This is a question that I've thought on for quite some time. I'd like some input from members of this forum. If the definition of government is "authority", I know that it all can't be bad. What do y'all say?

I think that governments can be useful for more than just violence, and that if the loopholes in the systems were closed up that made war profitable, and instead, made war financially devastating, you would see alot less war. That has been my biggest beef with government since I was 19 years old. I felt like I was watching my future get spent right before my eyes and there wasn't anything I could do about it except bitch and moan for years on end, which still, didn't really seem to do much in the end. In hindsight, it could be said that it was pretty naive of me to think that multi billionaires are going to see business opportunities to exploit any system, and, just out of the kindness of their heart, do the next right thing anyways. I'm sure some do, otherwise, we'd be in a perpetual state of war everywhere! But it seems to me anyways that most peoples biggest beefs with the government is: 1.) Sending soldiers to the other side of the world with a gun in their hands to kill brown people over there, even using some of the brown people over here to go do it. 2.) The police state imposing themselves on the individual liberty and choices of American adult citizens.

I do see the usefulness of a state or a government, but again, the problem that seems to have been argued so much is how to close those loopholes. More government agencies monitoring those other corrupt agencies meaning bigger government? Or less government agencies meaning fewer people exploiting the system but also fewer people contributing a reputable service to it as well. At this point, I feel like, I don't know what the better path would be. I was a gung-ho Ron Paul supporter, but even that now I'm not REALLY sure who I was supporting all those years. (Thank God I only sent his campaign $20.12... I feel bad for the other people who may have sent his campaign much more). But I've read mixed literature about him and so much so as to have an impact on my judgement about who he is. *shrug*

The bottom line is, I don't know today what system is superior to another. I see obvious flaws and obvious pros in lots of different kinds of systems. It's almost like buying a computer Operating System. There's lots of choices, and every person has an opinion on what works best for them. Some may interpret that as anarchy, leaving the distinction up to the "user". But, this is humanity were talking about, not a computer... So, I really don't know, and honestly, at this point, I don't think any of "us" are making the decisions anymore, if ever. I know the older generations just kinda went with the political flow being their information was limited to a newspaper some poor kid faithfully slung at their doorstep every morning at 4am, and now, that people communicate all over the place, it's easy to see and expose problems that were either hidden before, or, blatant exploitations that no one would have otherwise believed until they saw it via video from youtube. And so with the previous limitations in communication, it's easy to see why peoples opinions were almost channeled down to a concentrated opinion, and the machine seemed to run smoothly, at the expense of others around the world of course. It's also no surprise that the government, or, special interest groups, advocate monitoring and outright dismantling of certain areas of communication so they can regain that ability to channel opinion, eventually.

So, my opinion these days is... I don't know what the difference between the agenda of the government is in relation to the agenda of the special interest groups, are. And I don't know what the agenda of the poor and increasingly hostile agenda is in relation to both of those. The only thing I've accepted at this point is, I'm not the one running the show regardless and there are people far better qualified than myself to make those distinctions and in the proper places to affect things. I go to work, I pay my taxes, and I recognize what is and is not within my control. If they pass a law tomorrow that makes banana-bread the new currency, I'll go pick up some seran wrap instead of a cash register. So long as I keep my focus on MY success, I'm gonna do the best I can until I can't. *shrug* That may or may not help you much but, I spent many years trying to map out and understand what exactly to do to stop the ongoing destruction of the world around me, and at the same time, missed multiple non-violent business opportunities because my emotions took over. And I've withdrawn those from the equation. For me, it's time to get down to business.

If your definition of government is "authority", then I would say authority can be good and it can be bad because it depends on the "authority".

For example, the family government (aka the authority of parents) can be "good" in this case meaning the family is run efficiently that is no waste of "resources" (AKA money and other assets), and the health and welfare of the family members are looked after. The family government can also be "bad": ie the money is wasted and the health and welfare of the family members are neglected or even abused .

To quote a real hero, Benjamin Ricketson Tucker: "If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."

By the common individualist and/or individualist anarchist definition of government saying that "government is bad" is pretty much a tautology. Government is bad always because it is bad by definition.

How can you have good government? I guess in the same way it's possible to have a "good slave master". He can feed you well, take care of you, give you a nice house and make minimal profit off of you - but he is still a slave master!


