Re:Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says
by vidarh on Wednesday December 05, 2012 @04:39PM
(#4878743)
This might be an interesting argument from the point of view of pure philosophy or ideology, but it is a pointless argument when discussing practical politics. It does not matter which is the primary means of providing social order.
It is particularly pointless because "being a government" is not an interesting measure outside of the realms of philosophy and ideology. There are very many governments that would have done the world a great service by ceasing to "be a government".
Personally, I'd argue that a government that provides no welfare are often a net negative - many of the early nation states saw enormous societal harm resulting from law enforcement and military being used as a bulwark against the effects of the lack of working welfare systems.
E.g. I'm from Norway. A large proportion of the Norwegian emigrants who settled in the US (like the Irish) came during periods of extreme poverty and often starvation in Norway (Norway didn't become wealthy really until oil finds in the 60's, and until at least the 20's it was really a quite poor country). Poor people could get forcibly put to work in poor-houses, as they were in many other countries. Yet the state at the time used the police to restrict emigration:
You needed permission, or you could get thrown in jail for trying to leave. It was seen as essential in order to provide social order. As it was in many other countries.
> Here is how I support my claim that police and military are the primary means of providing social order. Can our government exist without welfare? It has. Can it exist without the public school system?
Can it exist without government run police? Many governments have historically largely deferred policing to volunteers (UK for example, where volunteers still have a role in policing). Without military? There are examples of that too - the modern nation state with standing armies is a relatively new invention and prior to that at least some societies had what amounted to functioning governments without military or police - Iceland, for example, which had a functioning parliament and established laws and court system for hundreds of years before it got a government run police and military.
While the nature of a government that is not a monopoly provider of violence and force is by necessity very different, that does not mean they can not exist.
It is particularly pointless because "being a government" is not an interesting measure outside of the realms of philosophy and ideology. There are very many governments that would have done the world a great service by ceasing to "be a government".
Personally, I'd argue that a government that provides no welfare are often a net negative - many of the early nation states saw enormous societal harm resulting from law enforcement and military being used as a bulwark against the effects of the lack of working welfare systems.
E.g. I'm from Norway. A large proportion of the Norwegian emigrants who settled in the US (like the Irish) came during periods of extreme poverty and often starvation in Norway (Norway didn't become wealthy really until oil finds in the 60's, and until at least the 20's it was really a quite poor country). Poor people could get forcibly put to work in poor-houses, as they were in many other countries. Yet the state at the time used the police to restrict emigration:
You needed permission, or you could get thrown in jail for trying to leave. It was seen as essential in order to provide social order. As it was in many other countries.
> Here is how I support my claim that police and military are the primary means of providing social order. Can our government exist without welfare? It has. Can it exist without the public school system?
Can it exist without government run police? Many governments have historically largely deferred policing to volunteers (UK for example, where volunteers still have a role in policing). Without military? There are examples of that too - the modern nation state with standing armies is a relatively new invention and prior to that at least some societies had what amounted to functioning governments without military or police - Iceland, for example, which had a functioning parliament and established laws and court system for hundreds of years before it got a government run police and military.
While the nature of a government that is not a monopoly provider of violence and force is by necessity very different, that does not mean they can not exist.