Conservative Man, it is a common misunderstanding that modern societies are pure democracies. They are democracies in the sense that you vote for your leader, but they are republics in the sense that they are governed to a significant degree by rule of law. This is why documents such as the Constitution exist. A lot of issues are resolved not by a vote, but by a decision on the part of the courts. I do not for a second believe that modern governments are ideal, nor that they are not victim to tyranny of the majority, but I'm pointing out what makes a government good or bad, and arguing against the idea that government is intrinsically bad and no government is necessarily preferable. It is not difficult for me to imagine a despotic government to which I would prefer anarchy, but there is no doubt in my mind that there are many benefits to an effective government.

Now to address your abortion example. Yes, in a pure democracy, if the majority want abortion banned, it will be banned. In a pure republic, if the majority want abortion banned, the supreme courts might rule against the majority and cite that the choice to abort is the mother's right. In anarchy, you'd be a fool to think that if the majority of people in an anarchic society disapproved of abortion, they would still sit around while a minority of women had abortions. They would enforce their own morality with whatever means they see fit. If a woman decided to have an abortion in an anarchic society with a majority of people strongly disapprove of abortion, then she risks a mob attacking her if they find out, or whatever restraint is necessary to prevent the moral evil as conceived by the majority.

@Ivo - Government as a form of social structure? THAT is ridiculous on the face of it. A government is a thing that is in place that makes people do things with the threat of force. THAT is what government is. Government as a social structure? That's just a nonsense concept.....sorry....maybe I'm just not smart enough to achieve your insight....or you are just a little to philosophical for reality...

To deny the reality of what government IS and DOES and pretend it is a "social structure" and that concept can be discussed in a vacuum is frankly stupid.

@Chrisp: Another good point. You were saving the best for last. But I still want Sicarius to tell me why he thinks property is evil.

@ IVO: ANY form of government - Democracy, "Benevolent Dictator", King, whatever can be good or evil. That form of government does not make it one or the other....it is how they use the implied force that comes with their existence that makes them good or bad....which is why I am not as stupid as you think I am and you are just having a deep philosophical argument to make yourself feel good... :P

People are good and evil... actually, this is also not the right wording - as good and evil are nothing more than the stereotyped generalizations that people use to describe the complex combination of natural intelligence, upbringing, education, social environment, and so on that lead to our decision making...but that's a different story.

Anyway, my point was that it's only grown up people that even have the concept of good and bad/evil. Babies, animals, plants, rocks, etc. simply do not possess this 'quality'. Abstract objects such as organizations, corporations, governments, universities and so on, even if you include into that all the infrastructure, buildings, paperwork and some flags... still cannot be evil.

People are people, they need to be governed or all hell will break lose. I'm sorry to say it, but you and C-Man are living proof why we need this - the world is full of people with crazy ideas. As it happens, they are usually ignorant and stupid as a side-dish, so I'd like to have an armed government to deal with them. If I don't like the government I'll vote for someone else. If I can't vote I'll fight or move.

I apologize for being so rude, but I have a very low tolerance for ignorance+stupidity and a dark side in me that feeds on such clashes. It'd be best to avoid each-other, unless you're also masochistic, in which case the pleasure won't be all mine :)

"People are people they need to be governed or all hell will break lose"
But the government would be made of people, so they will make mistakes. You say you would then vote the people out, but what if a majority of people didn't think the government made mistakes. How would you feel if they were still in office?

I have an idea. Ivo, or anyone else, go here please: http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm
It gives 25 things statists say, and shows why each one is absurd.

Wow, that link is hilarious. Everyone go to that site and laugh at it with me.

Conservative man. Here in Missouri, we're pretty good at voting dumbasses out of office... And voting in even bigger dumbasses (Clair McCaskil, for instance).

At any rate... Screw homosexuality in the ass. (Pretty good play on words, if you ask me)

How is that hilarious? Please give an argument to any of the points.

That was to Zaza by the way.

Conservative man... What do you think about Animal Rights?

In what way? I eat meat, don't care about fur, and hate animal abuse.

No such thing as animal abuse. Animal=property. I pay property tax, just like I do my car. If our rights come from God, then the right God gives me in the first chapter of the bible allows me dominion over the animals. If I want to run my car through a demolition derby, I shall do so. If I want to put my dog in a fight, I should be allowed to do that too, no?

Beef, it's what's for Dinner.

I like this Amon Savag fellow. He's got style.

Amon Savag cars do not feel pain like animals do... Animal Cruelty is morally wrong

@Amon: Read the lyrics to "Arc of Suffering" by Tourniquet

@everyone: http://nogov4me.net/index.htm
This is the link to the quiz that my previous link addresses. You should go here first to find out your score.

@Amon Savag - i find your views on animal rights disgusting, and i'd rather hope you were punished severely for poor treatment of any creature which can feel pain - I don't care how old the book you read about God is.

@Conservative man: Most societies have some form of governments - those that don't are less successful - if you manage to wrest the power from the 'man' and put it back in the hands of the people then may be still be able to operate a successful society. I see no problem with locally run societies without any central authority, in principle, but it will still have some structure and it is entirely likely that individuals will choose to pool some resources to achieve common goals - this will not be soo different from taxation.

@Ora: What you're describing, when taken a little further, is Anarcho-Communism, which I would be leaning towards, except that I think it would allow people to be lazy.

sorry CM, i only got 7... maybe i can do better next time...

Pretty good, better than I got the first time I did it. Did you read the arguments for each point? And which points did you say yes to?

Hey Orathaic, I find your views on animal rights disgusting. Perhaps you should be punished severely for wishing harm to me (a creature who feels pain). I don't care how new and well-polished your pocket-protector is.

@Adat- Once animals pay taxes, rather than their owners paying property taxes, I will be fine with the law protecting them. Morality is simply a matter of geography. (Homosexuals killed in Tehran. Gay parades in San Fransicko)

yeah i read the arguements from your first link before taking the test.

I think people can be lazy as things are in a social welfare state. However in a Anarcho-Communistic state people can simple be removed from the group if they aren't pulling their own weight, or be presured by their peers to contribute more (allowing them the right to leave)

Well that makes since. I think I might be an anarcho-communist now.

So if I don't pull in enough rice from the patties, I can simply be voted off the island? What a ridiculous government.

"How is that hilarious? Please give an argument to any of the points."

It bases everything on one assumption--that ALL politicians are greedy and only do what's best for them and other government leaders. It's littered through the whole site. It has some merit, but it entirely makes most of the points untrue.

Hm. Maybe I was wrong. I read Amon Savag's post as one of scathing sarcasm...

"So if I don't pull in enough rice from the patties, I can simply be voted off the island? What a ridiculous government." - just like you can be fired from a company, except the company would be run on democratic ideas.

Basically taking some structures and ideas which we have right now and adapting them to get the best system we can imagine.