So, in a society completely without government, what stops warlords?

[Riddler]

Dude, didn't you know that Congo is the same as the US?  The governments are both governments, they are the same!
[/quote]

nigga please
fuckers don't even have indoor fucking plumbing

[BobRobertson]

So, lemme get this straight. Since you lump every government system, and nonsystem together they are all equally invalid. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Ancient Mongolia, East Germany, and Revolution era America.

Interesting the things that are conveniently added to what I've said to make my point easy to dismiss.

What makes a "non-government system"? Lack of legitimacy to initiate force. I most certainly did not lump those things together at all.

Without the sheen of legitimacy, a "warlord" cannot survive. No gang can be bigger than the group it oppresses. They rely upon fear of overwhelming violent repercussion to keep the masses in line.

Every time the sheen of legitimacy falls away, the government falls away. Look at the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland. Perfect recent examples. No bigger gang came in and overthrew the previous gang, the existing government merely lost the support of its people.

Sadly, just as with the break-away English colonies in North America, the people remained complacent that there had to be an institution with the monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force. So today Putin rules just as every Czar did before regardless of what "system" they called it.

This, they are all different societies and as such have different sorts of governments.

I might as well quote myself again, since it seems that few people read what I write the first time:

I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.

Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.

Society is NOT government. Governments are the same, societies differ.

Oh, sure, the styles have different names, "President" rather than "Prime Minister", "Emperor" instead of "King", but all get their power the same way: They extract their sustenance through force, and keep that supply of wealth flowing through the threat of overwhelming violence.

So if it matters to you what you call your master, you are welcome to, how was it put, "move to Cuba".

I don't give a shit what label is sewn into the Velvet Glove so long as the Iron Fist remains.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Except that governments are influenced by societies.

And if you want to stop paying taxes, it's very simple: stop using the government's coin. If all you care about is "taxes taxes taxes," fine, be that way. Governments in Europe seem to have done a very good job with redistributing wealth anyhow, and I'd feel more comfortable living in say, Denmark and having a social safety net and living in America hanging by a thread.

Which sorts of gets us sort of far away from the initial point of this thread, but eh.

[digitalfour]

What makes you think that voluntarily funded bands of people can't outcompete warlords?

[BobRobertson]

And if you want to stop paying taxes, it's very simple: stop using the government's coin.

Which ignores the simple fact that governments pre-exist coinage. That's why I didn't say anyting about coin, or monetary taxation. Really, I do wish you would read what I write.

Governments in Europe seem to have done a very good job with redistributing wealth anyhow, and I'd feel more comfortable living in say, Denmark and having a social safety net and living in America hanging by a thread.

Don't let the screen door hit you on your way out.

Which sorts of gets us sort of far away from the initial point of this thread, but eh.

I think it's a logical progression from your unshakable belief that without coercive government there would be...coercive government. New name, maybe new faces, same coercion, and you've been saying it over and over.

If you're going to rationalize a "need" for coercive government, it is perfectly logical to rationalize that somehow it's going to be done right this time, and to look to those places and times in which your opinion of "good" seemed to be promoted.

You believe in a "social safety net", so the welfare states of Europe seem to work for you. Someone else might believe that "merchantilism" would be benefiting their business, so they would be all for the British Navy and other "gunboat diplomacy" methods, while another person may very well fantasize about how wonderful having the East German Secret Police available to solve crimes would be.

My problem is coercion. So long as a system depends upon coercion, it is invalid, destructive, inefficient. The few benefit (focusing the benefits) while everyone else is made poorer (distributing the costs).

But that goes right back to what I said at the beginning, and the quote from paragraph 2 of "Wouldn't the Warlords Take Over?".

I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong for preferring the welfare state of Denmark over subsistence dirt-farming somewhere without a central government. I'd prefer it too, because I'm a lousy farmer, and I'd rather live than die.

What I am saying is that your rationalization is wrong. For any given society, the imposition of a central government only makes things worse. Northern Europe is not wealthy because of socialism. Socialism hasn't entirely wrecked them, yet, because they haven't yet used up all their wealth.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Something seems to be working in the "socialist" countries. They have much higher GDPs than the United States does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Of course, we also have the list of richest countries by per capital GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

The USA is pretty high on the IMF and World Bank lists, with Norway above it. Funny, isn't Norway a welfare state?

And also, you have this strange story here that Denmark is the happiest country in the world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-is-the-worlds-happiest-country--official-410075.html

Of course, you also have the list of countries the most economic freedom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

Naturally enough the USA is high on that list, and oddly enough Denmark is high on that list as well.