Oh please. Government is violence. What else can government be for and how can it exist without violence? To quote another great man, Herbert Spencer: "Government is begotten of aggression and by aggression."

Why are we still debating this silly question?

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

Because the OP wanted to know our opinions.

Agreed on all points.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

You do realize that using the family as an example only works well if you see the governed as children and the government as parents, right? It doesn't work so well when referring to adults.

Founding Fathers
Homeland
Big Brother

Government is adults acting like children.

If the will of the group conflicts with the will of the individual, then that group is seen as bad to the individual.

Is grouping always bad? Well, groups might ask if individualism is always bad? Hey, what does a group of individualists look like?

This is a great question - what does a grouping of individualists look like indeed? Well there have been some answers to this question already, but really it's just something that is more or less indescribable because it must invariably change and adapt over time to suit the needs of individuals.

In a sense we just have to stick to the rule of everyone minding their own business. Or, as Emile Armand put it: Liberty of solitude and liberty of company!

Because individualists are essentially people who agree one thing, that they are not bound to agree on anything else, there can be no real concrete vision of a "group of individualists" beyond just a numerical concept.

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

i know it is taboo to quote a monetarist like milton, but just because he was not an anarchist like rothbard, does not mean he is without merit.

milton always conjectrue that we are not "social beings" that meaning that people dont look out for the welfare of others before their own. he did conjecture that we are family beings, that we often care more for our families than our own being. this works for any social group more so than libertarians, as libertarians (self described) tend to have the least empathy for others.

back to the point: your analogy of society being like a family does work in small case studies call family units or communes, but once the population of the family or commune gets large enough the single vision breaks down and splinters into groups and individuals who do and do not support the social vision as set forth from family patriarch or commune organizer.

you will never have a government for the people as long as the people disagree, once that happens you will have the looties and lootors and an expanding government to divide and control all.

if you want an historical example see the US house of reps before 1911 when each rep repped 30 something thousand people vs. how they act now that each one reps millions of people. when you only need what marketers call "the super market vote" or name recognition, you are beholden to no one but your own weaknesses.

that is why ron paul was so special, he did not corrupt over 30 years in office.

Darwinist, I find you very offensive (J/K I just like quoting one of my favorite AVTM videos, interview with a Romney supporter.) But it does seem that you're trying to shut up reasonable discussion just like those that use being offended to silence others' views; you're just using a different tactic.
I'm honestly working through my own beliefs about these things and like to be challenged on what I believe. If I'm wrong, I want to change. And if I'm right, I'll be made stronger by opposition. I'd like some evidence behind what you say or at least some examples that aggression is the root of all governments or that outside authority is always tyrannical. I definitely believe that an individual has natural rights (freedom) and yet I also believe that the concept of natural rights necessitates natural law. Natural law would include a chain of authority in certain arenas. For example, if you work a job, you've submitted yourself to an authority that is not necessarily tyrannical or aggressive. Yes, if you don't like authority you can leave (freedom of choice) and yet without that authority, the business would not grow and probably be chaotic. You have to have authority/governments in some areas for life to flow.

Yes, I am doing this in the same way in which pacifists "shut up the 'reasonable' discussion" about waging war against other countries. By proving that all war is evil (just like all government is evil).


Modern governments/states were founded on aggression. For an explanation in the form of a parable read Rothbard's essay A Fable for Our Times. It is essentially an accurate portrait (most sociologists and anthropologists agree) of the founding of what today we call 'the state'.


Your definitions are not ones that any individualist or Rothbardian would use (or that I would use). In the sense you are using the words 'government' and 'authority' these same words are used by anarchist communists - people who want to abolish private property ownership because they consider boss-worker relations to be authoritarian. Among individualist anarchists there is no consensus on this issue, many consider capitalists as tyrants (Libertad, Armand, Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner) while others do not - this is mainly the Rothbard-Hoppe modern strain called anarcho-capitalism. All individualists do agree, however, that government/state is wrong because it is not voluntary and therefore inherently oppressive.
I really don't see how you can have a government which is voluntary. Do you mean voluntary slavery? I think that's what it would amount to. Government imposes taxes and laws on me against my will, therefore it is tyrannical by definition. Once it stops imposing taxes and laws on me it ceases to exist - it is no longer government. My relationship with my employer in the free market is not "authority" or "government", it is a voluntary contract which I should be free to leave at any given moment when it no longer pleases me. Furthermore, most employers and so-called "capitalists" in the world today are illegitimate and have no right to their property, ergo they should not be treated as equal partners but as oppressors. This is true for all big corporations, but also for many other businesses.

