Governments & Culture

[Boerseun]

I've been thinking about this for a while now, maybe you guys have some ideas around this:

 

Is government unavoidable?

 

The idea behind anarchy is that there's no government at all. But, with limited resources, in even an anarchic society, pretty soon there'll be rationing, enforcing of same, a form of "tribal justice" will develop, and before you can say "the answer is blowing in the wind" you're back to square one with a brand spanking new government.

 

Now - is government (in any form - tribal or sophisticated) a function of human nature, and therefore unavoidable? And is a true anarchic society attainable?

 

Hmmmm.....

[Qfwfq]

The idea behind anarchy is that there's no government at all.

Uhmmm... The idea is that nobody commands more than anybody else, no authority nor institutions. There couldn't be no government at all but anarchists believe things could always be sorted out if most people were reasonable and sensible, cooperative etc...

 

Whether or not anarchy is attainable I don't know. There was some discussion of this but I haven't found it yet.

[Harzburgite]

Is government unavoidable?

In the broad sense in which I understand you to be using government , then, it is unavoidable.

Why? As you suggest, human nature. We are a tribal animal - this requires a heirarchy, with leaders and followers. It does not have to be as rigid as the 'pecking order' in some species. Humans have used their inherent flexibility to restructure their group organisation dynamically. This is true at the micro level [watch how the leadership role moves within any group as the activity or topic changes] and at the macro level [consider the use of election or warfare to effect regime change].

I would take issue with a possible implication of your question: you seem to suggest we might want to avoid it. I don't think we do. I would rather say that government is one of the greatest of human inventions. Without it we could not have prospered as a species to the extent we have. It has not yet been adequately refined to the point it works well, but that it works at all is a remarkable thing, and a very good thing.

[Qfwfq]

I would rather say that government is one of the greatest of human inventions.

But.... is it a human invention?

[bumab]

But.... is it a human invention?

 

Organized government is a human invention. Government in the way it was initially stated, however, seems to be more alpha-dog wolf style government, in which case it's pretty natural and primitive, although still "government." And yes- do think some sort of government is neccessary for the distribution and collective efforts people need to accomplish, especially today.

 

If we all were farmers, living off the land- no, government would not really be neccessary beyond protection, which arguable wouldn't be neccesary if nobody else had an organized government either (since there would be no organized strike forces to attack you, and really no reason to attack). If you ain't a farmer, though- be thankful for the distribution systems that the government keeps up.

[Fishteacher73]

Uhmmm... The idea is that nobody commands more than anybody else, no authority nor institutions. There couldn't be no government at all but anarchists believe things could always be sorted out if most people were reasonable and sensible, cooperative etc...

 

Whether or not anarchy is attainable I don't know. There was some discussion of this but I haven't found it yet.

 

The early back ground for the anarchist movement in the US was that there was need no man's imposed law. The laws of God were there and should be followed. Under this ideology, there was no need for a intemediary of governemental laws.

 

As Buman mentioned, there is a hierarchy established in ANY social animal group. From bees to parrot fish, to dogs, to humans. There must be some effective form of order or there is no inherent advantage to social behavior.

[Boerseun]

Interesting...

 

I'm in complete agreement that government is a manifestation of human nature, and, in my opinion, the most comprehensive manifestation of Culture.

 

It's not really wise to try and "buck the system" or ***** and moan about "the establishment", like the hippies in the sixties, because all they will achieve in their endeavours would be the creation of a new pecking order, a new form of government, in other words - a government which will inevitably become somebody else's "establishment" or "system".

 

Now - in the debate about forms of government, be it communism, democracy, or any other given form, would the best, most effective form of government not be the one most in tune with human nature? In other words, doesn't the debate about politics cut right down to the core of who and what we are? And do we know enough about ourselves to make a proper decision as to what we want and need in terms of government?

[questor]

in all societies there will be a great difference in intellect, physical ability, energy level, ambition, and other qualities. these qualities determine the preferences and life directions of the inhabitants. for a society where all can follow their chosen path, we must have liberty and peace. in order to have these things, we must have a government that will ensure liberty and peace against those who would destroy it, either from the outside or the inside. our society is now fraying at the edges because of a lack of consensus about those qualities that yield good citizens and good social intercourse.

could we agree that people are responsible for their own lives and future? this alone could drastically change our country.

