> I’d like to see a real world example of what you mean.
The German Enabling Act of 1933.
> when leaders are allowed to arbitrarily extend their reign past with their laws allow
What if they just use the provisions in the fundamental law that allow changing the structure or terms of government?
A state can either have a thanatocracy in which the dead dictate the details of government to the living, or it can have process by which even the fundamental law can be changed. If it has the latter, that process can, within the preexisting democratic system, be used to terminate democracy without anyone exceeding the power allowed in law.
> It is not the case that a government wields absolute power. I don't believe it's the case that there is no way to keep a government in check.
Tell that to the people of every tyrannical regime in the history of mankind. Perhaps they were just doing it wrong?
> Also, I don't think "someone else [having] the right to rule [us]" is a correct characterization of functioning democratic governance (even in a representative democracy).
How would you characterize it then?
> You have shown neither that the above is sound reasoning, nor that other frameworks are not.
What reasoning and "other frameworks" might you be referring to?
> And if 100 people decide I don't have a right to a spleen in a context without government, how does that go any better?
How is that relevant to what I said?
> But my point was deeper. One of the consequences of prohibition (of alcohol or drugs) was to remove government as a means of settling disputes for a group of people handling relatively large sums of money.
Why not say something like that then? :p Disregarding whether you've described a real problem, you seem to be suggesting that a government's decision caused a big problem, and therefore, government is.. good?
> Yes, precisely. And much like any technology it can be misused, poorly designed, poorly configured; and this can lead to frustration or harm.
This is just way out there.. :p But tell me, how exactly is government a "technology", how should it be "used", and why didn't we do so? :P
> Once again, that's not true. In a functioning democracy, governments are responsible to the people lest the groups with power lose it.
> In any system, the possibility of revolution serves as a partial check.
Again, I'd point to every single tyrannical regime ever. That "partial check" doesn't seem to be working too well.
Look, ultimately it's about how much abuse the general populace is willing to take.. before it's too late to do anything (see: North-Korea, USSR, etc).
Once there's a small group of "people" wielding power over everyone else, the people are guaranteed to end up suffering sooner or later. The ruling class keeps expanding and looting everyone else harder and harder, until you're.. say, in the US in 2014.
The US provides a prime example of what follows from a minimal, "Constitutional" government.
> Governments are also responsible to other governments, in some extreme situations.
Sooo.. War, or something? Well, maybe ordinary Canadians will rescue ordinary Americans from their government? :p "We must give America the blessing of Democracy! Now go forth and kill or be killed!" --> "Sir! Yes! Sir!"
> I'm not sure where you derive this ranking in which government is highest, or why only lower powers can be kept in check.
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao.
I'm sure you know how it works.
> Not always; when it's not, things suck even more; see, for instance, many parts of Somalia.
Again, it's all about the attitude of the general populace. If people accept that there's a ruling class bossing them around - even if it's a small one - it will grow and gain more and more power. The only limit to a government's growth is the attitude of its subjects.
The government fosters dependence on itself, through various social programs, health care, pensions and so on. Through the education system, the government conditions people into thinking it's absolutely necessary and beneficial, and through controlling the money supply, the government loosens the limits on how much money it can spend.
And here we are. Look at what the US has become. Note how the whole Western world's economies are going down the toilet too, and note how mass surveillance is spreading everywhere.
> Revolution is horrible, yes.
Yeah, and the thing is, without governments, there would be no revolutions! It's like, countless deaths could be avoided!
> I don't think "group of sociopaths in power hurting everyone" is a legitimate description of all government.
Would you settle for "looting everyone" then? That much is accurate at least.
>There are advantages to the efficiency of authoritarian power, but how do they handle peaceful transition of power?
Europe had hereditary transitions of power, which were about as peaceful as any other form of transition of power. In Rome you would choose your successor and he would be the next emperor.
> I probably could not be persuaded that limits on speech and government censorship are good long-term for the health of a society that I'd want to actually live in. I think it's a good thing for governments to ultimately be accountable to their people.
Just because it's supposed to work that way doesn't mean it actually works that way. Do you think Americans are using free speech well? Do you feel like the government is accountable to you? In America you have free speech but it's not practically useful for anything. Have a go at trying to stop some government abuse of power.
> Isn't that not just a technocracy? I actually think a system like that would make a lot of sense, but I still believe the population should have the power to veto a law that they don't want.
I think that too, IF they take the time to become experts in the matter of the law they don't want.
Absolutely. And “good intentions” is irrelevant, what matters is the results. How do people in that hypothetical society live? Obviously we cannot tell, but we can study history and check how things go when liberty is discarded.
> Because it creates a totality
This is just word play. The word “totalitarian” has a very specific meaning. From the dictionary:
1) of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2) exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
> Do you agree that you can choose to not follow the law?
Not only can you do not follow a law, but people in power do it successfully today. Immigration law is the obvious example. Those in power flout the law so blatantly that the law might as well not exist. Deportation virtually doesn't happen anymore. When there are no consequences for disobeying a law, it is the same as if the law didn't exist.
