Then you are criticizing me for something I did not do highroller, I choose not to define those things as governments. You defined them as such, I didn't because it wasn't important for the point I was making. You took one word city-state and ignored the rest. Notice that I named tribes and other communities that you lumped altogether and said were also governments. Those two other things are loosely defined definitions of government.
... Yeah, you're seeing the problem with your argument, aren't you?
So you're mostly right about my argument - I was just trying to point out that human and animal behaviors are similar. I always get annoyed when people seem to think that humans and animals are fundamentally different, and we're not. Humans just have more complexity because, thanks to the wonders of speech, we're able to form more complex relationships with outside groups than 'enemy' or 'not enemy'.
Not every group's leadership is determined by physical strength or military prowess. I really very strongly doubt that the governing body of, say, a church is determined by who could win in a no-holds-barred fight (although instant viral phenomenon if you can find it).
Are you a Realist, by any chance (or do you know what I mean when I say that)? There was I used the word Power, and a reason 'fight' was in quotation marks. There are more kinds of power than physical strength and military might. Religious leaders win through political wrangling, for instance, and the 'stronger' party survives. This, by the way, is kind of the complexity I'm talking about. We're influenced by more than just physical strength.
A community of lions follows a pride structure. Every single one. A community of bees forms a hive. Every single one. A community of ants forms a colony. Every single one.
A community of human beings forms... A constitutional monarchy? Democracy? Republic? Tribal confederacy? Dictatorship? Can't really point to one, can you?
This is my point. We don't form governments because we instinctively form governments. What we do instinctively do is seek the company of others, and thus form societies, and out of necessity, we form governing bodies to administer law and order in those societies.
I'm arguing that he is incorrect, because people do not simply form governments arbitrarily, but do so instead because of the necessity of law and order within a community.
Humans form tribes instinctively, which by extension become governments when one tribe gains a greater degree of power over others. It may not be 'instinctive', but it's a reflection of human nature at a more macro level.
They have a lot of similarities, sure, but no more so than human societies do.
I don't follow your rationale here.
That's fair, let me explain.
Here is the issue, you're taking the concept of, say 'democracy', and comparing it to the pride structure, or the colony structure, etc.
But human society isn't built around 'democracy'. It's built around tribes or 'clans'. Every form of human government that has ever been invented is just a mechanism for determining which 'tribe' has power.
If, for instance, Ants somehow had a conference on antness, and began treating and trading with other ant colonies, and eventually formed a different system to govern these trades called an antocracy, their basic unit is still a colony, not an antocracy.
Hell, go back ten to fifteen thousand years and human societies look nearly identical to more advanced animals.
Nope. Animals don't form governments.
That's why I said 'societies' instead of 'governments' that time.
Depends on what you mean by "organized." If you mean "has a government," then yes, but that's a tautology. "If that community has a government, that government is by definition a government."
So what makes a community, then? By 'Organized' I mean 'clearly set roles'. This is a serious question, I'm curious how you define community.
I am not only doing no such thing, but am criticizing Foxblade for doing exactly that.
So you're mostly right about my argument - I was just trying to point out that human and animal behaviors are similar. I always get annoyed when people seem to think that humans and animals are fundamentally different, and we're not.
Oh sure. Especially when you get to chimpanzees. Amazingly similar.
Are you a Realist, by any chance (or do you know what I mean when I say that)?
I'm afraid I don't.
There was I used the word Power, and a reason 'fight' was in quotation marks. There are more kinds of power than physical strength and military might. Religious leaders win through political wrangling, for instance, and the 'stronger' party survives. This, by the way, is kind of the complexity I'm talking about. We're influenced by more than just physical strength.
But that's just it. When you're talking about strength of ideology, or charisma, or whatever, you're no longer talking about the same thing as someone taking over by military force, and even something like a military junta taking over is not the same thing as an alpha wolf exerting dominance over another.
I mean, yes, if you want to lump all of those things together as "power," you are correct, as influence is a type of power, but at that point you're no longer talking about the same thing. A society in which one achieves authority by assent of a broad base of political support through votes cast is not the same thing as one in which one achieves authority by having bigger fangs.
Humans form tribes instinctively,
I would like to nitpick here. We form groups instinctively. A tribe can be one of those groups.
which by extension become governments when one tribe gains a greater degree of power over others.
Actually, I'm perfectly fine with considering a tribe to be a government, or at least saying that a tribe can have a government. Indian tribes certainly had governing bodies and laws.
It may not be 'instinctive', but it's a reflection of human nature at a more macro level.
Well, I feel the need to clarify my position with regards to "human nature," because you're right, forming tribes is a part of human nature. I mean, really, everything we do stems from human nature.
But Foxblade is arguing that human beings form governments not out of necessity, but out of human nature, in the same way a bird has wings. I disagree with this because a bird is born with wings due to its genetic structure, it does not choose to develop wings.
Human beings, on the other hand, choose to create governments out of necessity. We do not create governments without choice, in the same way a bird has no choice in getting its wings, because governments form by our choosing to form them. Nor do we instinctively form governments, as not only are human beings capable of creating communities without governments, but also the type of governments we forge are very different, unlike a beehive which operates on the same structure for each hive of a species of bee.
It's like tool usage. Human beings do not instinctively build tools, that's a learned behavior, but every human society has built tools out of a necessity for survival.
That's fair, let me explain.
Here is the issue, you're taking the concept of, say 'democracy', and comparing it to the pride structure, or the colony structure, etc.
But human society isn't built around 'democracy'. It's built around tribes or 'clans'. Every form of human government that has ever been invented is just a mechanism for determining which 'tribe' has power.
