What is a government?
If you have read the headline, chances are you have a fairly good idea of what a government is. I am also quite sure you think other people think the same. But I am not so sure about that.
In the past I had some “run-ins” with “anarchistic” or “libertarian” people. In their view a government is always bad and private is always good.
Needless to say, as a “leftist” I have a different view. But this is not the topic of this post.
I think a lot of the difference between me and the libertarians is based on a different view of what a government is. So let us start with a look at the different definitions from dictionary.com (I left out a few that are sub-elements or even about grammar.)
- the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration:
Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society.
- the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed:
monarchical government; episcopal government.
- the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.
- direction; control; management; rule:
the government of one's conduct.
There is a lot of interesting stuff in it, but let me first show you my definition of government.
Governemnt in my Eyes
If I had to put in words what a government is, I would probably think a bit and then say something like this:
A government is an institution, represented by one person or a group of people, that enforce the observation of rules by their subjects (in at least one important part of living).
As you can see from this definition, I don’t think there can be a government without people governed.
Subjects are people that have either agreed to be ruled; implicitly agree by not constantly fighting against the rules with their full power and the intent of changing the rules; or people that are forced by military power.
I also define three types of subjects: “Happy” subjects that (mostly) agree with their government, “unhappy” subjects, that can’t figure out how to make their government better (or who think it is too much of a hassle to either change or abolish it), and the oppressed people, who do not act out of fear of being imprisoned, tortured, or even killed if they speak up.
There is no question I think that the last one is a bad thing. There can be no just government when you can’t change the government by peaceful means.
The Libertarian Error, Created by Omission
The troubles I have with libertarians start when they say “But that is true of every government. If you don’t pay taxes, you are forced by gunpoint to pay them.”
Which is simply not true - at least in real democracies.
Your Choice!
In real democracies you always have the option to no longer be a subject of the government, and as such you don’t need to pay those taxes. You can always leave, most people just don’t do it because it is too much of a hassle.
This is often rebuked as “the old jungle argument” and declared invalid, but hell, it is true!
You are living in a society, and every society has rules. The ideological libertarian society is “there is only private property and you cannot force anybody”. But you are not living in this society. You are living in a society that basically says:
1.) You are living in a certain area, where this society rules. 2.) You benefit from the society. 3.) You do your duties towards the society (or face the consequences).
4.) Those three come in a package. Either all of them or none.
It is up to you to either agree with that society or to or use all your options to change the rules of the society you live in. And all options does include your choice of changing the society you belong to to a different one. (Which gives you an advantage, since one rule of today’s democratic societies is that the societies cannot change your belonging to a society without your consent.)
If you don’t go for that choice (“going into the jungle”), then you aren’t using all available choices. If you aren’t using all your (morally good) choices, then you are implicitly agreeing to the society you live in and have to abide the rules (with the restriction above, that you could change the rules peacefully).
Or to use more libertarian lingo: You are in a contract with a society by being born in it. But it is opt-out. You are free to leave that contract at any time after you grow up to be mentally able to. If you don’t cancel the contract, you of course have to uphold it’s terms (like paying taxes).
Government is not the same as State
But while it was interesting to show where the difference between my views and the libertarians may be, this is only a sidequest. The main part is here: There are governments without any guns (or swords or whatever weapons), and people still pay their “taxes”, albeit I prefer the more general term of duty, since the payment can differ widely. Those governments may also be without written bureaucracy or laws and may only govern a part of your life.
There are countless examples. I will give you two.
Quanats
The first is actually a whole assortment of a certain type of water system: the Quanat.
Quanats (who come in dozens of names depending on where they are build) are old water distribution systems. Old in this case often means several millenia. The oldest examples are thought to be 4500 years old. Tens of thousands are still in use today.
Quanats are trenches dug into stone to gather spring water and distribute it to the inhabitants of nearby villages or towns and to their fields. The network of each Quanat can easily reach more then a dozen kilometers.
As you can imagine, digging into even soft stone just with muscle power is a very demanding task, even more so if done in the heat of the desert or while crouching inside a mountain.
It is a project that takes many people many years to complete. On the upside a Quanat is nearly indestructible. Even if an earthquakes manages to damage a Quanat, or there was intentional damaging, repairs are often easy (at least compared to creating it).
The maintenance is also quite forward and not that expensive: in most cases you just have to free the channels from anything that may have grown in it. This can easily be done by a few days of labor a year. The system itself works by gravity, no fuel or machinery is needed except a few shutters.
But if you think some big government send in thousands of slaves to build those things – nope. Generally the Quanats where built, maintained and managed by the locals.
Generally the village members would discuss how much water each had to use, based for example and size and location of their field.
They would elect a “water master” who was responsible for the oversight of the Quanat system and the distribution of water. He had to made sure that not one got more then his share and everyone could get the share they were allowed. If necessary he would organize repairs of the system. His word (if he spoke of water) was law. If people didn’t obey, they could lose water rights.
Wait a sec… doesn’t that sound like:
- the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.
To use my own definition above:
A government is an institution, represented by one person or a group of people, that enforce the observation of rules by their subjects (in at least one important part of living).
Since the water master most likely was an old man armed only with a walking stick, he surely could not force a determined family from stealing water.
What prevented such a theft was the knowledge that everyone was depended on everyone else in their society. And if someone did not obey the rules (or uphold their part of the contract, in libertarian lingo) the society would stop upholding their part too, maybe even expel the criminal from the society.
