Is Government Obsolete?
Here's a little history lesson for all you kids out there: There was once a store called Blockbuster. Now there isn't a store called Blockbuster. It's obsolete.
It's a graveyard.
Our society sees very little use for a video rental store with services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, iTunes, CinemaNow, and let's be honest; piracy.
Is that the state of government today? Have we evolved beyond our need for The State?
The Pragmatic Answer
While I am not of the opinion that government was ever a pragmatic necessity, my view is not shared by all. Even some anarchists believe that government was an important step in our cultural evolution, but a step that we can move past.
Government is an entity that resists any sort of change. When it's programs fail it's because they weren't given enough resources, so it gets bigger while remaining ineffective. Even when there are no obvious failure to be seen, it's bloated bureaucracy slows adaptation down to a snail's pace.
This is a stark contrast to the private sector which must adapt an innovate or die. See Blockbuster if you need proof. Free market forces bring about change and innovation; producing and embracing life-changing new technologies, creating new wealth and spreading that wealth much more equally than the government does despite its attempts to bolster "equality."
It isn't the government that creates new technologies that transforms lives and cultures for the better. Internet, 3D printing, blockchain tech, modern communication networks; these are creations of the market. Real talk: the main innovation that they can claim responsibility for is the invention and advancement of world-destroying weapons.
Not only is technology making the world a better and easier place to live in, new advancements are findings ways to fill the roll once held by government.
Have you heard of smart contracts? This technology is hailed by some as "the blockchain tech that will replace lawyers." Smart contracts allow the exchange of money, property, or other forms of value in a conflict free way only if the terms of the contract are met. It's a secure way to look out for our own interests without the need of government-backed force to ensure "justice." Smart contracts define the rules and penalties of an agree and automatically enforce those obligations. This is just one example.
We don't need government. We can do it ourselves.
Oh, while we're speaking about what's most pragmatic, let's not forget the hundreds of millions of people who weren't murdered by private individuals or free market forces in the last century.
The Philosophical Answer
The idea that something is obsolete implies that it once had utility. Government was never needed. This truth is arguable from a practical standpoint, and certain from a moral standpoint.
We never needed an entity that only operates on violence and the threat of force to watch over us.
We never needed some people to rule over others.
We never needed slavery.
No, government is not obsolete because it never served a valuable purpose to begin with.
~Seth
Followed, for a fantastic, truthful article. I'd like to state is as Larken Rose does: the Government doesn't exist. Too many people just follow the illusion.
Here's a fantastic video that summarises Larken Rose's ideas:
I'm a big fan of Larken Rose. He's the one who brought me over from libertarianism to voluntaryism. Thanks for the comment and the follow!
Odin approves of this message and will follow you to Valhalla.
This is joyous news.
I hail your joyousness.
Haha!
I love the idea of a smart contract-- so much more power in the hands of individuals. Can I get married and, if necessary, divorced with a smart contract? I might tie the knot someday if blockchain can get that going.
I'm not too well versed in the ins and outs of smart contracts, but I would imagine you can use one for marriage.
Of course, it won't be recognized by the state unless you also sign their documents lol
Ya know, it's funny… Blockbuster and other video rental places are dead, but you can find those friggin' Redbox and DVDXpress machines everywhere. And even Netflix still runs its DVD rental by mail service. So clearly there is still a market for renting movies on physical media, but it's such that it's no longer sustainable to do it by way of a large, air-conditioned, fully-staffed store.
Not that this has anything to do with the point of your post… sorry. Carry on.
What you say is completely true. There is still demand, but it isn't the same as what it used to be. And Blockbuster failed to adapt to a changing world.
I'm rather convinced it was never needed at all. Seems like it has always been imposed upon humanity by small groups of people who felt it was needed in order for them to remain in control but keeping them in power seems to be about the only effect solely attributable to rule of government. Most everything else could probably would have worked out just fine thanks to trade.
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for commenting!
OK, so before i get into criticizing/arguing mode, let me tell you why I often find myself agreeing with anarchists. Our current governments and political system as a whole is doomed beyond repair. We need a fresh start.
When I am arguing for a left or social way, I certainly dont want people to vote Bernie or the german far left party. They are all corrupted as well and are "playing the game". But we need to change the game and those people (other lefties) often dont see that.
I feel like many of you people (pun intended) are often ignoring the question of management. You claim there is no need for government , but only truly argue why we should get rid of today's form of government. Ie "bloated bureaucracy" is one of the main evil forces I see especially in Germany and while this is caused by government I dont think massive bureaucracy is necessary for a state.
You also mentioned "smart contracts" as a replacement for government. To me a fair framework for individuals to act in is exactly what government should be. So "smart contracts" are in a way government to me.
I hope this makes sense to you. I actually think this is like many times a question of definition and language. To me government is a system that offers mechanism for a just and fulfilling life for the individual. You would also think what you would have to do with people who behave in an unmoral way, in example kill another human. You would agree on some way or another how you would treat him, that is governance to me.
This is exactly what I was going to say when I read this:
I believe that structures and systems can serve an important role in protecting people and enacting justice. But those systems are not necessarily "government." The difference is that a government is made up of people who believe they have the moral right to rule over others.
It's clear to me now that you're operating on a different definition haha.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
It is actually great to see you agree on the definition problem. It came up in discussions I had with other Anarchos before but I was not really able to put it into words.
I also know how I title my post about Anarchy: "Anarchos are just Socialists with a definition problem":D. Even if Steemit does not receive it that well, I love to make these youtube-style clickbait headlines. :3
In some forms of socialism it is actually a strong notion that no human should have power over another. Many of my socialist goals in school debates (18 years ago) got criticized, because you would need complete voluntarism to achieve them.