Government

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Using a liberal interpretation of government:

Premise 1: Governments attempt to protect the people from the people. They attempt to ensure the highest level of freedom in a society.

Premise 2: People must have the ability to elect their government and ensure that the government does not execute unjust authority on the people.

Conclusion 1: Consequently, if a government is designed to protect the people from themselves, but it is elected by the people, a government is an indirect method to achieve premise 1.

Premise 3: Direct action is more efficient than indirect action.

Conclusion 2: Anarchy (collectivization) is superior to a government to achieve the goals of government.

There are probably many problems with my logic. Even if it is valid, it only proves that governments limit freedom. Just wanting to get the ball rolling...

[Hit The North]

There's a big problem in the opening statement:


Governments attempt to protect the people from the people.

Who are the "people" being protected and who are the "people" they're being protected from?

As for premise 3, what kind of direct action do the "people" take in order to protect themselves from the "people"????

I think you begin with a gross charicature of Liberal theories of government and the whole thing sounds ludicrous.

No offense. :)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I appreciate your responding, but you really didn't add anything to the table. You didn't understand what I was saying yet felt comfortable to criticize it - that makes no sense. Governments protect people from oppressing one another - or are supposed to do so. That is what I meant.

Maybe it is not a liberal vision of government I am thinking of, but the logic does not require that. It requires one to accept the premises and the conclusion to be valid.

More specifically, the notion that the government protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Replace premise 1 with "governments attempt to implement the will of the people." Adjust premise 3 to be If "premise 1"

[OneBrickOneVoice]

No I don't think that's right that governments are supposed to protect against oppression. Governments are to protect against anarchy.

[rouchambeau]

What does your conclussion have to do with justice?

Assuming you premises and logic are solid all you have pointed out is that anarchy is more efficent than hierarchy.

Even then, when talking about objects it's better to rely on empiricism than a sylogism when trying to make a point.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 05:12 AM
What does your conclussion have to do with justice?
Well, if you view limiting freedom as unjust then the conclusion suggests government is unjust. I was more using the title to specify the kind of discussion I was trying to bring up. I am inviting people to question my conclusions, but, to a greater extent, asking others to bring philosophical theories on government and/or ideas and opinions to the table.

[Jamal]

Well in my point of view, the main reason that governments exist is to provide order and stability which people with no leadership cannot provide by them selves. It maybe restricting sometimes, it maybe cruel and injust but without it, chaos will provail.

[hoopla]

Well, if all direct action is more efficient than any other method, then of course it is a trueism that it will be more efficient than any government. So, of course, if a government is only legitimate if it is efficient, then it is illegimiate.

:huh:

[Rawthentic]

Governments hinder human creativity. Instead of administering society in common, we must be subject to the rule of government and their decisions. They are of another class, doing the bidding for the ruling class. We are alienated from them through beauracracy and such.


Well in my point of view, the main reason that governments exist is to provide order and stability which people with no leadership cannot provide by them selves. It maybe restricting sometimes, it maybe cruel and injust but without it, chaos will provail.

No they dont. Well, stability and order for the ruling class, oppression and death for the working class. Chaos will not prevail without it, human creativity and socialization will occur.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)Premise 1: Governments attempt to protect the people from the people. They attempt to ensure the highest level of freedom in a society.[/b]
Governments should protect and look after their citizens. They protect citizens from each other and other countries. Governments are very paternalistic.


Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)Premise 2: People must have the ability to elect their government and ensure that the government does not execute unjust authority on the people.[/b]
Ha ha!

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Conclusion 1: Consequently, if a government is designed to protect the people from themselves, but it is elected by the people, a government is an indirect method to achieve premise 1.Huh?


Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Premise 3: Direct action is more efficient than indirect action.OK


Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Conclusion 2: Anarchy (collectivization) is superior to a government to achieve the goals of government.
Yay!

Dooga Aetrus [email protected]
There are probably many problems with my logic. Even if it is valid, it only proves that governments limit freedom. Just wanting to get the ball rolling... Of course governments limit freedom ... As I said, governments are paternalistic, "you can't smoke pot", "you can't drive" etc.

As with problems with your logic, yes. I can't see how conclusion 1 is reached from premise 1 and 2. Nor conclusion 2 from premise 3 and conclusion 1. I might not be trying hard enough but still.


LeftHenry
No I don't think that's right that governments are supposed to protect against oppression. Governments are to protect against anarchy.But you can't justify government by saying that.


My view of governments is that they can't be justified. If they are their to protect citizens, they don't, to stop invasion, they don't, to prevent "anarchy", they succeed to a limited degree. They do not do what they are supposed to, they are oppressive and dictatorial. Even the "democratic" ones are not. So why bother with them?