You will really have to enlighten me as to what a voluntary government would look like...? Voluntary government is like voluntary slavery - an oxymoron.

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

Government without enforcement. Voluntary leadership and institutions. Organization can exist without coercion and violence, and organization/leadership is a form of government.

The State, on the other hand (different from generalised "government") is AUTHORITY that is anchored into place by force and violence (police, military, prisons, oppression, war) in order to create the divisions and protections that people desire. It is a result of the false belief that people must be forced to do good.

In other words, "government" is much more general than "State". The State is a very clearly defined apparatus of control put into place with force and violence. Government can take many forms, including voluntary organization. The State is a form of government, but government does not always necessitate a State.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

The idea of government is neither good nor evil when left in the abstract. I see a government as a necessity for the truly slave-minded average person that doesn't wish to "think too much" on bigger issues and would rather only manage the day by day aspect of their lives while letting the government focus on the "bigger picture" for them. Unfortunately for freedom loving individuals, the government overstepped its necessity and made all people into their slaves essentially. Nowadays with taxes, medicare and social security, anyone not working off the books is forced to participate in the government's "trust us we'll save retirement money for you" plan. Sidenote: anyone ever find it ironic how schools, colleges, and most churches teach us to be good sheeple, trust government and pay taxes when most schools, colleges, and churches pay no income or sales tax on goods bought at all? Makes a lot of motherfuckin sense.

A government is not evil, but the power void left setting one up leads to evil in the hearts of men. Sadly most politicians are evil. Why? Because they worship themselves and their "ilk" while giving two shits about their non-private-dinner-attending constituency members. Also, they sought power over others and dedicated time away from their families (usually most politicians have families) to do it.

Ergo, we must get rid of the government because it is always used for evil. Or, as Elrond would have told us if we went to his council: "We cannot use the Ruling Ring. That we now know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil."


I did quote Benjamin Tucker's definition of government before in this thread: "If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."
Government without enforcement is not government, it is advice. If I tell you what you should do and you do it of your own will, in what way am I "governing you"? I'm just giving you advice which you follow. Government implies enforcement because the word is meaningless without the concept of enforcement.

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

gov·ern·ment
noun /ˈgəvər(n)mənt
1. The governing body of a nation, state, or community
2. The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed

With that definition taken literally with no modern connotation applied to it, I'm not sure I agree that a Stateless society would be without governance, systems of organization. Communities (at the very least, some) will still have leaders, structure, rules not enforced with violence (but by the free market of public opinion, for instance). These aspects of organization and structure create a governing system--a method in which the community operates that "governs" (WITHOUT force) the way people in that community interact with each other. I believe you can have a systematic form of community governance by voluntary consent.

That's the way that I'm attempting to make the distinction, at least. But that adopts sort of an objective, neutralized definition of the word. Of course, if we're using the modern connotation of the term "government" (which I'm instead using "State" as the applicable terminology), then I wholly agree with you.

Perhaps it's getting into semantics. I guess what I'm getting at is making a distinction between structure and organization by voluntary consent, and structure and organization by force and violence--regardless of which terms we choose to apply to either respective concept. If your argument is that structure and organization itself cannot exist without enforcement, then how do you envision the functioning of a Stateless society? A free market could even be considered a system of governance, where quality of product "governs" action.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

I guess if you have such a broad definition of government then anything can be called government and the word becomes sort of useless. But that's just my opinion.

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

It's a fair one. Words can be very subjective, I guess. Important thing is, I think we agree on essential principles.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

Darwinist, Thanks for sharing with me the story "A Fable for Our Times". I'd find it very comical if it weren't so true. But I find that the premise of the entire story is just not true. "Once Upon a Time there was a peaceful valley. The people were happy in this valley; they worked, they traded, and they laughed together. No man exerted force upon his neighbor, and all lived and prospered." (BTW, I don't believe in the force of gov't just b/c there has never been a people as described)

Now to enlighten you to what a voluntary gov't would look like:

Because I believe the broad definition of “government” as authority and that it isn’t always “bad”, I also believe that state governments can work on a voluntary level. I’ll give an example. In history, around 1200 BC, there lived a people group in the Middle East. They had certain religious laws and traditions that were supposed to be adhered to among the group, but on a national/state level they were free. They were free to live as they pleased without government intervention.