[niviene]

I've been thinking about this for a while now, maybe you guys have some ideas around this:

 

Is government unavoidable?

 

The idea behind anarchy is that there's no government at all. But, with limited resources, in even an anarchic society, pretty soon there'll be rationing, enforcing of same, a form of "tribal justice" will develop, and before you can say "the answer is blowing in the wind" you're back to square one with a brand spanking new government.

 

Now - is government (in any form - tribal or sophisticated) a function of human nature, and therefore unavoidable? And is a true anarchic society attainable?

 

Hmmmm.....

 

B, I think that it is a function of human nature. I think early societies kind of showed this - humans don't usually tend towards liking lives of uncertainty, and I think that was a major premise behind the shifts toward cities in early mesopotamia. While I agree that there are people in this world who would be just fine without it, the masses are like sheep and without a "leader" (by which I mean any form of government) they just don't know what to do with themselves.

 

I don't know if a true anarchic society is attainable... at least, not right now. It seems to be a possibility, perhaps in the future - to re-employ survival of the fittest without aid from any form of government - I actually would favor that. Let the weak die off, let the doers or producers live as they will. (of course that would eliminate my job and my future job, but I still think of myself as an idealist - that I'd rather forgo the government and let those uncapable of living on their own realize who is actually living for them.) I personally think this would correct a lot of the upside-downisms in our society (hehe, I just pulled a GW Bush). I.E. - where a doctor and a teacher would be more valued than an entertainer; where people value life and take less of it for granted; where there is no stock market to create false value in things... etc. I'm going to think on this for a bit more and then come back. I really like the idea, even if it doesn't seem feasible in today's world.

[Qfwfq]

It's not really wise to try and "buck the system" or ***** and moan about "the establishment", like the hippies in the sixties, because all they will achieve in their endeavours would be the creation of a new pecking order, a new form of government, in other words - a government which will inevitably become somebody else's "establishment" or "system".

Every revolution has led to a new regime, often worse than the one that was overthrown.

[tarak]

According to my view a governement is inevitably linked with common interest over the commons(resources,interests,etc).Even if there are two individuals who have to share an isolated island ,there needs to be a government for them, which is mutually agreeable to them.To foster order and discipline in a system one of the means of common understanding on mostly agreed terms of reference ,manifests as goverment.Ofcourse in politics and law government has very specific meanings and has a well defined structure and delineated functions.

[bumab]

Now - in the debate about forms of government, be it communism, democracy, or any other given form, would the best, most effective form of government not be the one most in tune with human nature? In other words, doesn't the debate about politics cut right down to the core of who and what we are? And do we know enough about ourselves to make a proper decision as to what we want and need in terms of government?

 

Ah, this is a new topic!

 

But since this thread is really short still, I'll respond here:

 

What govenmental system get's closest to real human nature?

 

I'd have to say capitalism, since the premise is self-interest. Capitalism is premised on the idea of "looking out for number 1" (me) which seems perfectly in line with human nature and Darwinian theory. Of couse we only care about ourselves, so why not have a govenmental system who's only real role is to maintain order so we can continue looking out for ourselves? A capitalist government has two roles, and two roles only: Maintain a free market and protect the state. So sure- a capitalist government is most in line with human nature.

 

That said- should we have a government in line with human nature, or a government in line with what we want to be? I, obviously, am no huge fan of capitalism. I don't think playing to our most basic instincts (self-preservation and self-interest) is particularly noble or satisfying. Perhaps it works the best in the production sense, but it works the least in community sense. So- should we have a government that plays towards our base instincts or our lofty goals? The instinct one will work better, be more stable, more predictable. The lofty goal will be less stable, more unpredictable, etc. I still go lofty goal.

 

And wax disturbingly poetic about non-poetic things, early in the morning...

[Qfwfq]

Perhaps it works the best in the production sense

I'm not so sure. It is better especially for some individuals. Typically not even all that many, unless there is a good degree of regulation.

[adjective]

It's not really wise to try and "buck the system" or ***** and moan about "the establishment", like the hippies in the sixties, because all they will achieve in their endeavours would be the creation of a new pecking order, a new form of government, in other words - a government which will inevitably become somebody else's "establishment" or "system".