I'm not sure that's something you can broadly say. Take the United States for example. We're not a nation composed of a union of different tribes.
If, for instance, Ants somehow had a conference on antness, and began treating and trading with other ant colonies, and eventually formed a different system to govern these trades called an antocracy, their basic unit is still a colony, not an antocracy.
Ok, that's fair, the antocracy is a confederacy or whatever of different ant colonies, with the ant colony being the basic unit.
But the thing is take the United States. We're not an alliance of different tribes. We're a nation composed of different states, and states are different from tribes. And tribes are not always the same as clans.
See my problem is if you say, "Well this thing is a big thing composed of many smaller units," that's pretty much the case of every form of human society. A village, for example, is composed of many different households.
I guess I'm lost as to where you're going with this.
That's why I said 'societies' instead of 'governments' that time.
Oh, woops.
So what makes a community, then? By 'Organized' I mean 'clearly set roles'. This is a serious question, I'm curious how you define community.
I define a community as any group of people who share some sort of common characteristic.
Also, I edited the post I guess while you were writing your response to point out a problem I see in what you're saying. With regards to ants and bees, we have large scale societies that have clearly set roles, but they don't have governments.
Which brings me back to what I said before, you can have a community, even an organized community, without necessarily having a government.
Of course, the thing about human beings is, unlike bees, we're very bad at being organized in our communities without a governmental body to keep order. Which is where I'm coming from with regards to arguing that we create governments out of necessity, as opposed to Foxblade's argument that we create governments not because they are necessary, but because it is in our nature to.
You are saying that city-states and tribes are not governments. That's incorrect, and thus I am criticizing you.
No I didn't. I didn't say that they were or were not, because that wasn't the point that I was making, and I explained that to you:
Quote from FoxBlade »
My point is that humans by their very nature are social creatures that form hierarchies and that it is natural for humans to do, its something that is part of our nature - its part of what makes us human, just like having a highly developed brain or complex language, it is part of what makes us human.
Quote from HighRoller »
Then the point you are making operates from an incorrect definition of the word "government."
For the last freaking time Highroller, I did not define what government is or what it means. I said specifically:
Quote from FoxBlade »
I don't think it would be that bad, it's more likely we would form city-states, tribes, or other types of communities.
You then responded:
Quote from Highroller »
That's just it though: those are governments.
Don't just cherry pick a word or two from my sentence above, I also said or other types of communities, I did not use the word government. I deliberately choose to use the word communities instead because I'm not sure exactly what constitutes a government and I wanted to include any idea of humans grouping themselves together in an organized fashion.
Your following statement states those are all governments, well fine. If you want to define the word government to include any organized group of humans that set rules and enforce them, then bees, wolves, deer, meerkats, prairie dogs, etc. are all types of governments by that kind of loose definition.
Understand, that I did not define the word this way, YOU did. Stop making me say things that I did not say.
Now as to whether or not these other animals qualify under that definition, well I got news for you - they do. Jay13x raises several points as to why that is. Alpha male/female wolves set rules;
1) They live in groups and have social hierarchies
2) Alpha Male/females set rules: They get to mate and other males do not, They get to eat first, eat the best food, who gets to have pups, etc.
3) They enforce these rules; if one of the pack breaks the rules, they are attacked and punished. Sometimes killed or run out of the pack.
Of course we've had different types of governments, but go back far enough in our history and you're likely to come across tribes that acted very similar to wolf packs. Our 'tribal/pack' type 'governments' have simply evolved and become more complex. But as Magicware99 stated, complexity isn't really the issue.
Animal behavior is not that different from human behavior, particularly among mammals.
Now where are you making me say things I didn't say besides above?
Quote from Highroller »
No, the claim that forming a government is just an arbitrary thing that human beings do, as opposed to having a very logical purpose behind it, is something I will completely disagree with.
Never said that.
Quote from Highroller »
We don't form governments arbitrarily because it's in our nature to.
Never said that either.
Quote from Highroller »
By what measure is calling a city-state a government playing fast-and-loose with the definition? A city-state isn't "loosely" defined as a government, it IS a government.
And this, as you see from what I said above, is making me say something I didn't say at all. I didn't say that a city-state was a loose definition of a government. You included all three things that I stated; City-states, tribes, AND OTHER FORMS OF COMMUNITIES.
That is what I said and I did not say that defining city-states as government was a loose definition. This is a misrepresentation of my position.
Quote from Highroller »
In fact, bees are really good at illustrating the problem with what you're saying. Bees form complex hives and have social hierarchies, but bees do not have governments. They don't have a governing body over their hive, they just behave on instinct. This contrasts with what human beings do.
Actually it doesn't. I am arguing that this (what I said, not what you are saying I said) is an instinctual behavior in humans, just like bees, wolves, etc.
You said tribes are considered governments. Well you should understand the implications of what that means:
Humans have existed longer than language as we know it today and they existed in tribes. Would these tribes still be considered governments? Under your definition, they would. Even though those humans had no concept of what a law, government, logic, etc. was.
Governments do not always resolve conflicts peacefully and if you want to define government to mean an organized group and complexity of the group isn't really important, fine. But then there are lots of other creatures that do that too, lions, wolves, bees, ants, meerkats, prairie dogs, etc. That also form governments.
I specifically wrote "organized group of people".
I suppose I should have spelled out why an organized group of people is a government. It is a government because an organized group of people requires some form of governance to remain organized, and so they require a government.
Government does not mean giant nation-states, or nations at that. It is far simpler.
