Without government..... Wouldn't warlords take over?!
Not according to Robert P. Murphy.
This is a short clip taken from the lecture 'The Market for Security' given by Robert P. Murphy.
What I like about this video is, firstly, how Murphy debunks the examples that many will give about societies that don't work without a government. It is often the case that in places without government, the previous government failed and the country descended into civil war. This is not anarchy, but a failed state. The people are still in a statist mindset and try to re-establish a government. Of course, in such a place where civil unrest takes place, different groups of people will want to take control of the new government and so they fight it out instead of negotiating peacefully.
Second, it is interesting that Murphy stresses the importance of intellectual development. In order for a peaceful, anarchic society to be able to exist, the people living in it must agree on the foundations of that society. In other words, they would all have to agree that the initiation of force is immoral and that negotiation is always a better way to solve disputes.
What I make of this, is that a stateless society would be most likely to remain peaceful in a society with tolerance towards others' opinions. What also helps, is that the people in a society have similar values, so that differences in opinions - and this possible disputes - are minimized. In these types of societies, the government can be most trusted, but that is not because of the nature of government. Instead, this is because the people themselves agree to a large extent on they want society to be organized.
The implication of this is that the government itself is not necessary, because the people mostly agree what society should look like and they are relatively tolerant towards others' differences already. Moreover, the existence of a state would be more dangerous than a stateless society, because power is prone to corruption and so some people would use that power to their advantage. Besides, there are way more efficient methods to settle differences than a one-size-fits-all solution provided by the government (or should I say: one-size-fits-nobody?)
--> Click here if you want a cool banner like mine!
--> Previous post: Dutch Libertarian explains why taxation is theft and shuts up socialist MP
► DTube
►
Government is just the most powerful gang. Warlords?! They are nothing compared to the oligarchs and royalty of today,
The usual "Somalia has no state" claim is like saying "Europe. . ." or "the earth doesn't have a state". Umm... there are a couple I think.
Excellent... @rvanstel Motivating and it makes me happy to see hard work and determination prevail. Love it.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by fingers from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
They probably wouldn't be as powerful or have as much influence as the current warlords in power.
Congratulations @rvanstel! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPThat was an interesting watch. I think he makes assumptions on a few critical things that tie his stance together.
First one being that those outside of his shared beliefs and views will have the same traits. Such as focus of agreement. In any sort of civil uprising, it has been my experience that logical thinking and actions aren't at the forefront of thought.
Second would be that no government would dissolve itself, therefore you would be starting at the beginning of society. The first thing humans tend to do when in chaos is to find another human. What decides the longevity of that interaction would be how much they share in common in that moment. Given the time of months to years even, you could draw a line to how tribes are built.
I'm not saying it's impossible, or that the speaker is wrong mind you, simply expanding upon an idea that IMO is flawed.
Looking forward to possibly discussing this more.