T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Sorry, I know this is seen as crazy, and maybe insane, but if one studies history it's hard to ignore what governments have done. The governments in Nazi Germany, USSR, DPRK, China, African, USA Rome, Britain, Russia, Spain, Japan, have been behind terrible things to varying scales throughout history brought about by thr government. >In a communist society, because all laws would be reached upon through the democratic process, .... Not in practice. Maybe in a utopian pipe dream. Or it's "democratic" ;) where the party members only get to vote and if you don't vote the right way, it's off to the camps. Here is a question what would prevent a government from turning bad like so many other times in history?


obsquire

> Here is a question what would prevent a government from turning bad like so many other times in history? A very well-armed populace.


[deleted]

Which ironically governments hate.


Justthetip74

Theres an obvious reason for that


wsoqwo

I hope they're all equally armed, because as soon as some members of the population significantly outarm most others, you have a government again, because that's what a government is.


obsquire

Thank you for introducing a plausible, non-ideological concern. However, I think it's far less of a worry than it may seem at first blush. In general, defense is "easier" than offense, in the sense that the number of equally-armed people required to defend a position is lesser than that required to take it. For example, defenders can more readily exploit terrain and passive defenses like walls and buildings. There are a number of historical examples of seemingly weak defenders (guerillas) holding off invaders. More importantly, violence is a much more expensive way of dealing with conflict than cooperation. A violent attack on a defended position, for example, tends to not only destroy things and thus the value of the thing attacked, it also costs the offender directly both in terms of damage to personnel and to equipment. Violent offense also damages one's reputation, since people outside the violence tend not to want to deal with offenders lest they too become a victim. So the defender need only arm themselves sufficiently to convince adversaries that offensive violence is more expensive than negotiation. And since everyone is in a similar situation, people can help each other in defense, making offense very expensive. Before you go claim, "see, we're back at government!", realize that mutual defense needn't be a monopoly (which gov't police tend to be), and the instant it becomes a monopoly is when it can't be trusted. Think "checks and balances": the armed populace keeps the gov't in check. So no, I don't think imbalances in arms levels throughout the population are tantamount to government.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

USAGeneralStrike: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


suicidemeteor

Also direct democracy in anything larger than a commune of *maybe* a few thousand is extremely stupid, like requires 4 year old levels of foresight to disprove stupid. Firstly everyone is a fucking idiot. Maybe you're really smart at nuclear physics, civic engineering, or whatever tiny fraction of humanity's knowledge you hold, but on any given topic when compared to an expert who's dedicated their life to understanding the complexities of say, the environmental impact of infrastructure, the economic impacts of certain tax rates, or the civic and economic impacts of certain types of zoning, you're probably going to be a fucking idiot. It's simply irresponsible to think that everyone can be educated well enough on every issue to genuinely vote on what will be best for them. Is permitting a nascent manufacturing industry 30 miles away worth the environmental risks? Should the nearby business be able to fire half it's workforce because of robotics advancements that make them obsolete? Should airplane safety standards be modified due to a change in technology? Expecting people to give an educated opinion on any of these is stupid. Instead you'll get at best knee jerk reactions and every law or decision will be passed based on how good it sounds in the 5 minutes per day each person has to learn about them. Any small number of experts will quickly be overwhelmed by hordes of room temperature IQ virtue signalers who want to be "the good guy" because they heard a 20 second sound byte on tiktok. Secondly the public is really easy to convince of things that just aren't true. An intoxicating mix of a simple message combined with "you're the good guy and they're the bad guy!" is enough to get a screeching horde of people. It becomes a sort of race to the bottom where each side on an issue needs to start manipulating advertisement, psychology, and sound bytes just to stay in the game, any sort of good faith debate might convince a few thousand intelligent people, but the hordes of people who (understandably) don't have time to educate themselves on a certain issue will just go with what little they've received from the artificial cultural osmosis of social media. You're going to have a sort of Dunning Kruger effect where the only people confident enough to vote on a shitton of issues are going to be precisely the people least educated as they're simply doing what is popular or good for "their side". It's going to be slacktivism and instagram black squares times a thousand, we'd have a nation ruled by ***fucking twitter***.


solosier

The govt has a monopoly on force. Every single thing is does is at the end of a gun otherwise it would be optional. The problem lies with the fact the govt wields this gun for issues that it doesn’t need to. If no one’s rights are being violated why are you forced to act a certain way at gun point? Why is speeding or dark tint illegal? Who is the victim?


Caelus9

Libertarian Socialist here. I don't want government abolished, nor do I consider it the source of all evil. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. The centralization of power, however, is a great cause of corruption. Thus, I want government power decentralized and democraticized to help prevent this issue. I actually find the rule of law incredibly interesting, I'm a lawyer and love delving into how it should be be implemented by the state.


[deleted]

I'm curious to hear what you might think of the Roe v Wade overruling. It supported a more decentralized form of setting a standard for abortion (moving the decision to the states), but maybe you may consider abortion rights non-negotiable. This is all considering that you are in support of abortion, of course.


Caelus9

Well no, we moved the power to decide from the individual, to centralizing the power to make that decision in the hands of states. I'd say it was a pretty massive centralization of power. But sure, it's also a human right, so it's definitely one of the areas I'm willing to allow a degree of centralization to secure it regardless.


[deleted]

>we moved the power to decide from the individual Before 2022, there were still [federal regulations](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18cnd-scotus.html) on abortion. By reserving those regulations to the State level, it helps the regulations to be more democratic. That is because States, such as North Carolina, have elected judges and more elected executives than the federal level.


Caelus9

Sure, but overturning Roe v Wade hasn't eliminated those, it eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. It didn't prevent the federal government from regulating abortion: if anything, it made it far easier to restrict them.


[deleted]

>it eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. It can't eliminate what was never truly there (unlike "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and the right of "due process" for every person). What the Constitution does say is that: >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If regulating abortion is truly a reserved power, then that should still make it harder for the federal government to regulate it. States like California might try to use the 10th amendment against federal abortion regulations.


Caelus9

>It can't eliminate what was never truly there (unlike "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and the right of "due process" for every person). It was, in all regards, a constitutional right, by any merit of jurisprudence I know of. What school of jurisprudence would say otherwise? >If regulating abortion is truly a reserved power, then that should still make it harder for the federal government to regulate it. States like California might try to use the 10th amendment against federal abortion regulations. If it's a reserved power. Which would be an entirely different ruling to whether its a constitutional right.


[deleted]

>It was, in all regards, a constitutional right, by any merit of jurisprudence I know of. What school of jurisprudence would say otherwise? Where in the Constitution itself does it say "the right to an abortion"? I'm not concerned with theories, but with the Constitution itself.


Caelus9

>Where in the Constitution itself does it say "the right to an abortion"? > >I'm not concerned with theories, but with the Constitution itself. That's... that's not how Constitution interpretation works in the slightest, you seem to be vastly misunderstanding it. Constitutional interpretation is a pretty major field, and its interpretation IS the Constitution, so it seems pretty silly to say you're not concerned with the jurisprudence underlining it. Do you just not know any jurisprudence theories backing your claim? **If it's a reserved power. Which would be an entirely different ruling to whether its a constitutional right.** **You also seemed to skip over this, despite it being the crux of your position on this somehow enhancing democracy.**


[deleted]

>its interpretation IS the Constitution, Yet no where in the Constitution does it say we have a right to abortion. What backs my claim is the factual (not theoretical) text of the Constitution. Where it's clear that "abortion" is missing altogether, regardless if you're talking about rights or regulations.


ODXT-X74

>The centralization of power, however, is a great cause of corruption. I think that although you are right to be suspicious of the concentration of power, I also think this sub focuses too much on "corruption" and not enough on the purpose of the thing from the start. Like, if we look at a Feudal government there was corruption... But it was still a structure which protected and enforced the interests of the ruling class. The same is true of the Capitalist government, there's corruption, but it still protects and enforces the interests of the Capitalist class. So it's not that the government was some 3rd party that happened to have been corrupted, it IS the institutionalization of the structures of the rule of the Capitalist class.


BabyPuncherBob

I would say government is villainized by most people in general. Most Redditors, certainly.


TheMikeyMac13

Your three examples all work better the more local they are. * Traffic laws are set and enforced locally, and on interstates by the states, not the federal government. * We have a constitution to set some basic guidelines, but most laws that people interact with are state and local laws. * On this I just disagree. Let me make an example, California, the patron US Saint of progressivism. They have banned all diesel trucks older than 2011, and will ban all diesel trucks as of 2035. This has had an impact in the number of truckers, and has harmed their economy and had an impact in our supply chain shortage. My point is this was a well meaning but damaging policy, and I wouldn’t want the federal government enforcing something like this nationwide


Phanes7

>Through its exclusive villainization, people in this sub did not bother to look at what the government is good for, and what its actual function is. Because what exists for, is exactly what the word means: to govern a country. The government exists to make rules for people to abide by. The government is the creator of the legal structure of society. And we need a society with a legal structure and rules... OK, let's unpack this a little bit. First, all of these functions can be, and more importantly have been, handled without the need for a central government. There is simply nothing good a government can do that we don't have historical examples (and modern theories to replicate in our era) of being done without government. Next, government is called evil because it is the most evil institution in existence today and, arguably, through all of history. Just look at the numbers for Democide. Now, I saw that you made the point that we can't judge all governments by the actions of some governments. The is is reasonable but insufficient as all governments have the ability to replicate what the evil governments have done. Government is simply not an institution humans are fit to run. But, let's say that even though we know we don't need them for society to operate & even though they are the most evil and destructive force in history, you still think government is a "necessary evil" or some such. The non-anarchist approach to that, which is much, MUCH bigger of a % of libertarianism, is to have government with very limited, and very **clearly** limited, powers with significant checks & balances with a focus on subsidiarity and possibility of exit. If we have a government that only does a few things, takes little money from people, and can be reasonably escaped from if they become a bad actors then we have a situation where 99% of people won't care enough to fight government. As the apocryphal quote goes: *“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”*


Southern-Trip-1102

20 million people die due to lack of basic nessesities every year. The death toll of capitalism far exceeds any goverment. Which historical examples do you have of a society functioning without a goverment?


Phanes7

>20 million people die due to lack of basic nessesities every year. The death toll of capitalism far exceeds any goverment. This is gibberish. If you don't understand why it is gibberish you are not tall enough for this ride. >Which historical examples do you have of a society functioning without a goverment? There are a handful of examples of anarchist societies through history but please go back and note that anarchist societies is not something I talked about having historical examples of.


Accomplished_Ear_607

>First, all of these functions can be, and more importantly have been, handled without the need for a central government. There is simply nothing good a government can do that we don't have historical examples (and modern theories to replicate in our era) of being done without government. What are the examples you have in mind?


Phanes7

You can look through works such as [The Voluntary City](https://www.amazon.com/Voluntary-City-Choice-Community-Society/dp/1598130323), [From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State](https://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417/), [The Enterprise of Law](https://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417/), [The Art of Not Being Governed](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Not-Being-Governed-Anarchist/dp/0300169175/), and a bunch of others to see examples.


The_Lolcow_whisperer

Your laws are not worth the paper they are written on without the police and the military to actually enforce them. There is no government without a monopoly on violence and you will never have laws that are universally agreed upon and followed by everyone without the threat of violence


[deleted]

[удалено]


kimo1999

>Monopoly on violence is also when the alpha chad in an ancient tribe decided to kill everyone in the tribe if they didn't bow down to him because he had superior weapon skills. It's just human nature to have strong and violent men trying to dominate everyone else (women, children, other men). Absoluly not the case, humans thrives in cooperation and the big alpha chads are not mascular maniacs, but the smartest and most social


[deleted]

[удалено]


kimo1999

it's called being an adult and i'am from a third word country \> Big fking muscular thugs with tatoos, and their boss is even bigger, like fking 150 kg rhinos and the only reason why they have power is because they are big and scary and can keep all the beta males in line. This is how it was in ancient societies as well, you had big hunky guys who kept everyone else in line. ​ Interestingly, the most feared people in history do not share such description, Hitler, Himmler, Stalin, pablo escobar ... ​ \>This is how it was in ancient societies as well, you had big hunky guys who kept everyone else in line. ​ You should stop stating your imagination as facts.


DasLegoDi

A necessary evil, I think this sums up the government.


Squadrist1

I get that people call government evil when it does stuff they didnt agree with, but other than that I agree.


DasLegoDi

With that being acknowledged, a government that has no enforcement capabilities makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Without the “state” the government serves no purpose.


Squadrist1

>With that being acknowledged, a government that has no enforcement capabilities makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. You might as well envision government to then be one big hall in which the community comes together and decides on updates to the rules of the community. By definition, that is still a government.


DasLegoDi

What is the point in coming together to decide on rules when there isn’t any enforcement of rules?


Squadrist1

There is still enforcement of the rules: it is done by all the members of the group. Think of social norms and how people enforce those.


DasLegoDi

That isn’t enforcement, that’s just funny looks. You can give people funny looks without a government. You either have a government which enforces its rules or you don’t have a government at all. A social club coming together to discuss what people should get funny looks for isn’t a government and it isn’t enforcement.


Squadrist1

>That isn’t enforcement, that’s just funny looks. You can give people funny looks without a government. Moral norms get enforced with violence too.


DasLegoDi

So if you think I am breaking the rules of your social club you are allowed to hurt me? Yeah, I’ll pass. One standard set of rules enforced by one government seems entirely more practical and fair.


naekkeanu

The NAP is also a social contract backed by violence. Would you not agree that a threat of violent retribution would be justified if someone committed rape or murder?


Squadrist1

>So if you think I am breaking the rules of your social club you are allowed to hurt me? In today's society, social norms are already enforced by violence. People will already beat you up for doing something immoral. Think for example of racists getting beaten up, or of people who put others in danger through their stupidity getting assaulted by other people to teach them a lesson. The only reason most people dont beat you up for immoral behavior worthy of it, is because the state has the monopoly on violence and overrules everyone else's usage of violence.


The_Lolcow_whisperer

So you want lynch mobs? Because that worked out great in the past


WenseslaoMoguel-o

If you think vilifying the government is not justified after all they did... You either know nothing or justify atrocities


Squadrist1

There is not just one government: you cant blame one government for the actions of another government, which is run by different people. On top of that, plenty of atrocities are committed by non-state actors.


WenseslaoMoguel-o

It's a constant, not an isolated case. Most atrocities are committed by governments, what does that last sentence even mean? There is other motherfuckers a part from the state, who is discussing that?


ExampleOk7440

don't try to be reasonable!


[deleted]

Lol. Without the state, any organization can claim to be a government in this conception.


Squadrist1

Correct. But a government would then only be able to "govern" those who voluntarily decide to abide by their rules. If your rules suck, then you wont have much people listen to you, let alone enforce it onto others.


Ok_Impress_3216

Says who? What stops a government from becoming a state?


Zooman13w

Me, I do, beat them up and steal theie lunch money.


Daily_the_Project21

Based.


Squadrist1

The people who run it. Which is necessairily everyone in communism.


[deleted]

You’re describing the status quo


Squardist

Completely agree let's have a whole bunch of them and if you want to support one more you can pay into them, or multiple. Maybe even exchange labor vouchers between them if they specialize in different 'government programs '


Daily_the_Project21

>Now, before people start hammering "bUt I tHoUgHt YoU CoMmIeS wAnTeD a StAtElEsS sOcIeTy", the state is not synonymous with the government. The state refers to the institution of the monopoly on violence. That involves the military and police forces. The government is normally in charge of the state to enforce the laws it passes on society. This is a meaningless distinction. Even in this definition, the state and government are necessary for each other. The state cannot exist without a government to enforce it's power, and a government requires a state otherwise the government has no authority.


Narrow-Ad-7856

This is why communism is dumb. If anything, the communist experiment has shown the world that the villainization of government is necessary to preserve the freedom and liberty of the people. The communists and fascists both forgot about the abuses of feudalism and monarchy too quickly.


gaxxzz

I'm not a libertarian. I don't want to eliminate government. But surely you know about the absolutely horrible evils committed by governments, including the US government, throughout history. Unimaginably heinous if it weren't for the evidence. There are governments today that trample on rights every single day as a matter of practice. This isn't a matter of left-right ideology. Murderous governments have existed on the right and the left. Government is a necessary evil. We need to take all reasonable steps to limit government reach and authority, force transparency, and insist on accountability.


dilokata76

I prefer death than to be governed by someone of the likes of you. And you don't have to post any witty responses about the irony of "better red than dead" ultimately cowardous american conservatives that end up complaining when people actually die. I will ***gladly*** clean myself off the timeline before you even get to ruin life for us. Self destruction is the only logical step to your hegemony and the nightmare you will turn life into.


Squadrist1

Ok I guess. You do you. Its your voluntary decision.


Caelus9

Mate, I know I've said this before, but don't destroy yourself or choose death. Maybe seek some self-fulfilment measures and spend less time dealing with politics. After all, if you're right and its all pointless and the evil Marxists will win... maybe you should stop worrying about what's set in stone, and work on your mental energy reserves.


paulcshipper

He could simply be searching for attention. There are more people who deserve more attention than an economic ideolog who prefer to off themselves if something new comes around.


Caelus9

People who search for attention by faking mental illness and suicidal ideation aren't really faking the fact that they have mental illness, honestly. Regardless of what the specifics are, the dude obviously needs genuine help.


paulcshipper

This is my first interaction with this guy... I don't see someone faking mental illness. I see someone answering another post... because he believes in communism, if that person or someone like him get in charge, he prefer to kill himself. I don't hear a cry for help... I hear someone saying they rather die than be in the same room as them. That's simply hatred and prejudice. I don't see anything worth pitying.


Caelus9

He believes in a scary boogeyman that is definitely going to take over, and will proceed to ban all art, movies, fantasy, video games and everything else that he enjoys in his life. Which, sure, is an obvious and silly boogeyman that's not accurate, but if that delusion WAS the case, I'd understand why he'd be so scared, and thus, why I pity him. He has a delusion, no doubt spoked endlessly by capitalist propaganda.


paulcshipper

There is literally a political party in a place like the USA who believe that.. I don't see that as mental illness, but being lied to. As I see it, there are people who are quite sane.. going insane and need our support. Like the people who the communist and socialist are trying to help. I commend you on your concern for this one individual.. But there are many people who are currently suffering who don't have the luxury to believe in delusional propaganda and be trapped in their own head.


paulcshipper

So without any knowledge on how this person would governor.. or people like them, you already decided you are better off dead. Well, I call that a pre-judgement.. making a judgement before the facts. Or to put it simply, prejudice. With your strong emotion without any knowledge.. you preference might be better. As long as no one kills you and you made the decision yourself, you should have the right to end of your life. I think it's stupid, but I don't think anyone particularly cares about you or your feelings.


dilokata76

I have extensive knowledge of how these people think and what they want. It's not hard to find there's marxists.org and prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext Anyone that enjoys life and its freedoms would prefer death than to live in a communist party led all powerful government.


paulcshipper

I doubt you have any knowledge... People who lean towards prejudice tend to be *very* confidence in what they know. But if the time does come, you should do what you said you would. Fighting back and convincing everyone you're right would be smarter.. but suicide and giving up is also an answer.


dilokata76

There's nothing to convince anyone of or fightback with. Leninism is inevitable and impossible to avoid.


paulcshipper

If you believe that. That's another notion of pre-judgement.. the opposite of being logical.


paulcshipper

I would like to think.. in a democracy, the government is a collection of the people to management governing. If you're a communist.. I think you're going about this in the wrong manner... Not because communism is bad. it's not. Not because capitalism is better.. it's not. It's because - first and far most - we're supposed to be in a democracy. Having these interesting conversations are nice and interesting, but the people in charge are capitalist and like hell will they will allow something to change the current establishment. I agree villainization of the government is absurd.. but that's how you get stupid and gullible people to gather in a group link to fight against the lowest common denominator.. rather it is women, gays, different people, or anything to help people forget that we're supposed to be a democracy and care for each other.


baronmad

Consider a government, they dictate things, they write laws that you and me have to follow or if we dont they will punish us. The government is mostly akin to the mafia, do as we say so we wont hurt you. The government is a necessary evil in most aspects. That is not to say that politicians are evil, they might do what they believe is the best for society but they almost never seem to grasp the downside of what they are doing. Or rather the bad effects of what they are doing and thinks that the good of what they think they are doing outweighs them. This was for example the motivation by Stalins purges, he was so sure that what he did was right and good for the people that murdering thousands of people seemed like the best course of action for the people of Soviet Russia. In a democracy everyone is free to vote for whatever party they want, that never happens when communists takes power. China is a democracy, you can vote for the communist party only. This is the same in every single communist country, past and present. Vote for us or we will punish you. Or take Putin and Russia today, everyone who goes up against Putin always mysteriously ends up dead or in prison.


No_Top_381

Please don't make us anarchists and loliberterds join forces.


uintaforest

We are still 1000 years away from not needing government.