I suppose I should have spelled out why an organized group of people is a government. It is a government because an organized group of people requires some form of governance to remain organized, and so they require a government.
Government does not mean giant nation-states, or nations at that. It is far simpler.
um...what?
A pride of lions is an organized group of lions that require some form of a pride to remain organized, and so they require a pride.
The sentence I just constructed, tells us absolutely nothing about what a pride is or why lions form prides or why they require a pride at all - just like your sentence above does not describe what a government is or why people form governments or why we need government at all. Both sentences are completely circular.
Also just to be clear, I have not disagreed with anyone here about any definition of what a government is. In fact, I've agreed with every definition given, so I have no idea why you and Highroller are arguing along these lines. I'm perfectly fine with a loose definition of the word and frankly the definition of government was/is not important to the point I made.
That being said, I'm perfectly fine with exploring exactly what a government is. But we need to be clear on this so we can actually move the conversation forward.
My argument in regards to the OP is that government is not 'necessary', however people will form social hierarchies that make rules/laws, enforce them, etc. This behavior is something that is in our nature to do, it's part of what makes us human, it's instinctive. However, whether or not you want to call all of these groups 'government' because of how you define the word, as I've already said - it is not important to that point.
I chose not to use the word 'government' and used 'community' instead because I wanted a more inclusive term. I wanted a more inclusive term because I did not want someone going "Well X group of people isn't a government" because I feel that the idea that I put forth wouldn't be clear and may not have been inclusive enough for that reason.
[quote from="Highroller »"]Actually it doesn't. I am arguing that this (what I said, not what you are saying I said) is an instinctual behavior in humans, just like bees, wolves, etc.
You said tribes are considered governments. Well you should understand the implications of what that means:
Humans have existed longer than language as we know it today and they existed in tribes. Would these tribes still be considered governments? Under your definition, they would. Even though those humans had no concept of what a law, government, logic, etc. was.
One thing I want to ask is whether you define government by size or by function. Scrolling through the thread, I seem to get the feeling that you are saying that the function of something that would or would not be defined as government is less important as its geographic range of influence. Am I interpreting this correctly?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
@mockingbird - no, I haven't really concerned myself with defining government because as I said, it wasn't important to my point. Highroller's argument was something like wolf packs Is' not a government because they are animals and don't understand logic, law, etc.
So I challenged him on that point. If he considers tribes to be government, then it stands to reason that writing laws or understanding logic, etc. is not important for defining what a government is based on the definition he gave since tribes have existed before these concepts existed.
Anyway there must be some point at which a tribe is/is not considered a government.
Are you a Realist, by any chance (or do you know what I mean when I say that)?
I'm afraid I don't.
Just curiosity. Here is a easy rundown for you, but basically it's a line of thinking in international relations where it is assumed survival is the primary motivating factor for states, that states are the only meaningful actor on the world stage and that the only meaningful expression of power is military force. It's not a point of view I agree with (and I don't think you do, either). The Catholic Church alone kind of disproves the central ideas.
So what makes a community, then? By 'Organized' I mean 'clearly set roles'. This is a serious question, I'm curious how you define community.
I define a community as any group of people who share some sort of common characteristic.
Okay, see when I'm talking about 'community' in this instance, I'm talking about an actual geographic community, like a small town, a band of people, etc. That was the misunderstanding.
Which brings me back to what I said before, you can have a community, even an organized community, without necessarily having a government.
Yes. I'm sorry, I was completely misunderstanding you (I was posting in my downtime while working on a laptop that was frustrating the hell out of me - it kept jumping to wherever the cursor was for now reason). I think we actually more or less agree.
Bringing it back to people - I don't think Government is instinctive, but it is natural. Look at the French and Japanese Feudalism example I mentioned earlier (and admittedly flubbed the point) - you've got two government systems on opposite sides of the Earth, that developed as independently as almost any human society was capable of doing - and both developed the same system of governance.
No highroller, you are missing my point. My point is that humans by their very nature are social creatures that form hierarchies and that it is natural for humans to do, its something that is part of our nature - its part of what makes us human, just like having a highly devolped brain or complex language, it is part of what makes us human.
I am making a philosophical point. Birds form flocks and have wings and form social hierarchies - it is all part of what makes a bird a bird. Understand what I am saying?
I understand what you are saying perfectly. I also completely disagree with it because it is incorrect.
Human beings do not form governments arbitrarily. They do so because they fulfill a rational need, that is to say, they are necessary for productive social interactions amongst large groups of people. To say "I suppose my answer is that government is not necessary but rather it is our nature to organise ourselves this way," is therefore incorrect.
It is, for example, very easy to see human beings in large groups of people behave without a government. See also any period of society upheaval, any riot, any large group of young children grouped together in a small space, and any unmoderated forum of people — especially online.
You may have noticed that it's rather *****ty to be in those sorts of situations, and you are correct in observing this. This brings us to the entire idea behind a government. We don't form governments randomly. We form governments because they are the mechanisms by which we prevent the worst parts of our nature from ruling the day and making life "nasty, brutish, and short." Thus, it's actually closer to the opposite of what you are saying: we create governments to prevent people from acting according to their nature, or at least the worst parts of their nature.
At this point im going to have to step in and say that you are missing his point entirely. Even in a situation of social upheaval and rebellion, you will still find that rebels have some form of social structure, some entity which leads them. It may be a loose structure but it is still a structure. Most social animals form social structures of some form or another. When there isnt one, one will be formed; through history, before the invention of civilization it was usually the member of the community most efficient at murder and rape. Its only really been the last 10,000 years we have (mostly) stopped basing our communities off that individual
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
I am asking why it is necessary to have a separate entity for the purpose of creating those laws, and police to enforce them. Why cannot the average citizens make the laws, enforce them, and settle disputes between themselves or others? Why must there be people specifically appointed for those tasks?