How their voluntary government worked was as follows:

If I thought you had murdered my mother, I could get revenge by seeking you out and killing you. No trial, no questioning, nothing. But if I were wrong (or right) and your brother came after me, he could kill me. That was the total freedom involved.

So as not to take away freedom and yet provide protection for the innocent, the tribal people consented together to build walled cities that you could go to if someone were trying to get revenge toward you. By entering the city voluntarily, you were offered protection, but you were also submitting to the government of that city. It mostly worked properly because the men acting as the “rulers” were appointed by the people from every family in each tribe, and by what I read, were not given any compensation.

If you went into the city and I followed and went to the governors within (I also going voluntarily, thus agreeing to their terms) and said that I believed you’d murdered my mother, you would be put on trial (Remember, you had voluntarily entered and agreed to their terms in return for protection. You could also leave at any time if you chose to remove yourself from that protection, never forced to stay.) Both you and I would have family members on the counsel amongst others, so it almost always assured justice.

If you were found undeniably guilty, you’d be given over to me so I could put you to death. If you were found not guilty, you could leave the city and go home, and I couldn’t pursue you any longer. If I killed you anyway once you left the city, at that point, the government of that city could track me down and put me to death for murder because I had already voluntarily submitted to their terms.

Outside that, the gov’t did not intervene in people’s affairs: buying and selling, consumption of substances, property, etc. The people were free. So free that one man actually gave his concubine to men to be gang-raped and when it killed her, he cut her into pieces and sent her to all of the surrounding villages. The men or husband weren’t “prosecuted” because apparently no one cared to avenge the blood of the woman and the gov’t only intervened when asked to do so. Another man murdered all 70 of his brothers (the tribes practiced polygamy) and since no one wanted revenge, he remained free.

You may wonder what happened to the people. They ended up wanting a king. They were warned that a king would tax, and take their land and children for his own service, but they wanted to be like the surrounding nations. So they appointed themselves a king and he did exactly as they were warned he would do.

But even if they hadn’t put a king over themselves, I think they would have destroyed themselves. To be so free that murder goes unpunished because no one cares, sin would eventually destroy the people. (Don’t think I’m saying we should legislate morality; it obviously doesn’t help.) I’m saying that a free individual has to want to do right and to convince others to do right to remain free. What we need are changed hearts, because (look around) who honestly wants to always do good?

Without voluntarily doing good, no person or community will be free. I think we have a real problem, don’t you?

Very well put.

Of course Rothbard's essay is an exaggeration, but it is just silly to say there have never been such people! Not only were there such people - here anarcho-primitivists got one thing right - but there are also such people today. I am such a person. Families and communities are such structures. When in your life does government or authority really play a role? I would suggest that even in today's government-dominated world, the everyday role of government in our lives is marginal.


This quote (and pretty much the rest of your post) is a good attempt at justifying the state via social contract, you could have taken it right out of John Locke's Treatise of Government. People will, and according to you it is good for them to, cede their freedom and private property to be controlled by the community (presumably through democracy or oligarchy or god knows what).


And in the end you prove that you are also a do-gooder. Do good to others, that is above all, even freedom! Fiat justitia ruat caelum! Freedom is secondary! In fact people who want too much freedom are doomed to die out!


This is what liberals say, what conservatives say, what communists say, and pretty much what everyone else says. Do you just want a different version of what everybody else wants (the state)? The real question then becomes: What of the people who do not want to voluntarily do good? I much prefer Benjamin Tucker's and John Henry Mackay's vision: everyone mind your own business. Is this what you mean by "doing good"?

I hope you take some time and reflect on your views a bit more. It seems all you are doing is whitewashing the social contract argument for the creation of the state by using voluntaryist language to establish it (as did John Locke).

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

Darwinist, you say:
"Of course Rothbard's essay is an exaggeration, but it is just silly to say there have never been such people! Not only were there such people - here anarcho-primitivists got one thing right - but there are also such people today. I am such a person. Families and communities are such structures. When in your life does government or authority really play a role? I would suggest that even in today's government-dominated world, the everyday role of government in our lives is marginal."