While I'm posting Wikipedia links, here are two good articles about how governments can be different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States

Human rights in the two countries were fundamentally different, and that is one way how you can tell if a government is, indeed, a warlord state: by the way it treats the majority of its citizens.

[BobRobertson]

Something seems to be working in the "socialist" countries. They have much higher GDPs than the United States does.

What's holding you back? Go! Do yourself a favor and go where you'll be happy.

Human rights in the two countries were fundamentally different, and that is one way how you can tell if a government is, indeed, a warlord state: by the way it treats the majority of its citizens.

All governments subsist by forcibly extracting wealth from their "citizens". In that way they are exactly the same.

And if you can show me how I said that the societies were the same, I'd love to see it. Please stop with the straw-man and red herrings.

9oops, I hate it when i get the brackets wrong...0

[TimeLady Victorious]

Except that isn't the same and the two countries' systems of law do not work in the same way.

Believe me, I'd emigrate to Denmark if I could.

[Rillion]

Except that isn't the same and the two countries' systems of law do not work in the same way.

Believe me, I'd emigrate to Denmark if I could.

Really?  Why Denmark, of all places?  I mean, it's pretty and the people are nice, but it's one of the most expensive places in the world to live and all of the shops are shut on Sunday. 

[TimeLady Victorious]

Except that isn't the same and the two countries' systems of law do not work in the same way.

Believe me, I'd emigrate to Denmark if I could.

Really?  Why Denmark, of all places?  I mean, it's pretty and the people are nice, but it's one of the most expensive places in the world to live and all of the shops are shut on Sunday. 

I was mostly just using that as a fill-in country for "socialist European state."

Sweden or Norway actually appeal to me more.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Something seems to be working in the "socialist" countries. They have much higher GDPs than the United States does.

No, they don't!

Not even close.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Something seems to be working in the "socialist" countries. They have much higher GDPs than the United States does.

No, they don't!

Not even close.

If I actually get something tangible out of paying taxes then I see that as a good thing.

Then again, there's also the famous case of Ingmar Bergman, who was taxed on 110% of his income.

Yeah...

[AL the Inconspicuous]

You get mob-controlled government services (SlaveCare) that are about to be stretched to the limit as the population pyramid slowly inverts itself and the residual assets from those countries' less socialist days begin to run out.

[BobRobertson]

If I actually get something tangible out of paying taxes then I see that as a good thing.

The problem with taxes being that, like it or not, they take it anyway.

Then again, there's also the famous case of Ingmar Bergman, who was taxed on 110% of his income.

Not to worry, as more wealth is destroyed, it will reach that point for everyone eventually.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

So, lemme get this straight. Since you lump every government system, and nonsystem together they are all equally invalid. As such, there is no fundamental difference between Ancient Mongolia, East Germany, and Revolution era America.

Interesting the things that are conveniently added to what I've said to make my point easy to dismiss.

What makes a "non-government system"? Lack of legitimacy to initiate force. I most certainly did not lump those things together at all.

Without the sheen of legitimacy, a "warlord" cannot survive. No gang can be bigger than the group it oppresses. They rely upon fear of overwhelming violent repercussion to keep the masses in line.

Every time the sheen of legitimacy falls away, the government falls away. Look at the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland. Perfect recent examples. No bigger gang came in and overthrew the previous gang, the existing government merely lost the support of its people.

Sadly, just as with the break-away English colonies in North America, the people remained complacent that there had to be an institution with the monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force. So today Putin rules just as every Czar did before regardless of what "system" they called it.

This, they are all different societies and as such have different sorts of governments.

I might as well quote myself again, since it seems that few people read what I write the first time:

I see no difference what so ever between this gang of self-justified murders and that gang of self-justified murderers.

Both live by taking what they want from peaceful people against their will. Both use overwhelming violence against anyone who has the balls to defend themselves in any way against their predation.

Society is NOT government. Governments are the same, societies differ.

Oh, sure, the styles have different names, "President" rather than "Prime Minister", "Emperor" instead of "King", but all get their power the same way: They extract their sustenance through force, and keep that supply of wealth flowing through the threat of overwhelming violence.

So if it matters to you what you call your master, you are welcome to, how was it put, "move to Cuba".

I don't give a shit what label is sewn into the Velvet Glove so long as the Iron Fist remains.

What I meant by non-government system is a government that technically exists, but doesn't really do anything or is nonfunctional, like Afganistan, or remote parts of Pakistan. I wanted to be all inclusive so you couldn't say "well the government of such-and-such technically exists, but..."

Saying a warlord has legitimacy is like saying a mob has it.

I'll trump your examples with another; British controlled India.