Making the laws:
- The reason why average citizens can't make the laws is simply because there are way to many of them. Imagine a state where the laws were made in a forum with all of the inhabitants of the state there. You'd have a million people at that meeting. Imagine trying to speak your own part and get your own priorities addressed with a million other people trying to speak over you. It would be a mess. This is what representational legislature is for.
Enforcing the laws:
- Enforcing the laws is dangerous. It's an unreasonable burden to ask people to enforce laws when they themselves aren't a stakeholder. Some people aren't strong enough to enforce the laws on their own. Also, if untrained citizens were to enforce the laws, they would often pick and choose which laws to enforce, enforce laws that don't exist, and enforce them incorrectly.
Settle disputes:
- Most people do settle their own disputes. Going to court over them is a very rare scenario where they weren't able to settle those disputes. And even then, you're normally entitled to a jury trial(even for civil court).
Making the laws:
- The reason why average citizens can't make the laws is simply because there are way to many of them. Imagine a state where the laws were made in a forum with all of the inhabitants of the state there. You'd have a million people at that meeting. Imagine trying to speak your own part and get your own priorities addressed with a million other people trying to speak over you. It would be a mess. This is what representational legislature is for.
Enforcing the laws:
- Enforcing the laws is dangerous. It's an unreasonable burden to ask people to enforce laws when they themselves aren't a stakeholder. Some people aren't strong enough to enforce the laws on their own. Also, if untrained citizens were to enforce the laws, they would often pick and choose which laws to enforce, enforce laws that don't exist, and enforce them incorrectly.
Settle disputes:
- Most people do settle their own disputes. Going to court over them is a very rare scenario where they weren't able to settle those disputes. And even then, you're normally entitled to a jury trial(even for civil court).
Yes, that is very logical, but I still worry that the people whose job it is to either create or enforce the laws may become arrogant and believe themselves to be superior to other people, and may even abuse that power. How can those people be prevented from doing so?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Yes, that is very logical, but I still worry that the people whose job it is to either create or enforce the laws may become arrogant and believe themselves to be superior to other people, and may even abuse that power. How can those people be prevented from doing so?
You can't. That's why for the most part we elect new people into positions of power every so often. This way we try to force the people in power to behave to keep their job and to have a stream of new people in power.
Also I said that humans would form city-states, tribes or some other form of community to which you said those are all types of government. Well if you want to define government that loosely fine, but don't ***** me out for running with how loosely you defined it.
The people most likely to form communities in an end-times scenario would be extensions of the former government. Police, ex-military, first responders, emergency managers. Although this would be an extension, there would be far less accountability for the head honcho. This isn't exactly the best scenario considering that a lot of people in the police and ex-military may not be the most mentally stable and would use their power to abuse the community.
@batterysrevenge - that's possible but that type of speculation is way out of the scope of what I am comfortably able to discuss with any sort of confidence.
Why can people not merely make decisions and settle disputes on their own? Why is it necessary to have a government to make laws and police to settle disputes between people?
Comparisons between real life and make-believe-fantasy-land aside;
You're thinking about this from the standpoint of people who are moral and just, fair and considerate.
A huge amount of people don't think this way. Dog eat dog, and all that. People don't always make decisions that will be good for anyone, including themselves.
> Just think of all the problems society has with violence, drugs and crime WITH a central govt. and police network that for the most part is actively fighting it.
Remember that no police means no courts, no convictions and no gaols too.
Making the laws:
- The reason why average citizens can't make the laws is simply because there are way to many of them. Imagine a state where the laws were made in a forum with all of the inhabitants of the state there. You'd have a million people at that meeting. Imagine trying to speak your own part and get your own priorities addressed with a million other people trying to speak over you. It would be a mess. This is what representational legislature is for.
Enforcing the laws:
- Enforcing the laws is dangerous. It's an unreasonable burden to ask people to enforce laws when they themselves aren't a stakeholder. Some people aren't strong enough to enforce the laws on their own. Also, if untrained citizens were to enforce the laws, they would often pick and choose which laws to enforce, enforce laws that don't exist, and enforce them incorrectly.
Settle disputes:
- Most people do settle their own disputes. Going to court over them is a very rare scenario where they weren't able to settle those disputes. And even then, you're normally entitled to a jury trial(even for civil court).
Yes, that is very logical, but I still worry that the people whose job it is to either create or enforce the laws may become arrogant and believe themselves to be superior to other people, and may even abuse that power. How can those people be prevented from doing so?
In the United States, If they abuse their power, the voters elect them out, or voter-elected officials fire them.
seriously, you're not the first person ever to be concerned with this. There have been mechanisms in place to deal with the exact same issue that you're worried about for centuries
In the United States, If they abuse their power, the voters elect them out, or voter-elected officials fire them.
seriously, you're not the first person ever to be concerned with this. There have been mechanisms in place to deal with the exact same issue that you're worried about for centuries
US democracy is more complicated than that. The incumbency reelection rate is somewhere in the mid-90s and government officials make sure to set up systems that advantage them. Favorable appointed judges, gerrymandering, the revolving door, lobbyists writing the laws, etc.
With certain special purpose districts and local municipal meetings there are issues with transparency. Ports, city councils, and county commissioners have closed door meetings that aren't subject to the open meetings act no matter how hard you try.
