The merits of an anarchistic society

[hortysir]

I wouldn't normally interrupt these things but it looks like yer debate partner there is gonna' be away for a while.

So... Not advocating Anarchism but...

On the other hand Giant, Far Reaching, Police State American Gov't hasn't been working out that well wouldn't ya' agree?

Low Economic Growth
High Unemployment
Insecure Retirement
High Taxes
Loss of Personal Freedom

Plus a Steady diet of Military Industrial Complex Wars since WWII have been draining the Treasury.

If you had to chose between Anarchism and the Police State, well... let's just say I wouldn't like my "comfortable prison".

We have no where near what you are talking about in terms of your laundry list with the exception of the Military Industrial Complex.

And I find it interesting all the societies listed in the wiki nest themselves in an established, well protected and well funded one.

None are doing the "venture out into the wilderness" and making on their own.

And, President Obama has put that beast on a strict diet.

Instead of more wars, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders, women and children, putting us deeper in debt for no reason, Obama sends drones.

And, the some people howl about ONE collateral death?

Which collateral death would that be?



To the OP, and also arKangel, if anarchism is so pure and government is so fallible why no successful anarchist states?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I never said it was the purist form of government. Then you turn around and say that anarchy allows for no freedom at all in one sentence, to turn around and say that humans are intended to govern themselves. So which is it?

Furthermore, freedom comes with risks and responsibility. Only if you believe that a government made up of a few men, authorizes you to have freedom, would it seems logical that anarchy means no freeedom at all.

Yes, humans are social creatures. They also have volition. Working together is understood to be a benefit for social construct. The difference is wherther or not they are FORCED to do so. Government is nothing more than a monopoly of applied force against individuals for compliance to rules dictated by a few. Its the same set up as divine right to rule, with the caveat that every few years the plebs get to secretly vote to elect someone to rule over them. And somehow people accepted this irony.

 

[editec]

Paging [MENTION=44236]AnCapAtheist[/MENTION]:

First, define "anarchism".

Second, detail why people should embrace it.

Third, detail what you would do to people who do not willingly embrace it.

Fourth, outline how national defense and foreign policy would work.

All excellent questions.

In fact the exact right questions.

Well done, Dave.

 

[FA_Q2]

I never said it was the purist form of government. Then you turn around and say that anarchy allows for no freedom at all in one sentence, to turn around and say that humans are intended to govern themselves. So which is it?

Furthermore, freedom comes with risks and responsibility. Only if you believe that a government made up of a few men, authorizes you to have freedom, would it seems logical that anarchy means no freeedom at all.

Yes, humans are social creatures. They also have volition. Working together is understood to be a benefit for social construct. The difference is wherther or not they are FORCED to do so. Government is nothing more than a monopoly of applied force against individuals for compliance to rules dictated by a few. Its the same set up as divine right to rule, with the caveat that every few years the plebs get to secretly vote to elect someone to rule over them. And somehow people accepted this irony.

Because anarchy allows for the freedom to infringe on others rights. Anarchy has the most freedom of all systems in theory but in practice it means that the very few end up having lots of freedom at the cost of all the freedoms of others.

 

[editec]

1. Anarchism is simply without government

Correct!

I only point this out because many self proclaiming "anarchists" I have known did not actually believe that.

2.People should embrace it to get back to their natural roots of self governance and self reliance. Its not for everyone. But it is gaining steam

How does one practice anarchism in a land with government?

3.Nothing,Its not for everyone. National Anarchists choose to set up no go areas for the state/government where we take care of ourselves our own etc..others can do as they choose

We used to have places for anarchists...we usually called those places "Indian territory".

4.National Defense would be the same as a militia. Voluntary army/navy etc...We know to defend our society we would have to band together to keep our society safe.

Who gives orders in this anarchists' army and navy? Who pays for it?

Foreign Policy,do unto others as they do unto us.

You're an anarchist! Who the hell is "US?"

What else is there to say? What most people don't understand about National Anarchy is its never intended to be a HUGE thing...its intended for people in communities to take care of their own people in their community,confederacies can happen voluntarily but there would be no central government to coerce people into paying for anything,pr obeying their rules etc...there would be communities of whatever people want...people want an all black one so be it,all gay one go ahead,all muslim OK fine go ahead...voluntaryism at its best.

