Does This Equal That?

When most people are faced with offering up alternatives to the current governmental system in place most people have not thought of any alternatives.  Many people believe that the system in place in America is the best system possible.  This is not surprising since a majority of these people attended public government schools and private schools which are governed by governments. Why would the government paint a bad picture for itself in schools where they need people to support them? In these private and government public schools children are taught about the founding fathers of America, how these great men drew up the constitution, and how great men of this country fought Gt. Britain to win their freedom.  Students are told of monarchies, dictatorships, communism, socialism and other government forms but are not able to study the philosophical backgrounds of these ideas.  Then students are probably told about the greatness of a democracy, the free market, and the great mixed economy that’s in place.  Students are only taught about the intricacies of the current system, not any alternatives to the system, nor is any thought given to the idea that something else could exist.  Students are not even introduced to the philosophies and ideas behind the current governmental and economic system.  Only the system that America has in place is considered the optimal system to study and practice.

Once students advance to high school and college many of these same notions are reinforced, that the current system in America is the best one available and that the system only needs some tweaks and other types of improvements.  There is hardly ever a time to think outside of the government box, hardly ever a time for students to question the validity and effectiveness of the current system.  Its as if the horrible, nasty, horrendous actions of the government are necessary, in order for Americans to experience freedom.  Another thing left out of school is the idea of freedom, what it means to be free, nor is any philosophical thought offered on the idea of freedom.

Most people believe that violence and killing is necessary to ensure the freedoms of others.  But fail to realize that when you kill or commit violence against someone, you are violating their rights, which is taking away freedom.  An example would be the founding fathers owning slaves while at the same time claiming all men are created equal and deserve freedom.  So the word play that the founding fathers and other intellectuals and politicians used was to claim the slaves were less than human, sub-human beings that could be owned like any other piece of property.  Remember that people had to fight the Government, for their own right to be free, it was the government that perpetuated this idea of slavery, and that’s what abolitionists fought against.

Once slavery was over the government via state sponsored Jim Crow laws, did not want blacks and whites to marry each other.  These laws did not want blacks attending the same schools as whites, work in the same stores, eat in the same restaurants as whites.  The state or the government gave white people the power to commit violence against blacks and the government in their own government court houses did not want to rule in favor of any blacks.  There were very very few whites that were ever tried in a government court and found guilty for killing an African American.  It was not like the government said stop it with the slavery and stop it with the Jim Crow laws, instead there were killings, demonstrations, marches, trials, killings, marches, boycotts, trials, killings, discrimination etc

It was the same for women, it was not like the government stopped all harsh treatment of women.  Its was the government that turned a blind eye to the mistreatment of women, it was the government that allowed the mistreatment of women to continue as long as it did.  The introduction of the welfare state was an outright attack on women because it created an illusion of help for women.  As the government took more and more money from working people, it handed this money to poor single mothers.  What this action did was trick many women into relying on the state or government to take care of their life for them.  A person will live their life a lot different if they did not have a safety net to catch them.

 

I don’t want people to think I am being harsh and cruel with this issue, I am not advocating for people to die from starvation if they are broke.  My stance is that the free market ( a market without government intervention) will provide better quality as well as cheaper products and services to consumers, which will keep money flowing in and out of businesses.  Since businesses and consumers don’t have to pay taxes businesses have more money for their business and consumers have more money to give to businesses.  This should allow businesses to hire more people, it will allow more businesses to enter into markets that they normally would not have been able to, and this will allow people to have more opportunities to work and make money instead of depending on the government to provide services. 

The absence of government does not equal rampant poverty, violence, immoral actions, and chaos.  Governments intervene with the economy, creating artificial booms and busts which creates negative financial results as seen in the Market Crash of 1929 or more recent the 2008 financial crisis. But most people will blame the Market Crash, The Housing Market Crash, and other economic down turns on bad decisions made by consumers, totally ignoring the policies that encouraged and welcomed the bad decisions.  The bad thing is that all of these government programs cost money, money that is taken from people that work and the businesses they work for.  When money is taken from businesses and working people then these businesses and people have less money to work with, which means less money is available to enter the market, which negatively affects the economy. 

If more and more people accept welfare payments that means more and more money will leave business men and working people, which will in turn make products and services more expensive.  Then the government will say it will help by adjusting the money supply or interest rates, which will create other economic problems.

Many people believe that government has the same definition as law or rule and this is not the case.  Government means an authoritative governing body with the power to make and enforce laws.  Rule means a prescribed guide for conduct or action, an accepted procedure or habit, or a regulation or by law.  What this means is that a parent can create a rule or law in their household, a business owner can create policies, bylaws, and rules within their company, etc etc 

This also means that a government is not needed for laws or rules to exist, because any person or group of people can prescribe a guide for conduct or action .  So for a mother to say one needs a government for rules, laws, or guidelines would mean she can’t create rules, laws, or guidelines for her children, which could be very problematic for that mother.   The absence of a government does not equal, no rules, no laws, or no guidelines.  People will still realize that stealing and violence is wrong, even without a government, unless people make the claim that governments make people realize stealing an violence is wrong.  This claim would mean the government is some kind special entity that jumps in people’s minds and tells them what is right and what is wrong, but I don’t think this is the case, nor is it necessary.  This would also mean that people can’t determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong, therefore we need a government

Think about a typical trip to the supermarket, is the government in the supermarket walking side by side with every customer to ensure they don’t steal from the store or rob other customers? No, people already know stealing is bad.  Unless people want to make the argument that people don’t do bad things because of the government’s existence.  If a person makes this argument they must then, admit that their own behaviors and actions are controlled by the government.  But, most people will deny that the government is controlling their behavior and instead say, the government controls the behavior of bad people, but then one has to question how are these “bad” people any different than the “good” people.  If there are no special species of humans, then its reasonable to believe that the government is not controlling anyone’s behavior, instead people do what they want to do whether a government exists or not.  All a government does is allow certain people in the government to enforce their values on other people, then they call this enforcement justice.  But do people actually need a government to tell them what is right and what is wrong?  Is the government the same thing as morals?

I hope people don’t believe that it’s the government that creates what constitutes “good”  or “morally right” because people would be selling themselves short.  It is the human’s existence and pursuit of life that creates morals, it is not government for government is a human creation too.  Living things want to live and in that pursuit of life living things don’t want to come in contact with things or actions that would end their life prematurely.  People prefer to live without pain, sadness, or aggression against them during their pursuit of happiness, people realize that these things will arise but they want to minimize them as much as possible.  Most importantly the human brain enables humans to form the concept of morals, principals, right and wrong.  It was humans that created the idea of government, so it does not make sense that government created right, wrong, good, bad, moral, or not moral.  So the government is not the same thing as law, rule, policies, good, morally good.  The opposite of government is not chaos.  I hope people will check out for their self all the different types of governments and the alternative of no government.