Some states are also more corrupt than others. I have friends that work in politics in Louisiana and they get harassed by hired goons of government officials.
A pride of lions is an organized group of lions that require some form of a pride to remain organized, and so they require a pride.
I'm saying that my definition of government applies to people and only people. I have no idea whether I would take organizations by other animals as governments because I'm not a member of said animal and, frankly speaking, have no idea how they actually go about organizing things.
My argument in regards to the OP is that government is not 'necessary', however people will form social hierarchies that make rules/laws, enforce them, etc. This behavior is something that is in our nature to do, it's part of what makes us human, it's instinctive. However, whether or not you want to call all of these groups 'government' because of how you define the word, as I've already said - it is not important to that point.
And I am saying that said social hierarchies and making of rule/laws and enforcing them is creating a government.
You don't care about the term. I suppose I shouldn't either. I just don't know what else to call it.
I chose not to use the word 'government' and used 'community' instead because I wanted a more inclusive term. I wanted a more inclusive term because I did not want someone going "Well X group of people isn't a government" because I feel that the idea that I put forth wouldn't be clear and may not have been inclusive enough for that reason.
Well, that's the thing, I'd just say that people aren't using "government" correctly.
A pride of lions is an organized group of lions that require some form of a pride to remain organized, and so they require a pride.
I'm saying that my definition of government applies to people and only people. I have no idea whether I would take organizations by other animals as governments because I'm not a member of said animal and, frankly speaking, have no idea how they actually go about organizing things.
My argument in regards to the OP is that government is not 'necessary', however people will form social hierarchies that make rules/laws, enforce them, etc. This behavior is something that is in our nature to do, it's part of what makes us human, it's instinctive. However, whether or not you want to call all of these groups 'government' because of how you define the word, as I've already said - it is not important to that point.
And I am saying that said social hierarchies and making of rule/laws and enforcing them is creating a government.
You don't care about the term. I suppose I shouldn't either. I just don't know what else to call it.
I chose not to use the word 'government' and used 'community' instead because I wanted a more inclusive term. I wanted a more inclusive term because I did not want someone going "Well X group of people isn't a government" because I feel that the idea that I put forth wouldn't be clear and may not have been inclusive enough for that reason.
Well, that's the thing, I'd just say that people aren't using "government" correctly.
@magicware99 I do not disagree with you. I think there is some overlap from arguments I was making to highroller that you may be mistaking as responses to you. My argument in regards to animals is a philosophical argument on the human condition- we instinctively form social hierarchies.
That being said if you want to discuss what a government is exactly, that's fine. I feel the definition you are giving is too loosely defined as it is now though and I will explain why later because I don't think I can adequately explain via my phone.
Edit:
Quote from "magickware99 »
I'm saying that my definition of government applies to people and only people. I have no idea whether I would take organizations by other animals as governments because I'm not a member of said animal and, frankly speaking, have no idea how they actually go about organizing things.
That's fine, I'm not concerned with the animal aspect, as I said I think that was an overlap in responses to you/highroller in my arguments to him.
My point there has nothing to do with animals or the definition of the word government, only that your statement in that post I quoted was circular.
At any rate, let's start fresh. Governments can only involve people.
Quote from magicware99 »
And I am saying that said social hierarchies and making of rule/laws and enforcing them is creating a government.
You don't care about the term. I suppose I shouldn't either. I just don't know what else to call it.
I didn't care about the definition only insofar as it related to the point I was making, because it wasn't important. I'm moving past that now though, so now we've got a couple of things that define a government:
1) They have to involve people
2) They have to have a social hierarchy
3) They must create laws/rules and enforce them
That's what I have so far and I think it is too lose of a definition for government because it can include things which I feel are definitely not governments.
For example(s)
If you take a group of children with no adults, they will form a social hierarchy, they will also create laws and enforce them. So that would qualify as a government under these premises.
Even with adults added to the equation (like for example a baby sitter, daycare, etc.) under these same types of premises would still qualify as a government.
Then there are family units, all of which have these same premises.
Sports teams, a group of friends, chess tournaments, MTG tournaments, etc.
Also does the number of people involved matter at all? What if there are only two people? All of those premises could work with just two people as well and then they too would qualify as a government.
Would you go so far as to say all of these things are governments? I don't think that I would and so your definition leaves me feeling that the standard for what defines a government should be higher than what you've defined it as.
Mockingbird brought up an interesting point that I think is worth considering, perhaps geographical/number of people that are influenced should matter here as well. If so, then at what point do we consider it government?
Is anyone else slightly bothered by the fact that this discussion is premised off of the wildly inaccurate worlds of American police procedurals?
So I suppose the answer to your question, DDJ, is that they are necessary because TV lies.
lol, I was wondering the same thing. What do those procedurals have to do with the necessity of gov't?
DDJ is concerned that the government has too much power and authority.
One of the sources, CSI, has a lab technicians that carry guns to crime scenes with a lab at least four times as expensive as anything actually used in the US while working at a faster pace than is physically possible while magically avoiding problems like these
Fun Fun fun!
Yeah I often wondered if the real CSI teams in the US really have that large amount of large flat screen in there labs. Also must be neat to always catch the bad guy in 45 minutes worth of work.
@ OP
You need to ensure that people in society realise that there are consequences to their actions. If you take those consequences away it will encourage people to do bad things.
It seems to me that many users here believe that I do not wish for there to be any rules or laws, but that is not true; I am asking why it is necessary to have a separate entity for the purpose of creating those laws, and police to enforce them. Why cannot the average citizens make the laws, enforce them, and settle disputes between themselves or others? Why must there be people specifically appointed for those tasks? How can those people be prevented from abusing their power?