I don’t find the story an exaggeration at all. It just makes what’s going on very plain by putting it into very blunt words. By saying that there has never been such a society, I didn’t mean among individuals, communities or families (so I may have misunderstood him here). I said it wasn’t true that “no man exerted force upon his neighbor” because even in Rothbard’s fable, Hector exerts force. Hector is a man, just like his “neighbors” in the valley.

"This quote (and pretty much the rest of your post) is a good attempt at justifying the state via social contract, you could have taken it right out of John Locke's Treatise of Government. People will, and according to you it is good for them to, cede their freedom and private property to be controlled by the community (presumably through democracy or oligarchy or god knows what)."

Pardon my ignorance, but I’ve never read John Locke. I never said that the people gave up their private property, they didn‘t. Nor did I say that giving up freedoms was good for anyone; I merely said that the people had a choice to enter the city. They weighed the risks and chose what seemed best to them. And they weren’t forced to stay in the city once they entered.
BTW, You haven’t answered how this voluntary government wouldn’t work or why it would be wrong, accept that it disagrees with your philosophy (or perhaps chafes your pride.)


"And in the end you prove that you are also a do-gooder. Do good to others, that is above all, even freedom! Fiat justitia ruat caelum! Freedom is secondary! In fact people who want too much freedom are doomed to die out! "

I’m not sure what you mean by a do-gooder… do you mean I believe in the “golden rule”? If so, yes I am a “do-gooder”.
As ignorant as I am, I’m not as ignorant as you seem to be on human behavior (or could it be stupidity, denial or lunacy). Look around--look at preachers, politicians, police officers, and pimps. You’d have to be a fool to say people aren’t wicked. And it’s not just because they intrude into other people’s affairs. It’s because they’re hypocrites, prideful, liars, and abusers, among a dozen other things.
Do you put freedom above all? What happens when someone wants to be free to rape and murder your daughter? Or when someone wants to be free to steal from you? Or as Hector wanted, the freedom to live off of others’ slave labor. Yes, I believe they have the freedom of choice to do those things, but I also believe in natural law (consequences.) Your natural rights end where someone else’s begins. Free will, natural rights, liberty, natural law, and consequences--they go hand in hand. (BTW, What does “Fiat justitia ruat caelum” mean?)

"This is what liberals say, what conservatives say, what communists say, and pretty much what everyone else says. Do you just want a different version of what everybody else wants (the state)? The real question then becomes: What of the people who do not want to voluntarily do good? I much prefer Benjamin Tucker's and John Henry Mackay's vision: everyone mind your own business. Is this what you mean by "doing good"?"

I’d love for everyone to mind their own business; but just b/c you and I mind our own business along with 90% of the population, there are the 10% that want to control (these are arbitrary numbers, I’m only trying to make a point) and you’re not gonna change that.

"I hope you take some time and reflect on your views a bit more. It seems all you are doing is whitewashing the social contract argument for the creation of the state by using voluntaryist language to establish it (as did John Locke)."

That is why I posted in the first place. I have to say I am very ignorant of the people you mentioned and the philosophies you have a name for. (Just so you know, it would be impossible for me to “whitewash” something that I’ve never heard of.) If you have a good general overview of what you believe and how it would work practically, I’d like to read it. (I understand that your philosophy is “Everyone should mind their own business” and I agree, but that’s obviously never happenin') I don’t have time to read long dissertations on a dozen different views of libertarian philosophy, but I’d like to read a condensed version of what you believe.

As unlearned as I may be in many areas, there are some things that I’m sure of, “free will“ being one of those. I’m a libertarian, not b/c I’ve read literature by various authors that convinced me of it. I’ve held this belief from childhood and I don’t ever remember hearing the names “Rothbard” or “Ayn Rand” until about six months ago. I couldn’t name a third even if I wanted to. (I’ve got better things to do with my time than to read endless philosophies.) I believe in free will because common sense tells me it‘s true. I get my logic from God (as do you, whether you believe in Him or not). God is a libertarian, so we are all libertarians because we’re made in the image of God. You’d do well to remember that freedom of choice doesn’t mean wrong choices come without natural (or supernatural, for that matter) consequences.