The above is a formula for chaos.

that is why there are no places where anarchism lasts.

I wish that were not true, of course, but human nature being what it is?

Do you not understand that the term anarchist community is a contradiction of terms?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I never said it was the purist form of government. Then you turn around and say that anarchy allows for no freedom at all in one sentence, to turn around and say that humans are intended to govern themselves. So which is it?

Furthermore, freedom comes with risks and responsibility. Only if you believe that a government made up of a few men, authorizes you to have freedom, would it seems logical that anarchy means no freeedom at all.

Yes, humans are social creatures. They also have volition. Working together is understood to be a benefit for social construct. The difference is wherther or not they are FORCED to do so. Government is nothing more than a monopoly of applied force against individuals for compliance to rules dictated by a few. Its the same set up as divine right to rule, with the caveat that every few years the plebs get to secretly vote to elect someone to rule over them. And somehow people accepted this irony.

Because anarchy allows for the freedom to infringe on others rights. Anarchy has the most freedom of all systems in theory but in practice it means that the very few end up having lots of freedom at the cost of all the freedoms of others.

Interesting. that sounds a lot like the system we have going these days in the US of A. Where my right to private property is infringed upon to give Larry, Moe and Curly something for free.

I happen to completely disagree with this sentiment. Because humans have been around long enough, and have evolved socially enough to know that these types of infringements actually curtail the freedoms of those abusing others freedoms. Common laws will still prevail in a society free from a monopoly over the use of force and violence. In fact, in such a system, it absolutely demands that people participate and take responsibility for themselves and their community. No more sitting on the sideline waiting for big brother to swoop in and save the day.

Will it be perfect? No. But what we have now is pretty far from perfect and yet all i ever hear anymore is to return to a limited government again. Which will never happen. The cats out of the proverbial bag on that. There is no going back.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anarchy also doesn't imply that people can not volunteer to participate in programs dreamed up by whoever is believed to be the smartest turd in the room. If people want to participate in some sort o fsocial security program, they can. if they want to form a community where gays aren't allowed (or are), they can. The difference being built under the guise of being forced to participate whether you like it or not and having a gun put to your head for noncompliance to the rules on an aggregate level.

 

[Foxfyre]

I never said it was the purist form of government. Then you turn around and say that anarchy allows for no freedom at all in one sentence, to turn around and say that humans are intended to govern themselves. So which is it?

Furthermore, freedom comes with risks and responsibility. Only if you believe that a government made up of a few men, authorizes you to have freedom, would it seems logical that anarchy means no freeedom at all.

Yes, humans are social creatures. They also have volition. Working together is understood to be a benefit for social construct. The difference is wherther or not they are FORCED to do so. Government is nothing more than a monopoly of applied force against individuals for compliance to rules dictated by a few. Its the same set up as divine right to rule, with the caveat that every few years the plebs get to secretly vote to elect someone to rule over them. And somehow people accepted this irony.

The Founders intended for there to be a central government that would secure the unalienable rights of the people which of necessity included enough regulation to knit the various states into one nation and prevent them from doing violence to each other. And then the central government would leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wanted to have.

The anarchist who could find a hermit's location out away from everybody else was free to be an anarchist. But those who found a shared society to be the more satisfying and prudent way of life formed social contracts, both formal and informal, to achieve the society they wanted to have.

That is the ultimate freedom. Denying people the right to form social contract, i.e. structure and rules to live by, is not freedom but just another form of tyranny.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I never said it was the purist form of government. Then you turn around and say that anarchy allows for no freedom at all in one sentence, to turn around and say that humans are intended to govern themselves. So which is it?

Furthermore, freedom comes with risks and responsibility. Only if you believe that a government made up of a few men, authorizes you to have freedom, would it seems logical that anarchy means no freeedom at all.

Yes, humans are social creatures. They also have volition. Working together is understood to be a benefit for social construct. The difference is wherther or not they are FORCED to do so. Government is nothing more than a monopoly of applied force against individuals for compliance to rules dictated by a few. Its the same set up as divine right to rule, with the caveat that every few years the plebs get to secretly vote to elect someone to rule over them. And somehow people accepted this irony.

