I've been reading Hobbes, Rawls and Chomsky and trying to decide if a strong, central government is necessary for the proper functioning of a society. What do you guys think? I think that it is necessary.

communism is good, however, monarchy is also a wounderful form of servitude.

This would take a long time to thoughtfully put into words, and take more energy than I have right now, but I passionately believe a central government is NOT necessary.

NerblyBear wrote:I've been reading Hobbes, Rawls and Chomsky and trying to decide if a strong, central government is necessary for the proper functioning of a society. What do you guys think? I think that it is necessary.

Depends on the society.

Depends on what you mean by strong.

Depends on what you mean by central.

Depends on what you mean by proper functioning.

And, even if you clarify all that, the practice of government seems to end up quite a bit different (usually worse or at least much less efficient) than what had been imagined by the theory underlying it.

Tough question. We could go on and on and on and on and............

Nihilism.

I kid. I kid.

Anarcho-syndicalism. Participatory Economics.

bob...where you at dogg?

nihil wrote:...Anarcho-syndicalism.

I don't mean to argue, but why would taking over the means of production (i.e. placing it in the hands of the workers) be the right way of doing things? Shouldn't labor be abolished instead? Anarcho-syndicalism would end up perpetuating the very thing they're fighting against.

As far as I can tell, Participatory Economics is the only serious alternative to the present system. Even though there is a very remote possibility that this idea will see the light of day, it still remains the best possible alternative.

How could labor possibly be abolished? That makes no sense. Anarcho-syndicalism is an interesting theory, but I distrust its claim that bunches of independent enclaves of power will get along and keep from fighting wars with one another. I think that the history of Ancient Greece provides a good example that this would not be the case.

Chomsky, et. al. idealize a society in which everyone would get along and there would be no institutions or exploitative power structures, but I simply don't see this as practically achievable, at least not in my lifetime. Maybe this could be conceivable if, as the anarchists insist must occur, we change the direction of technological growth so that it eradicates the need for workplace heirarchies.

But let's not worry too much about economics and let's just focus on the philosophical justifications of state power, at least for now.

I think you need one sovereign government that has control of military resources and its subjects' revenue. It's the only way I can think of to prevent encroachments from neighboring attackers.

I'm a liberal federalist, which basically means that I think the government should be unlimited in certain respects and limited in other respects.