above; a governing body, if you will, instead of governing structures of popular control. It implies a state.


Finally, distinguish government and the state. Can you put it in simple terms so a simpleton like me can understand?

I see what you're doing here, and frankly, I don't like it. Drop the tone, and maybe I'll clarify.

[Jack]

Libertarian Municipalitism is government without the state.

"Anarcho" capitalism is the state without government.

[Hoxhaist]

the preferability of the govt depends on how easily it can be converted into a revolutionary govt and replace the oppressive govt or restore order from anarchy

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It depends on the situation at hand, of course, but I'd say there are certain instances where I could agree with the statement.

There's a saying in Syria, "Better one month of Hama than 15 years like Lebanon." Not that I'm condoning that kind of behavior, but you get my drift.

[Havet]

"Anarcho" capitalism is the state without government.

I believe Anarcho Capitalism to be "an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market."

quote from wikipedia btw

[MAVA]

Oppression doesn't in any way imply safety

[Vendetta]

No. No it's not.

[Jack]

I believe Anarcho Capitalism to be "an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market."

quote from wikipedia btw

Also according to Wikipedia there are neo-nazi anarchists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_anarchism

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so odds are idiots (like "anarcho" capitalists) will get in there.

[synthesis]

I believe Anarcho Capitalism to be "an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market."

quote from wikipedia btw

But the individual has never been sovereign, and I don't think that could ever actually exist in practice. Humans are social creatures by way of evolution, and capitalism will always be a social system in practice; it is a social system where money is power.

Therefore, it can be said to act against overall individual sovereignty in the sense that the people at the top have the ability to organize conditions in such a way that people's individual sovereignty is subsumed by larger social entities that are not directly involved in the government, such as corporations.

That's also why "individual sovereignty" and "free markets" are mutually exclusive concepts - the market is fundamentally a social system and a social construction and therefore cannot be considered to possess any metaphysical qualities of its own.

So whenever these types advocate for "individual sovereignty," the principal question to ask about their system in practice is: "Which individuals?"

If you're a socialist, the answer won't surprise you at all.

[trivas7]

But the individual has never been sovereign, and I don't think that could ever actually exist in practice. Humans are social creatures by way of evolution, and capitalism will always be a social system in practice; it is a social system where money is power.

Therefore, it can be said to act against overall individual sovereignty in the sense that the people at the top have the ability to organize conditions in such a way that people's individual sovereignty is subsumed by larger social entities that are not directly involved in the government, such as corporations.

Indeed. Anarcho-capitalism put into practice would soon become the corporatist capitalism we all know and hate.

[Dimentio]

"An oppressive government is preferable to no government at all"

Discuss.

Trivas7 - you are wrong. I guess you are living in America or Europe of today, and that you are living in our time is apparent. I think there is a qualitive difference between a government which could fire you from your work if you are a communist, an islamist or a nazi, and a government which could burn you alive for witchcraft, or cut of your head to build a pyramid of skulls.

MAVA - That depends on what kind of anarchy you are referring to.

There are examples of what I would call peaceful anarchies, where we have cultures which are living in harmony with their surroundings without having an organised society on a higher level than a family or tribe. The Bushmen are a good example. The Polynesian civilisation another example.

What the communist anarchists are proposing is a federation of autonomous communities built on self-management, where social and economic issues are voted upon direct-democratically. So, anarchism would not mean absence of order, but absence of government.

But there are kinds of anarchies to which any kind of despotic government is preferable. For example "warlord anarchy" or "gangster anarchy". When an order breaks into pieces, there is a profound risk that we will not see a transition or a revolution, but a collapse, leading to the establishment of a "warrior aristocracy" which does'nt have any intentions or capacity to build a new government, merely to enrich themselves and defend themselves from themselves. In this situation, which we during modern time have seen in nations like Colombia, Lebanon, Bosnia, Somalia, Chechnya, Congo and possibly Thailand soon, people have endured very uncertain times, repressed not only by thugs and mafia, but also by crumbling infrastructure, collapsing social welfare systems and migrations leading to ethnic and religious re-structuralisation of society - sometimes even genocide.

During such conditions, I think that any strongman - no matter how revolting, sadistic and crazy - for the population could be viewed as preferable to the chaos which they have endured.

[MAVA]

What do Stalinist call oppressive?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Libertarian governments would replace state oppression with corporate oppression, the privitisation of every aspect of life possible, and the branding of everyone according to "individual" tastes. they want to free up opression on markets because they see that as another vessel of social freedom. but, money is just a way to exercise power over another individual via rent and so on.

i would rather not see an economically libertarian(free) government. because like i just said, it just puts more power into those who have money. the bourgeoisie.

what im getting at is that this question is somewhat ambiguous. if its socially oppressive then no, i would not want to see that form of an oppressive government, but, if it is restrictive on how the economy works to keep it in the interest of the people and the environment then sure why not.

[Glenn Beck]

Given that all government is oppressive of someone -- there's nothing to discuss.

I'd thank this post if I could

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Maybe? Yes? No? It all depends on the circumstance.

Easiest answer.

[RGacky3]

Maybe? Yes? No? It all depends on the circumstance.

Easiest answer.


Under what circumstance would an oppressive government be better than no government?

[Dimentio]

Under what circumstance would an oppressive government be better than no government?

Under conditions of ethnic cleansing, warlordism, rule by mafia clans, civil war, starvation and slave trade.

[GPDP]

Under conditions of ethnic cleansing, warlordism, rule by mafia clans, civil war, starvation and slave trade.

Is that what "no government" means, then? It seems that way. If so, Mad Max and Fist of the North Star both come to mind as examples of "no government".

But really, warlordism and such, to me, just sounds like decentralized oppressive government rather than no government, because it would be rival warlords that would rule over certain geographic areas, effectively making their structures of power "governments", albeit governments whose legitimacy lies in how well they can defend their territories from other warlords.

In other words, I don't see how the breakdown of a stable, centralized government into warring factions all vying for power can be construed as "no government" or "anarchy". It is basically just a chaotic version of the Big Brother "oppressive government", in which the organs of coercion are external rather than internal. Both are ultimately coercive, but their methods of coercion are different.

Warlordism involves extreme uncertainty, a complete disregard for any semblance of a consensus that could pass as a body of civil law, and the absence of any and all systems of order and control. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, enforces order to the utmost degree, as decreed by a central body of power.

So basically, all we're choosing between is a single, all-powerful state and scores of warring, self-serving states. Choose your poison.

[RGacky3]

Under conditions of ethnic cleansing, warlordism, rule by mafia clans, civil war, starvation and slave trade.

How can you have ethnic cleansing without a government leading it? When has ethnic cleansing ever been a spontaneous thing brought about by free people? Its always been government or hiarchal organizatio induced. Worlordism IS government, so would mafia clans, be. Civil war is almosy war between 2 "governments" wanting control. As so on and so forth.

BTW, just because a government is'nt officially recognized by the UN or other States does'nt make it NOT a government (i.e. warlords, Mafia rule)