The Founders intended for there to be a central government that would secure the unalienable rights of the people which of necessity included enough regulation to knit the various states into one nation and prevent them from doing violence to each other. And then the central government would leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wanted to have.

The anarchist who could find a hermit's location out away from everybody else was free to be an anarchist. But those who found a shared society to be the more satisfying and prudent way of life formed social contracts to achieve the society they wanted to have.

That is the ultimate freedom. Denying people the right to form social contract, i.e. structure and rules to live by, is not freedom but just another form of tyranny.

Again, anarchy doesn't mean people can't form whatever they want in their local area. What it DOES mean, is that you can not FORCE people to participate. You can not steal from them with legal impunity, etc...

And, about those Founders intents...how's that shaping up these days?
That's the point. You can not control a government, much like a dictator or other tyrannical governance, even one supposedly control by the people, for long. it becomes bloated, it destroys society and in the end it removes far more rights than it protects.

 

[Foxfyre]

I never said it was the purist form of government. Then you turn around and say that anarchy allows for no freedom at all in one sentence, to turn around and say that humans are intended to govern themselves. So which is it?

Furthermore, freedom comes with risks and responsibility. Only if you believe that a government made up of a few men, authorizes you to have freedom, would it seems logical that anarchy means no freeedom at all.

Yes, humans are social creatures. They also have volition. Working together is understood to be a benefit for social construct. The difference is wherther or not they are FORCED to do so. Government is nothing more than a monopoly of applied force against individuals for compliance to rules dictated by a few. Its the same set up as divine right to rule, with the caveat that every few years the plebs get to secretly vote to elect someone to rule over them. And somehow people accepted this irony.

The Founders intended for there to be a central government that would secure the unalienable rights of the people which of necessity included enough regulation to knit the various states into one nation and prevent them from doing violence to each other. And then the central government would leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wanted to have.

The anarchist who could find a hermit's location out away from everybody else was free to be an anarchist. But those who found a shared society to be the more satisfying and prudent way of life formed social contracts to achieve the society they wanted to have.

That is the ultimate freedom. Denying people the right to form social contract, i.e. structure and rules to live by, is not freedom but just another form of tyranny.

Again, anarchy doesn't mean people can't form whatever they want in their local area. What it DOES mean, is that you can not FORCE people to participate. You can not steal from them with legal impunity, etc...

And, about those Founders intents...how's that shaping up these days?
That's the point. You can not control a government, much like a dictator or other tyrannical governance, even one supposedly control by the people, for long. it becomes bloated, it destroys society and in the end it removes far more rights than it protects.

The fact that you cannot force people to participate, you cannot steal with impunity, etc. removes the realm from anarchy. It requires rules understood and enforced by the society to keep the strong from forcing the weak, to keep the weak from being preyed on by the strong. Don't confuse libertarianism/classical liberalism/modern American conservatism, that protects the rights of all, with anarchy that recognizes no rights and no rules.

an·ar·chy
1.chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control
2.lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society

The self government concept the Founders wrote into the Constitution worked just fine for most of 150 years. It still would if Teddy Roosevelt had not stood the Constitution on its head and introduced the concept of Progressivism/modern American liberalism that has been reinstalling authoritarian central government to dismantle their rights and increasingly take control of the people ever since.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anarchy - No crown. Or no ruler. That is, no central government. None. To believe that there would be no social order without a formal system of government is absolute nonsense. I'm not sure when people got the notion that some people are smart enough to dictate to the rest, but it sure is pervasive these days.

In fact, in colonial times there were plenty of colonies that had no formal system of government and they got along just fine. Even thrived...that is, until the leviathan of central government considered them blasphemous and put a violent end to their peaceful existence.

 

[FA_Q2]

I never said it was the purist form of government. Then you turn around and say that anarchy allows for no freedom at all in one sentence, to turn around and say that humans are intended to govern themselves. So which is it?

Furthermore, freedom comes with risks and responsibility. Only if you believe that a government made up of a few men, authorizes you to have freedom, would it seems logical that anarchy means no freeedom at all.