You're not preventing abuse of power, you're ensuring it. If everyone has equal freedom to make a law and enforce it on others regardless of what those other people want (which is a contradiction in terms by the way, that can't work because that other person could make the opposite law - which is exactly the same as anarchy), then what's to stop ALL those people from acting selfishly? What's to stop ALL those people from abusing their power?
As for why you want other people specializing in enforcing laws, it's because when your child is kidnapped you want people specially trained to get the kid back. Abused spouses shouldn't have to enforce their own protection, they need to be able to call an official body for help. You want it done through taxes, rather than private mercs you hire, because otherwise the system is inherently corrupt.
The problem you run into is that you don't like when a system becomes unjust, so you explore disbanding the system. Unfortunately, that guarantees injustice.
You are saying that city-states and tribes are not governments. That's incorrect, and thus I am criticizing you.
Then the point you are making operates from an incorrect definition of the word "government."
So you're mostly right about my argument - I was just trying to point out that human and animal behaviors are similar. I always get annoyed when people seem to think that humans and animals are fundamentally different, and we're not. Humans just have more complexity because, thanks to the wonders of speech, we're able to form more complex relationships with outside groups than 'enemy' or 'not enemy'.
Are you a Realist, by any chance (or do you know what I mean when I say that)? There was I used the word Power, and a reason 'fight' was in quotation marks. There are more kinds of power than physical strength and military might. Religious leaders win through political wrangling, for instance, and the 'stronger' party survives. This, by the way, is kind of the complexity I'm talking about. We're influenced by more than just physical strength.
Humans form tribes instinctively, which by extension become governments when one tribe gains a greater degree of power over others. It may not be 'instinctive', but it's a reflection of human nature at a more macro level.
That's fair, let me explain.
Here is the issue, you're taking the concept of, say 'democracy', and comparing it to the pride structure, or the colony structure, etc.
But human society isn't built around 'democracy'. It's built around tribes or 'clans'. Every form of human government that has ever been invented is just a mechanism for determining which 'tribe' has power.
If, for instance, Ants somehow had a conference on antness, and began treating and trading with other ant colonies, and eventually formed a different system to govern these trades called an antocracy, their basic unit is still a colony, not an antocracy.
That's why I said 'societies' instead of 'governments' that time.
So what makes a community, then? By 'Organized' I mean 'clearly set roles'. This is a serious question, I'm curious how you define community.
Fair enough.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm afraid I don't.
But that's just it. When you're talking about strength of ideology, or charisma, or whatever, you're no longer talking about the same thing as someone taking over by military force, and even something like a military junta taking over is not the same thing as an alpha wolf exerting dominance over another.
I mean, yes, if you want to lump all of those things together as "power," you are correct, as influence is a type of power, but at that point you're no longer talking about the same thing. A society in which one achieves authority by assent of a broad base of political support through votes cast is not the same thing as one in which one achieves authority by having bigger fangs.
I would like to nitpick here. We form groups instinctively. A tribe can be one of those groups.
Actually, I'm perfectly fine with considering a tribe to be a government, or at least saying that a tribe can have a government. Indian tribes certainly had governing bodies and laws.
Well, I feel the need to clarify my position with regards to "human nature," because you're right, forming tribes is a part of human nature. I mean, really, everything we do stems from human nature.
But Foxblade is arguing that human beings form governments not out of necessity, but out of human nature, in the same way a bird has wings. I disagree with this because a bird is born with wings due to its genetic structure, it does not choose to develop wings.
Human beings, on the other hand, choose to create governments out of necessity. We do not create governments without choice, in the same way a bird has no choice in getting its wings, because governments form by our choosing to form them. Nor do we instinctively form governments, as not only are human beings capable of creating communities without governments, but also the type of governments we forge are very different, unlike a beehive which operates on the same structure for each hive of a species of bee.
It's like tool usage. Human beings do not instinctively build tools, that's a learned behavior, but every human society has built tools out of a necessity for survival.
I'm not sure that's something you can broadly say. Take the United States for example. We're not a nation composed of a union of different tribes.
Ok, that's fair, the antocracy is a confederacy or whatever of different ant colonies, with the ant colony being the basic unit.
But the thing is take the United States. We're not an alliance of different tribes. We're a nation composed of different states, and states are different from tribes. And tribes are not always the same as clans.
See my problem is if you say, "Well this thing is a big thing composed of many smaller units," that's pretty much the case of every form of human society. A village, for example, is composed of many different households.
I guess I'm lost as to where you're going with this.
Oh, woops.
I define a community as any group of people who share some sort of common characteristic.
Also, I edited the post I guess while you were writing your response to point out a problem I see in what you're saying. With regards to ants and bees, we have large scale societies that have clearly set roles, but they don't have governments.
Which brings me back to what I said before, you can have a community, even an organized community, without necessarily having a government.
Of course, the thing about human beings is, unlike bees, we're very bad at being organized in our communities without a governmental body to keep order. Which is where I'm coming from with regards to arguing that we create governments out of necessity, as opposed to Foxblade's argument that we create governments not because they are necessary, but because it is in our nature to.
No I didn't. I didn't say that they were or were not, because that wasn't the point that I was making, and I explained that to you:
For the last freaking time Highroller, I did not define what government is or what it means. I said specifically:
You then responded:
Don't just cherry pick a word or two from my sentence above, I also said or other types of communities, I did not use the word government. I deliberately choose to use the word communities instead because I'm not sure exactly what constitutes a government and I wanted to include any idea of humans grouping themselves together in an organized fashion.