 

I would tend to disagree. Granted, I wasn't alive during the sixties and haven't really read anything about the hippies, but it was always my understanding that the spark of the social dissatisfaction was, essentially, the women's and african-american movements. In effect, the message being, "The current establishment is engrained with these unequal ideas and we need to build a new one that doesn't have inherent sexism and racism." I find it hard to believe that they were preaching uptopian anarchism.

 

Of course, I could be wrong. It's possible they were stupid enough to think that was possible. Stupidity has amazed me before.

 

Regardless, I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "Every generation needs a new revolution." My interpretation is that society is constantly changing and, in order for government, etc., to keep up, we need revolutions--of any sort--to change how we do things and to, hopefully, lead us toward a better future. It's a somewhat similar idea to Kuhn's interpreation of scientific progress.

 

...would the best, most effective form of government not be the one most in tune with human nature? In other words, doesn't the debate about politics cut right down to the core of who and what we are? And do we know enough about ourselves to make a proper decision as to what we want and need in terms of government?

 

What do you mean by the government most in tune with human nature? Do you mean that the government is modelled after human nature or that it serves human nature?

 

Either way, I'm not sure that's a good idea. The government modelled after human nature, in my opinion, would not have enough social consciousness. This might be perfect for more right-wing thinkers--I tend to lean more moderate. I do not think that social consciousness--at least not on as grand a scale as a city or a country, is human nature. Perhaps on a family scale, but I would argue that beyond that needs to be learned. In my opinion, that would not be beneficial for society on several levels: see standard liberal arguments for why not.

 

The government that serves human nature, frankly, would scare me. Governments are controlled by people--and the idea that these people could shape the government to serve their personal human nature is frightening.

 

Rather, I would say that the government would have to serve "societal nature." Instead of human nature, which is limited in scope to the person or the person's family, societal nature, I would say, looks for the greater common good and serves that.

 

Oftentimes, human nature helps societal nature, e.g. greed helps the society's overall wealth. Oftentimes, it does not, e.g. amassing money keeps that money from being used for anything--see Bill Gates.

 

However, in either case, your second question is extremely important. Do we know enough about human nature--or societal nature--to know what's best for us? Tough call, I'd vote no.

[Boerseun]

I think you've got a couple of good points there, ad.

 

If governments are unavoidable (and I'm not saying its a good or a bad thing, if its unavoidable, its just, well, a 'thing') then governments would just be a magnification of all human traits.

 

You should then get the best of the human spirit, as well as the worst, in government.

 

We as individuals, care for others. That altruistic trait is magnified in government as social support systems, welfare, etc. Ignore for a moment how badly it might be run, its the idea behind it that I'm talking about.

 

Then again, humans as individuals are greedy,envious and selfish, and the free market and capitalism underpins that from a magnified governmental perspective.

 

Humans are also bullies, evolution made us suspicious of weaklings in order to strenghten the gene pool. Magnified to a governmental level, it finds expression in things like huge armies, unilateral invasions, Hitler's expeditions in Europe, genocide in Rwanda, etc.

 

So - government is actually a human being inflated exponentially, with all the good and bad.

[bumab]

So - government is actually a human being inflated exponentially, with all the good and bad.

 

Interesting idea!

 

So what kind of person do you want to live under? One that is entirely motivated by self-serving desires, or one that makes sacrafices for the good of the whole?

 

:shrug: Obviously, there's no bias in the way I worded that one...

[Teleman21]

As for the earlier proposed question, I happen to believe that governmental structure is a tenet of human nature. Aristotle wrote, "Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity..." (Politics, 1253-1) Aristotle also prevents a compelling argument as to why this is true (which in the interest of time I will not reiterate). However, if we accept that government, whether natural or invented will always perservere in one form or another, the true question is what is the best government. Surely socialism has its pluse, but it is a fools errand to think that anyone can be so unabsorbed with selfinterest. However, capitalism is mean't for the more cut throat, which often leaves the generous,meek, and noble to shame and misfortune. Then there are the degrees of tyranical government which stretches further into sole self interest, and degrees of socialism that degrade as low as communism's false hope of equality. In all actuality, I would hope for Plato's reign of the wisest, but that isn't gonna happen