Yes, humans are social creatures. They also have volition. Working together is understood to be a benefit for social construct. The difference is wherther or not they are FORCED to do so. Government is nothing more than a monopoly of applied force against individuals for compliance to rules dictated by a few. Its the same set up as divine right to rule, with the caveat that every few years the plebs get to secretly vote to elect someone to rule over them. And somehow people accepted this irony.

The Founders intended for there to be a central government that would secure the unalienable rights of the people which of necessity included enough regulation to knit the various states into one nation and prevent them from doing violence to each other. And then the central government would leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wanted to have.

The anarchist who could find a hermit's location out away from everybody else was free to be an anarchist. But those who found a shared society to be the more satisfying and prudent way of life formed social contracts to achieve the society they wanted to have.

That is the ultimate freedom. Denying people the right to form social contract, i.e. structure and rules to live by, is not freedom but just another form of tyranny.

Again, anarchy doesn't mean people can't form whatever they want in their local area. What it DOES mean, is that you can not FORCE people to participate. You can not steal from them with legal impunity, etc...

And, about those Founders intents...how's that shaping up these days?
That's the point. You can not control a government, much like a dictator or other tyrannical governance, even one supposedly control by the people, for long. it becomes bloated, it destroys society and in the end it removes far more rights than it protects.

And you cannot stop some random dictator from coming over to your home and instilling a despotism over your anarchy. You consistently point to the founders government of today as a failed instance of what FF speaks about then ignore places like Somalia that embody exactly what you are talking about.

In the same way that you discount that FF’s America cannot succeed, we discount that your idea cannot either. The sole difference being that America succeeded for 200 years and we still enjoy some semblance of freedom as infringed as it is and anarchist nations last mere months.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anarchy - No crown. Or no ruler. That is, no central government. None. To believe that there would be no social order without a formal system of government is absolute nonsense. I'm not sure when people got the notion that some people are smart enough to dictate to the rest, but it sure is pervasive these days.

In fact, in colonial times there were plenty of colonies that had no formal system of government and they got along just fine. Even thrived...that is, until the leviathan of central government considered them blasphemous and put a violent end to their peaceful existence.

There is no one is deeming ‘the notion that some people are smart enough to dictate to the rest’ is valid but rather that some people are STRONG enough to dictate to the rest and we place government there to defend against that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Anarchy - No crown. Or no ruler. That is, no central government. None. To believe that there would be no social order without a formal system of government is absolute nonsense. I'm not sure when people got the notion that some people are smart enough to dictate to the rest, but it sure is pervasive these days.

In fact, in colonial times there were plenty of colonies that had no formal system of government and they got along just fine. Even thrived...that is, until the leviathan of central government considered them blasphemous and put a violent end to their peaceful existence.

Well as a long time student of American history, I am totally unaware of ANY American colonies that had no system of government. And I am also unaware of any central government that put a 'violent end to their peaceful existence.' I will concede that government does not have to be formal in order to be government. To wit, a study group that agrees on how the meetings will go, where they will meet, when, what the rules of conduct will be. That is a form of government and a social contract regardless of whether it is written down or not.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Founders intended for there to be a central government that would secure the unalienable rights of the people which of necessity included enough regulation to knit the various states into one nation and prevent them from doing violence to each other. And then the central government would leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wanted to have.

The anarchist who could find a hermit's location out away from everybody else was free to be an anarchist. But those who found a shared society to be the more satisfying and prudent way of life formed social contracts to achieve the society they wanted to have.

That is the ultimate freedom. Denying people the right to form social contract, i.e. structure and rules to live by, is not freedom but just another form of tyranny.

Again, anarchy doesn't mean people can't form whatever they want in their local area. What it DOES mean, is that you can not FORCE people to participate. You can not steal from them with legal impunity, etc...

And, about those Founders intents...how's that shaping up these days?
That's the point. You can not control a government, much like a dictator or other tyrannical governance, even one supposedly control by the people, for long. it becomes bloated, it destroys society and in the end it removes far more rights than it protects.

And you cannot stop some random dictator from coming over to your home and instilling a despotism over your anarchy. You consistently point to the founders government of today as a failed instance of what FF speaks about then ignore places like Somalia that embody exactly what you are talking about.