“I hope you take time to reflect on your views a bit more”--Back at ya.

You really must have misunderstood Rothbard. The whole idea of the story was that there was no force and aggression in the valley until Hector showed up. Once he did, there was aggression because Hector is not one of the neighbours but an intruder who robs the valley. The valley is a peaceful community, Hector is the beginning of the state.


A voluntary government could work - to the same extent that voluntary slavery could work. You just sign some of your rights away to the community organization and the state is born. I did not mean that the people entering the city are any worse off than the people who founded the city. The people in the city, once they create their voluntary government, have signed their own death warrants. They have handed over their private freedom to be done with as the collective wishes. I presume the rules of the collective are democratic, or perhaps constitutional or a mix of both. Either way it's a state now and it's impossible to withdraw unless you leave the city (thus leaving your private property behind). Unless, of course, the voluntary government allows for unilateral secession, in which case it's not a government because it has no enforcement powers. After all I could be a happy citizen of the city and then as soon as some law is passed which I don't like, I secede and the city has no more jurisdiction over my property. That would mean there really was never any government in the city - just a completely powerless community organization of some sort. Don't you see that in order for a government to be a government it needs some kind of power to enforce rules? Otherwise how is it a "government" at all?


Again this is John Locke's argument (same as that of the American "Founding Fathers"). Government is instituted among men for their own good and it is rational for them to support their government because it protects them from bad people (who you call the 10%). I think anarchists have long disproved this argument as naive and false - because government always eventually becomes the exploiter. It's much better to just hire some protection agency than to have a government rule over you.


I just hope you stay true to your belief in free will and keep listening to Adam's podcasts! As for the whole idea of God, you will find that it is itself illogical and thus you couldn't have really gotten logic from it. But to each his own - I am more than happy to embrace you as a fellow libertarian no matter what your beliefs about the supernatural are, as long as you keep advocating what you're advocating: liberty and peace.
It would probably do you some good if you actually did read a bit of philosophy though. Whether you like it or not, philosophy is important and it's good to know these things. You are missing out on a lot of knowledge. To say "I’ve got better things to do with my time" is to basically shut the argument down completely. If you have so many better things to do, why are you on a forum discussing philosophy in the first place? That whole comment on the end sounds very condescending to me. I agree with you attitude towards life, but I don't agree with your simplistic and cavalier approach to logic, knowledge, and philosophy.

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

I did understand this part. I was only saying that "the beginning of the state" doesn't just happen. It's instituted by men.


You misunderstand. The people had private property outside the city. They'd choose to enter on a temporary basis for protection. Though they could stay if they liked.


Yes, the people that entered voluntarily gave them that authority/power to make judgments and enforce them.


Don't fear here. I know I'm right about free will, liberty, peace (and God, for that matter). Though my beliefs may develop and grow as I learn, I know I'm right on the basics here. I've been told not to say never, but I'll say it: I'll NEVER reject the idea that we have a free will (from God.) And yes, I plan to keep hearing what Adam has to say, though I don't agree fully with all he says. I like my mind to be stretched.

[/quote]
I knew when I wrote that that you may get the wrong idea. I actually do read quite a lot, but just not 1000-page books to tell me things I already know about (free will) and that seem irrelevant to life. I usually read history, biographies and such that put forth numerous philosophies but will help me in the real world. I guess, sometimes when I ask a question, I'm given half a dozen books that I should read on one subject, and I wanted you to know up front that I'd like to hear your philosophy, but condensed. What I meant by "I've got better things to do with my time" is that too much learning/study/philosophy will make a person go mad and/or be subdued. I like to be informed, but I like to live life, too. I'm free-spirited and don't care to be bogged down.



Hee, hee! I thought of that very thing myself when I wrote it. But a few minutes a day to broaden my knowledge from others' perspectives, well, I found that a good use of my time. This is honestly the first forum I've been on in 10 years (b/c yeah, most of them are a waste of time.) Anyway, good to get to know you from our discussion. Maybe we'll have others like it.

BTW, I may have missed it, but I still haven't gotten your philosophy of "no governments" that could actually happen and be sustained in our world. (By saying "sustained", I'm saying how it would continue to work without men coming in to establish some sort of government. B/c it seems to ALWAYS happen.)