> Would you also agree that if enough people chose to not follow the law, government would cease to exist?
I think it might be better to word this as "enough people choose to rebel against their government." When that happens, there is usually some fighting that goes on and the government either wins or gets replaced. There is never a point with no government, however. The reason for this is because just about every government, no matter how tyrannical, is still preferable to anarchy.
> Natural law doesn't really preclude you from cooperating, unlike reality shows
> Why would they protect these resources rather than take them?
Probably for cooperative reasons! It doesn't matter, though. These are hypothetical situations that I don't think there is much value in considering. I'm totally in the "anarchy is so bad I'd prefer tyranny to it" camp.
> As an example of undermining and disregarding rule of law, in the US no party has respected surveillance laws as far as 2001 and likely further back. As an example from here in Sweden, government officials regularly undermine and disregard the law in regard to how open contracts between government and companies. As a global example, we saw on Wikileaks how almost all countries classified information in order to hide political embarrassing facts from going public. All this is authoritarian behavior with varied degree of harm, and the laws they undermine or breaks are laws that got written in order to restrict authoritarian rule.
This so succinctly sums up my frustrations with what I view as the erosion of democracy as we know it the world over. The controls established to limit the awesome power of the state are being subordinated by the state itself, and in secret. The asymmetry makes it hard for the citizenry to do anything about it, even when it happens in the open.
Thinking more about it, the power of the people is only able to be exercised collectively, that is we require coordination in order to effect change. On the other hand, actors in government have figured out how to wield their powers unilaterally (in the US at least). This makes it much harder for the collective to effect change that restricts the actions of the individual actors, as the change is hard to make (collective action is hard) and easily undone later on.
> And once the government starts operating outside the law, answerable to no one but itself, there’s no way to rein it back in, short of revolution.
Exactly. Or can somebody think of an example in history where a government gave up some of its rights? These sorts of authorisations (anti-terror laws and whatnot) don't go away, because they are too convenient for those in power.
> then hes in a good place to introduce some kind of monarchy
I'm quite skeptical that that's the case. The basic problem is that a monarchy has an entirely different source of legitimacy from a modern popular dictatorship like Bukele's. What examples are there of this transition happening successfully? I guess you could maybe count North Korea, but even they haven't actually declared a monarchy... I could perhaps imagine it happening there, but that's a real extreme special case. A much more ordinary case like Bukele, I don't see it.
>Just how much veto power do you think the average person has in Russia and China when the elites choose to do something?
They don't, but most of them don't care, because the leaders are getting things done. They may not be the things you want done, or some other malcontents, but to say authoritarian systems are completely ineffectual is just wrong. They really do get things done.
The problem is that they usually get the wrong things done (e.g., idiotic wars in Ukraine). But most of the citizens in those places are easily misled into believing these actions are justified or necessary.
Authoritarians frequently come into power because the previous systems weren't working well, and people wanted a strong leader to take power. Just look at the Roman Empire for example.
> ummm, both of your specific examples are actually examples of those with power abusing it
Precisely. Those are examples of how, unless you place explicit constraints on people's ability to amass power and abuse it, people will amass power and abuse it.
The whole history of progress in political systems could be oversimplified as a search for laws, structures, checks, and balances to prevent this from happening. In the absence of engineered ones, you revert into anarchy, which leads to individuals amassing power and abusing it.
Things like Democratic Structures, the Magna Carta, and the US Constitution were steps forward to prevent that. Heck, the rigid hierarchy of Ancient Egypt did better than the anarchy which came before. As a primitive form of government, it was incredibly inequitable, but you had far less theft and violence than before. That invention -- explicit governance structures and codified laws -- even in that form, allowed modern civilization.
> How do we know the current authority is legitimate/illegitimate?
That is a very good question and I do not have a good answer. Maybe subjectively... that legitimate power is perceived as justified. I grew up in a communist regime and had the opportunity to experience the difference between obeying rules because you are afraid not to vs obeying rules because they are at least somewhat correlated to what the majority considers to be good. Sure, even in democracy you obey some rules just because you are afraid not to, but you also understand that you live in an imperfect world that is not centered around you and you can accept some level of power you don't perceive as justified as long as it is about something like zoning rules and not your fundamental freedoms.
But it seems highly subjective... maybe if I grew up in ancient Egypt I would believe that the pharaoh has the right do whatever he pleases and who am I to judge whether it is evil or not.
> Im questioning the value of a solution with the application of force.
Governments use force. By definition. That means you question the value of governments.
I don't. The alternative is warlords, who also use force.
The benefit of a Government, specifically of a mostly democratic one, is I have some say in when and how that force gets used, without myself having to be a warlord.
> A dangerous tool, that requires all sorts of limitations to make sure it is not used abusively.
Absolutely. A Constitution enacting checks and balances, and guaranteeing free speech and a free press, are the best ways I know to limit that power.
> And injecting things into people against their will is pretty high up there.
Sure?
Allowing nuclear testing where it can impact people is also bad. (We did that.)
