What is the purpose of government?
Which view do you take
LOCKE
>a necessary evil required to protect peoples rights. An arbiter of commerce. Guided entirely by principle.
BURKE
>The embodiment of the people must preserve traditions and promote moral behavior. Essentially it's main job is to repress man's savage and sinful nature. Guided by principles not ruled by them.
Rawlsianism
Take the HOBBESpill and realize that a benevolent dictator with absolute power and a united people behind them will always be the best society.
Doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. Government is inevitable. Even if you think that the world would be better without governments, a society has to be capable of sustaining itself to be successful, and a society without a government simply isn't sustainable.
What happens to your ancap society when the 100,000 strong army of men with guns step onto your front door, and tell you that they work for a government somebody founded over that mountain to the east, and that you are now under the jurisdiction of this government and must now pay taxes, or they will kill you and take your property? You either drop your mcnukes on them, or you surrender utterly to their demands and hopelessly overwhelming odds.
The two choices are meaningless, government is inevitable. Whether it is good or bad is up to the ones who run it.
these arent mutually exclusive.
Government has nothing to do with any of this. It's just an extension of the primitive primate social orders to primates with more intellectual capacity.
Locke
>Guided entirely by principle.
Oh, that worked great so far.
The government has a few jobs.
>Protect the border
>Court System
>Prison System
>Police
>Fire Department
>Roads
>Military
>Post office although you could easily let companies take that over instead.
You don't need anything else for government. Governments should be small. Basically the only things that should be crimes if they harm someone else physically or financially.
Hobbes would have agreed with Burke
Yes they are. The liberal ideal is a small gov't that doesn't impede the individual and only regulates market exchanges. Burke thought that was retarded, and he was right.
I can see that chicks panties.
"The state is that great fiction whereby everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else" - Bastiat
Who guides the people? People need an authority to guide them to happiness.
Society is a boat, The people are the captain, the government is the repair guy. His job is to fix the boat when it springs a leak. His job isn't supposed to start LARPing as the captain and giving him orders, to steer the boat or do anything against the captains wishes.
If the Captain wants to sink the boat, he's no longer allowed to repair the leaks.
Why is Azns so cute?
>What is the purpose of government?
Protect its citizens, thats it.
The only things that includes is:
Military
Police
Emergency services.
Infrastructure planning (you can't have a functioning country nor military unless there's some sort of order to you roads/rails/water..etc)
You need a judiciary of some kind too but that is not the government
"Moral panic til the peasants panic" Burke sounds like a fag
The management of goy slaves and the collection of goy tribute for the Jewish overlords
/thread
I cant speak for other countries, but in America the function of the Federal Government should be to protect our nation from alien forces and ensure states follow the constitution. A states job is to follow the constitution and maintain public inferstructure.
Is that you styx?
So you're a liberal?
What if the crew is fucking retarded?
So homosexuality is acceptable? Degeneracy is acceptable?
It is unironically n literally : a mafia.
>What if the crew is fucking retarded.
In places like Syria the "people" are retarded and the country is held together by a dictator who wants to keep the country sustainable.
The west is different though.
State goons have whatever purpose in mind that they happen to have in mind.
Usually that's looting you and living comfortably.
In what way?
Now how exactly do you find that 'benevolent dictator'?
>liberal
The word you are looking for is libertarian, and No. I'm just saying the necessary purpose of government. If it fucks up those things (ie boarder security) then your government is absolute shit
I personally think the government should also embody the collective will of a society to a small degree. Think of it as a government with an objective.
ie, part of a military budget be towards space technology for eventual colonisation.
Also I think it needs to prevent monopolies on resources.
>The word you are looking for is libertarian
There's no difference between liberal and libertarian
>I personally think the government should also embody the collective will of a society to a small degree. Think of it as a government with an objective.
ie, part of a military budget be towards space technology for eventual colonisation.
Also I think it needs to prevent monopolies on resources.
Not enough. The gov't needs to be in the business of keeping the people on a moral track.
>What is the purpose of government?
To serve the nation and protect it against outsiders and those who'd harm it from within.
It's an oxymoron. There's nothing benevolent about violent subjugation, which is what all dictators necessarily do else they not even be a dictator.
You call yourself a nazi but you have such a liberal view of what gov't should be.
It's funny how that's never what happens, and instead people are always subjugated to state goons.
State goons don't see themselves and don't act subservient to any non-state actors.
Re-enact agoge at the age of 7 for all citizens and force people who hit the age of 30 (whether with child or not) to undergo a "Battle Royale" style of government mandated training regime. Survivors will be allowed to enter into a tribunal where they vote on a leader.
The leader must then go through a gauntlet of tribunal members and whips as an initiation rite.
The dictator, once placed on his throne, must then be in that position until death.
>Not enough. The gov't needs to be in the business of keeping the people on a moral track
I disagree. Society does that itself very well when the government doesn't interfere.
>There's no difference between liberal and libertarian
yes there is, perhaps you should go look up what each word means rather than go off their incorrect usage on Sup Forums or in the media.
That's literally what the state should be in a NatSoc society my man.
>muh state boogeyman
I understand you're scared of authority, but "subjugation", as you put it, is natural law. In your retarded anarchist world view you still have stronger men either (voluntarily) leading weaker men or, worse, coercing them into following.
Besides our little communist problem, you don't believe the west is capable of handling itself? user the ideas of liberty and such come from western thought and were explored through revolutions. "
The People" in the western world are or should be capable of being competent enough to be the ruler of their own government. We created western civilization for ourselves, we didn't utilize its ideas to force a nations of inbred goat herders that want to slaughter each other over islam into living a pseudo-western system in order to bring the land world relevancy and economic value.