Still, there was no armed force extracting the tax of repair work for the Quanat. Mostly people just did it because it was the obvious best choice for everyone.
Ökodorf Sieben Linden
Sieben Linden is an ecovillage, currently with about 150 people. Think of left-alternatives that get high on sustainability and you haven’t got it wronger then most people.
There is no special reason why I chose this village, it is just something relatively close to where I live. If you are interested, I can write an article about it.
Anyway, what interests us is the government of the village. They describe their basic principle as follows:
We are looking for people who want to develop their individuality in the community, i. e. who are looking for their own area of responsibility within which they can decide, shape, develop and realize themselves.
How do they do that?
They have monthly plenums where they discuss everything that has to be discussed. The decisions of the plenum can be vetoed by a single person (the next plenum can overrule vetos).
They also use councils. Those are the people that do the day-to-day organizing, for example there is a council for food and one for building. Council members are elected and against their decision no single person veto is possible.
Does that sound like something you know? Those councils are nothing else then elected representatives, with the only difference to your senator (or whatever they are called in your country) that their election cycle is faster and their electorate a lot smaller. Those councils are a government, even in the most conservative sense.
And of course they have no guns.
What do you think? Are those examples governments for you or do you only count systems with presidents, borders, army and so on that make a current day state?
This article is part of a series about (self-)government and commons that I had in mind for a longer time and now have given up trying to get it into a structures series. There are just too many connections, and every time I tried to get a “starting article” there was at least one thing I had to explain first.
Instead I will post “spotlight” articles and only post references some times. I may also use parts of the articles (for example the Quanats) for split-offs. If you are interested in reading more about a certain topic, just tell me ;)
Uh, interesting post sir, but may I have just one question please? What exactly is a leftist?
Haha, that is a good question! Mostly because the answer is different from country to country ;)
It is simply the "left" and "right" of the political sides.
Historically they were just where the political parties sat in the parliaments.
Today it is a hilariously imprecise method to differentiate between political sides that could be described as "collectivistic", left, and "individualistic", right, with "communists" on the left extreme and "Nazis" on the right extreme.
I myself, if pressed, would describe myself as left liberal, which in itself is for most people on the right an impossibility, at least in the US.
individualist anarchists are closer to social anarchists. Market anarchists are to the right of them, and they aren't even right wing
Is there a reason you muted and unfollowed me before writing this comment?? (In case you read it somewhere else)
is there a reason it matters
Yes, for me it matters. Because I don't think I have done something "wrong" to you. If I did it, then I want to know it.
Second, when I write something about commons and someone who has commons in their profile "kicks" me out, then this is strange. And I am always curious if I find something strange.
Wow, that reply is very educational sir, I can see that you are so into politics. Thank you for your response!
"Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society." .. that says it all right there ... libertarians imho are like teenagers who are rebelling against their fathers and imagine it is possible to live with unlimited freedom if they could just escape the yoke of "government" .. they are obsessed then in a sense with power dynamics and blame and they need the father/enemy to rebel against. Given actual freedom, they often build relationships which reflect a sadomasochistic dynamic because they are obsessed with power. Look at Ayn Rand.
Crypto spaces attract libertarians and at Steemit they are handsomely rewarded. Look at that Adam Kokesh guy, or TJ Kirk and his manosphere ramblings. They are raking it in. I need to blog about it I guess because it bugs me, but thats how it goes in cryptospace.
Libertarians constantly criticize but ultimately need that enemy because without the boogeyman they have to finally look in the mirror, stop blaming others for problems in the world and actually start doing the hard work to make the world a better place, which is done collectively.
Haha, I wouldn't put it that way. But yes, I often have the impression they imagine a world where they are alone and airports build themselves without anybody being against it.
Oof, that was a long read! But a good one. I think I am of a similar viewpoint as you. I think (as in all things) that balance is the best way.
It is never as simple as left vs right, government vs individuals. It can be handy to define things in these terms to win a political debating game, but it is not the way to create working systems. Of course there are advantages and disadvantages and everyone has a different idea of what an equitable balance is.
I think the lies in the fact that most of our policy makers focus more on a debating win, rather than a vision. That said, great business can also lead to great disasters.
Sorry for the rambling, trying to tend to kids at the same time.
You got a 2.47% upvote from @buildawhale courtesy of @lennstar!
If you believe this post is spam or abuse, please report it to our Discord #abuse channel.
If you want to support our Curation Digest or our Spam & Abuse prevention efforts, please vote @themarkymark as witness.
"To use my own definition above:
A government is an institution, represented by one person or a group of people, that enforce the observation of rules by their subjects (in at least one important part of living)."
How is that not a State Apparatus?
Anything that wields and enforces political power is a state, big or small. you even use the word 'enforce' in your definition.
More specifically, anything 'government' under the current system of social relations we have, through private property and capital will be a state.
The only way towards a stateless society is through abolishing class, which requires abolishing the relations that give rise to classes.
A state has a territory where it has the highest rights. A state is able to defense it's territory against an attacker with military power. To name just 2 parts of the definition of a state that a government does not need to fulfill to be a state.
a government governs a specific place (territory). it governs people who live in a place (territory).
a government governs a people. these people live somewhere. a government that doesn't govern is not a government.
whether or not it defends itself is up to its own decision and I think besides the point.
if a 'gov' or 'cat' or whatever you want to call it, is enforcing political power of a class, its either a state or an extremity of one. Government is the method of state maintenance.