Your following statement states those are all governments, well fine. If you want to define the word government to include any organized group of humans that set rules and enforce them, then bees, wolves, deer, meerkats, prairie dogs, etc. are all types of governments by that kind of loose definition.
Understand, that I did not define the word this way, YOU did. Stop making me say things that I did not say.
Now as to whether or not these other animals qualify under that definition, well I got news for you - they do. Jay13x raises several points as to why that is. Alpha male/female wolves set rules;
1) They live in groups and have social hierarchies
2) Alpha Male/females set rules: They get to mate and other males do not, They get to eat first, eat the best food, who gets to have pups, etc.
3) They enforce these rules; if one of the pack breaks the rules, they are attacked and punished. Sometimes killed or run out of the pack.
Of course we've had different types of governments, but go back far enough in our history and you're likely to come across tribes that acted very similar to wolf packs. Our 'tribal/pack' type 'governments' have simply evolved and become more complex. But as Magicware99 stated, complexity isn't really the issue.
Animal behavior is not that different from human behavior, particularly among mammals.
Now where are you making me say things I didn't say besides above?
Never said that.
Never said that either.
And this, as you see from what I said above, is making me say something I didn't say at all. I didn't say that a city-state was a loose definition of a government. You included all three things that I stated; City-states, tribes, AND OTHER FORMS OF COMMUNITIES.
That is what I said and I did not say that defining city-states as government was a loose definition. This is a misrepresentation of my position.
Actually it doesn't. I am arguing that this (what I said, not what you are saying I said) is an instinctual behavior in humans, just like bees, wolves, etc.
You said tribes are considered governments. Well you should understand the implications of what that means:
Humans have existed longer than language as we know it today and they existed in tribes. Would these tribes still be considered governments? Under your definition, they would. Even though those humans had no concept of what a law, government, logic, etc. was.
I specifically wrote "organized group of people".
I suppose I should have spelled out why an organized group of people is a government. It is a government because an organized group of people requires some form of governance to remain organized, and so they require a government.
Government does not mean giant nation-states, or nations at that. It is far simpler.
um...what?
A pride of lions is an organized group of lions that require some form of a pride to remain organized, and so they require a pride.
The sentence I just constructed, tells us absolutely nothing about what a pride is or why lions form prides or why they require a pride at all - just like your sentence above does not describe what a government is or why people form governments or why we need government at all. Both sentences are completely circular.
Also just to be clear, I have not disagreed with anyone here about any definition of what a government is. In fact, I've agreed with every definition given, so I have no idea why you and Highroller are arguing along these lines. I'm perfectly fine with a loose definition of the word and frankly the definition of government was/is not important to the point I made.
That being said, I'm perfectly fine with exploring exactly what a government is. But we need to be clear on this so we can actually move the conversation forward.
My argument in regards to the OP is that government is not 'necessary', however people will form social hierarchies that make rules/laws, enforce them, etc. This behavior is something that is in our nature to do, it's part of what makes us human, it's instinctive. However, whether or not you want to call all of these groups 'government' because of how you define the word, as I've already said - it is not important to that point.
I chose not to use the word 'government' and used 'community' instead because I wanted a more inclusive term. I wanted a more inclusive term because I did not want someone going "Well X group of people isn't a government" because I feel that the idea that I put forth wouldn't be clear and may not have been inclusive enough for that reason.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
So I challenged him on that point. If he considers tribes to be government, then it stands to reason that writing laws or understanding logic, etc. is not important for defining what a government is based on the definition he gave since tribes have existed before these concepts existed.
Anyway there must be some point at which a tribe is/is not considered a government.
Just curiosity. Here is a easy rundown for you, but basically it's a line of thinking in international relations where it is assumed survival is the primary motivating factor for states, that states are the only meaningful actor on the world stage and that the only meaningful expression of power is military force. It's not a point of view I agree with (and I don't think you do, either). The Catholic Church alone kind of disproves the central ideas.
Okay, see when I'm talking about 'community' in this instance, I'm talking about an actual geographic community, like a small town, a band of people, etc. That was the misunderstanding.
Yes. I'm sorry, I was completely misunderstanding you (I was posting in my downtime while working on a laptop that was frustrating the hell out of me - it kept jumping to wherever the cursor was for now reason). I think we actually more or less agree.
Bringing it back to people - I don't think Government is instinctive, but it is natural. Look at the French and Japanese Feudalism example I mentioned earlier (and admittedly flubbed the point) - you've got two government systems on opposite sides of the Earth, that developed as independently as almost any human society was capable of doing - and both developed the same system of governance.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
At this point im going to have to step in and say that you are missing his point entirely. Even in a situation of social upheaval and rebellion, you will still find that rebels have some form of social structure, some entity which leads them. It may be a loose structure but it is still a structure. Most social animals form social structures of some form or another. When there isnt one, one will be formed; through history, before the invention of civilization it was usually the member of the community most efficient at murder and rape. Its only really been the last 10,000 years we have (mostly) stopped basing our communities off that individual
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Making the laws:
- The reason why average citizens can't make the laws is simply because there are way to many of them. Imagine a state where the laws were made in a forum with all of the inhabitants of the state there. You'd have a million people at that meeting. Imagine trying to speak your own part and get your own priorities addressed with a million other people trying to speak over you. It would be a mess. This is what representational legislature is for.
Enforcing the laws:
- Enforcing the laws is dangerous. It's an unreasonable burden to ask people to enforce laws when they themselves aren't a stakeholder. Some people aren't strong enough to enforce the laws on their own. Also, if untrained citizens were to enforce the laws, they would often pick and choose which laws to enforce, enforce laws that don't exist, and enforce them incorrectly.