Allowing the for-profit sale of known carcinogens is also bad. (We do that. See: asbestos, tobacco.)
We've also committed absolute atrocities. [1]
Clearly we need more checks and balances, and a more powerful press.
> It is not the intention of the act alone that decides if its moral or not: the act itself is.
Is the act of murder moral?
I'm pretty sure you would say, "no."
What about when the US sees Germany invading neighboring countries, and killing Jews and gypsies? Is it moral for the US to start murdering German soldiers, in open war?
I'm pretty sure you have to concede, "yes."
Therefore, it is not the act alone. The intention also plays a part.
> I think we have had enough experiences to know that if the government decided what to do with your own body, great tragedies follow.
I'm pretty sure great tragedies will happen regardless, and unfortunately, governments have to make decisions. King Solomon's wisdom over deciding to cut a baby in half comes to mind.
> can you ban drugs and alcohol
I think a far better parallel track of conversation is antibiotics.
If you don't follow the prescribed course of antibiotics, you can breed drug-resistant bacteria. That's a very good argument in favor of limiting access to antibiotics, to people who have consulted with a doctor.
There are countries (India) where antibiotics are much more freely available, and people don't use them properly. They take them for a few days, until they feel better. Breeding dangerous strains.
The argument can be made that governments should stop you from improperly using antibiotics, because it increases the risk to all of us.
> Can you decide on forcefully aborting, or forbidding abortion?
We do decide that. We have to make decisions about how our laws work.
> How people are dressed?
We decide that, too, yes.
> Its not the act of using a hammer on a nail that is in question: its the hammer itself, and the act of nails voting who gets hit next.
Hitler 2.0 comes up. Should we murder his soldiers?
I vote yes. How vote you?
> Why would government enacted violence be any more dignified than individual violence?
"Dignified" is an interesting word choice.
"having or showing a composed or serious manner that is worthy of respect."
The simple answer is that the government composed a law in a respectful manner, and hopefully the officers of the government carried out the law in a respectful manner.
When they don't, we're supposed to hold them to account.
> What change does it make to the morality of a violent act if it was voted on?
Catholics say a phrase, "in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do."
It can be immoral to NOT act.
It would be immoral to not intervene in WW3 with Hitler 2.0.
The way we decide if it's time to intervene is that we vote on how our representative government is run.
> I think we may have a different view on what the purpose of a government is.
Perhaps. I also suspect that we have a different view on what government actually is.
> Would you be ok with the military forcefully entering a tech company, pointing guns at the employees, and forcing them to do something?
I think representing all actions of government as being the equivalent of this is reductionist to the point of absurdity.
From my point of view, there will always be (and has to be) rules about how we interact with each other. The question is who will develop and implement those rules. Call it a necessary evil if you wish.
I prefer those rules be developed and implemented by us, collectively, because then we have at least some amount of influence over the process. If it's not done that way, it will be done by powerful entities such as corporations (or, in a maximally degenerate situation, warlords or mobs), where we have little to no influence over the process.
> The government has demonstrated that they will abuse every power given to them, and even those that weren't
I think this mixes up what is true and what people (myself included) wish was true.
Governments don’t have power given to them. Their default state is God-Kings ruling on personal whims.
Governments have power taken from them, either by corporations, or by religions, or by other governments — sometimes these groups even call themselves “the people” — but the restrictions are not stable equilibriums, they are constantly fought against on all sides.
>For me to have 100% freedom of my property, it must be legal for me to bribe government officials, foreign and domestic, in order to gain an advantage.
So for you to have 100% freedom of your property mean to let the government to do whatever it wants with your property if somebody bribed it?
>well before there were strong regulatory regimes.
When, exactly, were times before there were strong regulatory regimes? You know that monarchies of the past were significantly more invasive than the contemporary liberal democracies, right?
> However now I'm now confused by you clarification. If there's any kind of voting and representation, no matter how revocable, isn't that a form of government?
No, just as any kind of organisation would not be called a government, the kind of organisation I promote wouldn't be. For example, you wouldn't call your local union or workplace a government.
Let's not pretend that current representatives are revocable, it not in the hands of the voters. For another society, it wouldn't even be a part time occupation for a worker among other workers.
Anyways, I would like to hear why authority needs to exist, rather than explain why it doesn't.
> By contrast, the parallels to fascist Italy and Nazi Germany and living in a turnkey fascist state are most unpersuasive.
Why? The possibility of a turnkey fascist state is very real. You need only look to history to see how many leaders, once elected, completely ignored all laws and constitutions and legislating bodies to declare martial law and institute a tyranny. How can you say that you aren't worried about that, and the power of a surveillance apparatus in the hands of such a leader?
The German Enabling Act of 1933.
> when leaders are allowed to arbitrarily extend their reign past with their laws allow
What if they just use the provisions in the fundamental law that allow changing the structure or terms of government?
A state can either have a thanatocracy in which the dead dictate the details of government to the living, or it can have process by which even the fundamental law can be changed. If it has the latter, that process can, within the preexisting democratic system, be used to terminate democracy without anyone exceeding the power allowed in law.
reply