Think of it like this, a lot of nations like Syria are an experiment by an enlightened faction to tame savages, where as the west is capable of handling itself and instead fears corruption from above will destroy its freedoms.
State goons don't care about morality.
You know the lawyers who make most laws in the West are legal positivists right?
It's not a boogeyman to make a descriptive observation. Have you ever interacted with government employees? They're concerned with the well-being of themselves and people they care about. They're not special paragons of moral virtue, just like most other people aren't. Yet you want people to believe they're obligated to pay government leeches "for the public good".
They have no interest in serving the general interest when they get paid no matter WHAT happens.
The whole purpose of government is mainly for team based efforts.
When there is no government it is essentially anarchism and people are separate teams and there is always a few teams willing to kill/conquer other teams.
What government actually is, is people who are willing to band together so that they can control all the other "teams" to prevent the other "teams" from killing each other.
We see the same shit happen at lower levels of society.
>local street punks do whatever they want
>some of them are smart and ban together to control/conquer the individual street punks
>the individual street punks eventually have to band together to take on the ones who have already teamed up
>once one of the teams win they dictate how the streets are ran
>some of the gangs look out for their local neighborhood, stopping would be individuals from causing havoc
>the problem is if you aren't part of the gang in control of your neighborhood, you ultimately are one of their "subjects".
>if the gang ever becomes corrupt, the neighborhood they control are fucked
>if the neighborhood rises up and dethrones them
>the process starts all over again because individuals want power
>so typically people recreate some form of "gang/government" in hopes that they are not corrupt
So in the end, government is created by itself. If anarchists ever wanted to make their dream a reality, they would somehow have to ensure that free will never allows others to take away others free will. Which ultimately is a paradox as then those who would take away free will must have their free will taken. Thus they would need some sort of government to enforce their "anarchy".
>I disagree. Society does that itself very well when the government doesn't interfere.
What have we gotten since the 60s?
>yes there is, perhaps you should go look up what each word means rather than go off their incorrect usage on Sup Forums or in the media.
They mean the same thing ask john locke
Government is an evolutionary form of tribalism. We've had tribes since the dawn of man, it's in our blood to be a part of something bigger, to govern and rule. It evolved to a point where no one was interested in politics for a while, now it's evolving back into basic tribalism where everyone cares and are even ready to fight, the strongest will survive and a new government structure will be the result.
Tldr;
Right and left are so busy fighting each other that Antifa is going to wreck your shit and take your country.
Singapore supposedly has a benevolent dictator. They are doing well.
>reverse image search
>it's some girl who got kidnapped
>some shitskin had his way with this girl
Dammit I have to fap now
Except governments underperform at every task, and serve as useless paper pushing middlemen that leech off of people. Government actors have virtually no incentive to improve on their activities, because they get paid regardless.
That wasn't my point though. My point is they exist because they are self generating. If the government was dethroned right now without any substitute, society would crumble.
If you are looking for the "ideal" government, we don't know it yet.
Corporations and other powerful entities are technically the newest form of government. Or should I say shadow organizations are the newest form of government?
It's a one party state, similar to japan
Rawls is a fucking autistic faggot and he should be shoved into a locker for his retarded philosophy. Particular >>> Universal but his drooling mongoloid vision of the world only cares about the universal
>self-generating
Governments aren't "generated". What we describe as "government" are just people who claim a unique legitimacy in using violence against other people. People need not do that at all. Many tend to because suckers like you can be easily duped into helping them justify their immoral behavior, but an observed tendency is not a law of nature. Some people are faggots, and some people aren't. It's conceivable that EVERYONE be a fucking faggot, but it's also conceivable that nobody is a fag. This is basic logic.
Edmund Burke said Nature is wisdom without reflection Edmund Burke is baller as fuck.
They need a philosophy, a community is generally self regulated in beliefs
>a community is generally self regulated in beliefs
self guides itself it to what? Are you implying that normies know what's bests for themselves?
>Particular >>> Universal
in terms of what? Ethics? Im not familiar with Rawls
They are self generating. If they become an entity because of themselves they are self generating. If you as an anarchist band with other anarchists to resist against "people who banded together to claim a unique legitimacy that uses violence" you therefore become an entity and therefore a form of government. The problem with you anarchists is that you disrespect "suckers like me" and wonder why people like me are the ones that prevent your anarchy later on.
It's conceivable that everyone is a fucking faggot because it's proven in history.
It is not conceivable that nobody is a fag due to the fact that history has shown that there is always a group of 'faggots' that ruin it for everyone.
THIS is basic logic.
There is some small groups who can indeed make anarchy work. However, they always eventually get found by some other group of people that formed a government. If the anarchists don't band together and form their own government they will be conquered. History has shown us this time and time again.
Look at the American revolution, less than 20% of the population actually fought. 10% of that 20% was on the 'other side'. The Americans at the time were fighting for their freedom, anarchy so to speak. ONLY 10%! Then look what happened, other people decided to ban together to maintain their freedom from foreign governments....by creating their own government.
I hate to be the one to break it to you man, but outside from an isolated hidden white neighborhood, anarchy can't be done.
By creating benevolent people.
>how do you create a benevolent people
By letting them endure hardships and seemingly unending pain, and giving them the opportunity of freedom at the cost of stealing a morsel of bread from a rich man.
Those who steal will seek to benefit themselves, and be illusioned with "freedom", whereas those who restrain themselves are those interested in order and morality, at any cost to themselves.
>Morality legislated by whom?
By God and reason. Trolley Problem and the issue of utilitarianism within it open the door to ethics.
That is a police officer from South Korea named Kim Miso, you mongoloid