Settle disputes:
- Most people do settle their own disputes. Going to court over them is a very rare scenario where they weren't able to settle those disputes. And even then, you're normally entitled to a jury trial(even for civil court).
Yes, that is very logical, but I still worry that the people whose job it is to either create or enforce the laws may become arrogant and believe themselves to be superior to other people, and may even abuse that power. How can those people be prevented from doing so?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
You can't. That's why for the most part we elect new people into positions of power every so often. This way we try to force the people in power to behave to keep their job and to have a stream of new people in power.
The people most likely to form communities in an end-times scenario would be extensions of the former government. Police, ex-military, first responders, emergency managers. Although this would be an extension, there would be far less accountability for the head honcho. This isn't exactly the best scenario considering that a lot of people in the police and ex-military may not be the most mentally stable and would use their power to abuse the community.
Comparisons between real life and make-believe-fantasy-land aside;
You're thinking about this from the standpoint of people who are moral and just, fair and considerate.
A huge amount of people don't think this way. Dog eat dog, and all that. People don't always make decisions that will be good for anyone, including themselves.
> Just think of all the problems society has with violence, drugs and crime WITH a central govt. and police network that for the most part is actively fighting it.
Remember that no police means no courts, no convictions and no gaols too.
In the United States, If they abuse their power, the voters elect them out, or voter-elected officials fire them.
seriously, you're not the first person ever to be concerned with this. There have been mechanisms in place to deal with the exact same issue that you're worried about for centuries
US democracy is more complicated than that. The incumbency reelection rate is somewhere in the mid-90s and government officials make sure to set up systems that advantage them. Favorable appointed judges, gerrymandering, the revolving door, lobbyists writing the laws, etc.
With certain special purpose districts and local municipal meetings there are issues with transparency. Ports, city councils, and county commissioners have closed door meetings that aren't subject to the open meetings act no matter how hard you try.
Some states are also more corrupt than others. I have friends that work in politics in Louisiana and they get harassed by hired goons of government officials.
I'm saying that my definition of government applies to people and only people. I have no idea whether I would take organizations by other animals as governments because I'm not a member of said animal and, frankly speaking, have no idea how they actually go about organizing things.
And I am saying that said social hierarchies and making of rule/laws and enforcing them is creating a government.
You don't care about the term. I suppose I shouldn't either. I just don't know what else to call it.
Well, that's the thing, I'd just say that people aren't using "government" correctly.
I'm saying that my definition of government applies to people and only people. I have no idea whether I would take organizations by other animals as governments because I'm not a member of said animal and, frankly speaking, have no idea how they actually go about organizing things.
And I am saying that said social hierarchies and making of rule/laws and enforcing them is creating a government.
You don't care about the term. I suppose I shouldn't either. I just don't know what else to call it.
Well, that's the thing, I'd just say that people aren't using "government" correctly.
That being said if you want to discuss what a government is exactly, that's fine. I feel the definition you are giving is too loosely defined as it is now though and I will explain why later because I don't think I can adequately explain via my phone.
Edit:
That's fine, I'm not concerned with the animal aspect, as I said I think that was an overlap in responses to you/highroller in my arguments to him.
My point there has nothing to do with animals or the definition of the word government, only that your statement in that post I quoted was circular.
At any rate, let's start fresh. Governments can only involve people.
I didn't care about the definition only insofar as it related to the point I was making, because it wasn't important. I'm moving past that now though, so now we've got a couple of things that define a government:
1) They have to involve people
2) They have to have a social hierarchy
3) They must create laws/rules and enforce them
That's what I have so far and I think it is too lose of a definition for government because it can include things which I feel are definitely not governments.
For example(s)
If you take a group of children with no adults, they will form a social hierarchy, they will also create laws and enforce them. So that would qualify as a government under these premises.
Even with adults added to the equation (like for example a baby sitter, daycare, etc.) under these same types of premises would still qualify as a government.
Then there are family units, all of which have these same premises.
Sports teams, a group of friends, chess tournaments, MTG tournaments, etc.
Also does the number of people involved matter at all? What if there are only two people? All of those premises could work with just two people as well and then they too would qualify as a government.
Would you go so far as to say all of these things are governments? I don't think that I would and so your definition leaves me feeling that the standard for what defines a government should be higher than what you've defined it as.
Mockingbird brought up an interesting point that I think is worth considering, perhaps geographical/number of people that are influenced should matter here as well. If so, then at what point do we consider it government?
Yeah I often wondered if the real CSI teams in the US really have that large amount of large flat screen in there labs. Also must be neat to always catch the bad guy in 45 minutes worth of work.
@ OP
You need to ensure that people in society realise that there are consequences to their actions. If you take those consequences away it will encourage people to do bad things.
You're not preventing abuse of power, you're ensuring it. If everyone has equal freedom to make a law and enforce it on others regardless of what those other people want (which is a contradiction in terms by the way, that can't work because that other person could make the opposite law - which is exactly the same as anarchy), then what's to stop ALL those people from acting selfishly? What's to stop ALL those people from abusing their power?
As for why you want other people specializing in enforcing laws, it's because when your child is kidnapped you want people specially trained to get the kid back. Abused spouses shouldn't have to enforce their own protection, they need to be able to call an official body for help. You want it done through taxes, rather than private mercs you hire, because otherwise the system is inherently corrupt.
The problem you run into is that you don't like when a system becomes unjust, so you explore disbanding the system. Unfortunately, that guarantees injustice.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane