Why does there need to be a government?
Why does there need to be a authority?
Why can’t people govern themselves?
Why does there need to be a government?
Without a government, people would be clueless as to what to do. Life would just be chaotic and unorganized. I think that even if our government collapsed and ceased to exist for some reason, people would still look for a leader of some kind.
Why does there need to be a authority?
If there is no authority, then there is nothing to stop anyone from causing chaos. It’s a deterrent that keeps organization. Society needs organization to function properly.
Why can people govern themselves?
People don’t govern themselves, though. Because of how different people are, some are good leaders while others are good followers. Self government doesn’t work with everyone. People can be governed by other people because the governers are usually good leaders while the governees aren’t. Not all people are the same.
People only need self preservation in order to survive and there doesn’t need to be a authority for that.
Prove to me why a society needs a authority.
The cosmos is operated on chaos. The government is no deterrent to that fact.
Why?
How so? All one would need to do is find food,water,shelter and the opposite sex for reproduction.
There doesn’t need to be a government. The reason it exists, ideally, is as a pact between people to give up some freedoms to protect other freedoms. This is called the Social Contract. People don’t want to die, so they give up some freedom to protect their lives.
People CAN govern themselves, but not now since governments are sprawled all over the world bent on imperialism. It has become a mode that everyone knows what is best for everyone else. With those ideals and the legal systems that presume they know what is moral, no one can really deviate from governments without being imprisoned or killed. If one were to rebel, they would need a significant following.
I see a contradiction.
Agreed. 
I see a contradiction that is against the main foundations of evolution.
This gives a new meaning to the statement:
“Civilization is born out of man’s weakness.” - Jean Jacques Rousseau
Pretty much.
Why does there need to be a government?
As soon as people get into a group, there will be a government of some sort. Since a human being whole is by himself is pretty much worthless (and generally insane, to boot!) those aren’t worth consideration. So, then it becomes a question of what sort of government. Tribal patriarchy is clearly one of the oldest forms where authority sets itself.
Why does there need to be a authority?
Hierarchy is a natural part of the human condition. In a context-dependent manner, there will always be a person in the superior position and another in the inferior position. Oftentimes these positions switch within the confines of a certain period of time (such as during a conversation, where people alternate between speaking and listening) otherwise the lines are made firmer through the use of force (such as a Thag with his ability to wield a big club).
Why can’t people govern themselves?
They can, that is the thing. And they do it along the lines of hierarchy. The problem with Anarchy is that it, by definition, lacks proper safe-guards against strongmen. All that needs to happen is for a charismatic leader to arise (and one will) and people will flock to that leader, seeking the security that the Anarchy fails to provide. Whoop-de-doo, you’ve reinvented despotism of the most primitive sort. But it goes deeper, subtle manifestations will begin to take place before the charismatic leader arrives. Generally around loci of strength (Thag can protect you better than anybody else and, by extension, if you don’t pay Thag respect he might just beat the snot out of you), but also along family lines. Within those family lines, history would seem to strongly suggest that the males will be firmly in control (for the same reason Thag is able to garner so much support).
So, as soon as you create “anarchy” it is lost because man is a social animal and those very forces that drive us to form societies will assert themselves. All you’ve really done is given up on any notion of might not making right. That is all well and good, I suspect that you already think that. But if I were a betting man, given the information you’ve presented of yourself here I’d wager that you are something of a misanthrope. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but those people lose big in the “might makes right” situation. Just food for thought.
If the government was ever destroyed or removed, gangs, families, groups of friends, businesses and religious organizations would begin to more-so centralized and grasp for power until one was more powerful than all the others.
Anarchism = division of previously-centralized civil powers of organizationb.
“Anarchy” is temporary and somewhat impossible, as any sort of absolute decentralization of authority.
While it is possible to live in chaos and flourish, not everybody can. And while this may be true for small groups of people, it’s not true overall. If there were no order, then competition would become an issue, and many people would die out, not knowing what to do. Not everybody is capable of winning a physical competition, so in the end, more people would die out, and survival would be left to the few who remained. I don’t see why we should get rid of our government and let a lot of people die.
Authority serves to protect the “weak”. While I think natural selection is great, I do not think we should sacrifice order and peace just to keep the human race improving physically. Once our minds evolved into sentience, we moved beyond the need for muscles, and more into the need for having intelligence. I don’t think living in chaos would make people smarter (maybe street smart, I guess), but only physically stronger, which is an inferior trait when a genius can build a robot that can lift thousands of times the weight a weight lifter could.
Back to the topic, authority is what keeps the promoters of chaos from spreading it, and it’s what keeps order in the structure of society.
But one of the definitions of life is that there is order. A structure created from the chaos. Life needs some kind of organization in order to keep going. If there was truly no order at all, we wouldn’t even exist. Just look at DNA and cells. Form and function are the basis of our very existence.
Because society is based on organization. If there was no way of keeping track of how much money we had, how could we have a market system in the first place? Currency was the way we kept track of our money. If you think about it, a dollar is worthless. It’s just paper. But while it is just physically paper, it is attached to a value, in our minds. It is part of what keeps the system organized. And actually, just going to the dictionary:
Society - a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
Society is based on structure and organization.
Because not everybody is physically fit, and a lot of people (especially the spoiled) would literally be lost. They would be so used to just getting what they wanted, they’d most likely die due to the lack of ability to compete with others for food, water, or shelter. And since there would be no order, there would be nobody to help them.
I don’t know why people promote anarchy, because it’s really, in the end, pointless. Even if you disagree with the current government, there must still be some kind of glue to keep society together. Without a leader to look to for help, the people would not know what to do, and the quality of life would just decrease. The only good thing I see coming from this would be to give the physically fit more of a chance against the intelligent in terms of competition.
If I missed anything, please tell me, because reading over this, I feel like I missed something still.
There doesn’t need to be, but we can’t stop mankind from making government.
There doesn’t need to be, but we can’t stop people from controlling people.
I think you meant [can’t]
??? Isn’t that what we do?
A group of people with “no government” is a form of government. 
Actually, I was going to ask about the same thing, but I think what he means is:
People are all equal, so why should they be able to govern themselves? If everyone was equal, then nobody should really be a “leader”.
If I’m wrong, correct me, but after thinking about it, that’s what I got from it.
I like roads. I need to go places in a vehicle and there are roads to get me there. Someone could have built them, but who would hire them? I do not want to explicity hire someone to build roads, out of convenience I delegate this task to another body which can do this grunt work (as well as others) for me. The government is there out of ease for the people, rather than requiring every person to spend so much time on things which can be delegated to a governing body and leave people time to their own devices.
Just one reason why. Could people get along without? Maybe, but it would be more work… which is the bane of everyone. In order to get the most enjoyment out of life worrying the least seems to be a common trend, the government allows for this.
Why should we when a governing body can make life easier on people?
Because homo sapiens sapiens are social animals that have evolved to live in groups. Groups require pecking orders. Government is only a highly evolved form of a pecking order. It’s not as if animals in the wild don’t have pecking orders. They do. It’s just that our form of a pecking order is better at distributing resources throughout the chain of individuals that make up the pecking order than is theirs.
You say “All one would need to do is find food,water,shelter and the opposite sex for reproduction” as if this were somehow an easy thing. Well, it’s only easy in the world that we know today in which governments exist and resources are distributed by law. It could be otherwise. In a baboon troop, for instance, the head baboon gets all the sexual partners and the other males do without. The strongest gets most of the food. The infirmed and the weak die off rather quickly. Resources are utilized by the top of the hierarchy and the rest do as well as they can which oftentimes means they do without.
Pure anarchy cannot exist for long and thank god for that. If it did, most men and women would live “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” lives consumed with fear.
If that sounds good to you, then you are a true anarchist. As for me, no thank you. I’ll somehow try to muddle through this life with a wife and kids, food on the table, the ability to seek knowledge, and an otherwise relatively fear-free existence.
Courage before the ideal - that should be encouraged in every classroom.
This does not, however, mean that I’m an anarchist. Stable government is a precondition of a great many higher pursuits.
Anarchy. Its what happens around feeding time every day here.
I for one would love the challenge of living in a lawless society. There are no more frontiers that a person with limited means can go to. No real challenges, No down and dirty grub staking balls to wall fight or flight living. It a cage now a guilded cage. A cage where you do what you are told when you are told. I feel so slutty being a kept citizen. So bored. If I were younger I might be out disturbing the law some more.
Gahhhhhh, destroy the Gov’t break down the system , I want to LIVE!!!
At least it would be a new frontier for us.
Try pointing out the contradictions more clearly.
Primitive communities work upon leadership in comparison to state governments.
I believe there is a difference between informal leadership to state organized governments.
Hierarchy is natural but you are supporting a moral authority with elaborate moral ties.
The hierarchy I support is informal where leadership can be challenged by anybody with strength. Amoral leadership.
For instance in some tribes whoever kills the leader replaces that person by becoming chief themselves.
What do you mean?
Maybe in the past perhaps…but people today are waking up to the fact that state governments are the biggest killers of man in large numbers than any other creation.
If Anarchy came tomorrow there is always the possibility that people would uphold that simple fact.
You are probally thinking that a amoral informal leadership would kill even more people but I believe there would be more cooperation through fear or intimidation to minimalize casualties.
Infact people are fearless today protected by their own corrupted moral laws.
I believe that is why more people die in larger numbers today because they do not fear the consequences of their own actions and they know there is a corrupted form of law to protect them should their consequences catch up with them.
Just what you described is what I mean. The rise of strongmen overtaking the system.
I actually think that if there were a way to keep such strongmen in check, there would be relatively few problems but I also have an incredibly optimistic view of humanity.
But history has shown that in times of discomfort, people will flock to authority figures who will, in turn, become corrupted by that power and use it for rather nasty ends. The back-and-forth between the impulses of the people in their desire for safety and stability as well as their drive towards self-determination is what has given rise to our present governmental systems.
Simply hitting the ‘reset’ button won’t do any good; indeed, if history is to be a model, it would strongly suggest that it would be a terrible idea indeed.
What is wrong with the strong men taking over? Such a sequence seems to be due to evolution.
Which creates weakness.
Like how?
I am under the impression that anarchy is perfectly natural in comparison to governments which always fail one way or another.
The last two thousand years is enough proof for that.
Still, no reply for me.
Fine! I hate you too…