In the same way that you discount that FF’s America cannot succeed, we discount that your idea cannot either. The sole difference being that America succeeded for 200 years and we still enjoy some semblance of freedom as infringed as it is and anarchist nations last mere months.

Incorrect. Somalia -

https://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia

Earlier in the year, the BBC featured a series of articles commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the state in Somalia. Although the articles expressed the typical revulsion at "anarchy," the series was surprisingly balanced for such a mainstream outlet. Somalia is undeniably experiencing progress according to several criteria, despite (or, some would say, because of) its lack of a strong central government.

Economists familiar with the Rothbardian tradition have taken the analysis even further, persuasively arguing that Somalia is much better without a state than it was with one. The standard statist put-down — "If you Rothbardians like anarchy so much, why don't you move to Somalia?" — misses the point. The Rothbardian doesn't claim that the absence of a state is a sufficient condition for bliss. Rather, the Rothbardian says that however prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an institution of organized violence and theft will only make things worse.

The BBC Reflects on 20 Years of Anarchy
As I said initially, the BBC's treatment is remarkably balanced. One article begins,

Common sense dictates that security and stability are the necessary preconditions to economic development.

Since 26 January 1991, most of Somalia has had neither, yet the economy has not only been resilient, some sectors have shown remarkable growth.

In particular, the telecommunications industry has boomed:

Somali telecoms expert Ahmed Farah says the first mobile telephone mast went up in Somalia in 1994, and now someone can make a mobile call from anywhere in the country.

There are nine networks to choose from and they offer services from texting to mobile internet access.

It's not just the telecom industry that has improved. A different article outlines the change in some major indices over the last 20 years of (relative) statelessness:

read the rest at the link.

Somalia isn't the shithole people portray it to be. Though it could be better, sure.

When i bring up the Founders ideas and the reality of what happened, i'm pointing to the abject failure of it. Yes, you can still have a carrot here and some semblance (or at least a nice window pane of illusion) of freedom. But it's moving further and further from that everyday and at an alarming rate. it took many years for the government to begin the spiral of implosion and dragging the people down with it. But it's happening and there will be no stopping it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anarchy - No crown. Or no ruler. That is, no central government. None. To believe that there would be no social order without a formal system of government is absolute nonsense. I'm not sure when people got the notion that some people are smart enough to dictate to the rest, but it sure is pervasive these days.

In fact, in colonial times there were plenty of colonies that had no formal system of government and they got along just fine. Even thrived...that is, until the leviathan of central government considered them blasphemous and put a violent end to their peaceful existence.

Well as a long time student of American history, I am totally unaware of ANY American colonies that had no system of government. And I am also unaware of any central government that put a 'violent end to their peaceful existence.' I will concede that government does not have to be formal in order to be government. To wit, a study group that agrees on how the meetings will go, where they will meet, when, what the rules of conduct will be. That is a form of government and a social contract regardless of whether it is written down or not.

There were several colonies that bought land from the Natives as outcasts of Mass bay and formed communities free of formal governance. The Hutchsonians come to mind immediately, but there were others. It wasn't until the central govt. got wind of them that they literally exacted the punishment of death on them for "blasphemy".

Anyway, a study group is a bad example. In a study group when the rules are agreeed upon, people are free to not participate if the rules aren't to their liking. With government, they are not asking you whether you would like to participate. They demand it. Along with whatever amount of "tax" these planners feel they need to run their authority. Your only option to this under government is to find another government that is less intrusive...if thats possible. It's like living under cartels and deciding which one is the best or most leniant. but in the end you will comply with one cartel or another. You're not a free individual. You're a subject of a cartel, or mob, or government.

Thhis is why your assertion ealrier that one camn find a quiet corner under the Founders ideas and be an anarchist isn't reality. Under govt. you WILL NOT be left alone. You will comply with the demands made of said government or violence will be exacted upon you under their "legal" authority to enforce their rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders ideas and the reality of their success was evident for most of 150 years. It was an intentional departure from those ideas that brought America to its current deteriorating condition, not the ideas themselves. The governments formed by the people within the various colonies had their warts and sins as all governments do. But anybody who did not wish to live under those governments could move to another location, as is the right of free people to do. And the worst of those governments, under the mantle of freedom provided by the U.S. Constitution, generally eventually discarded their worst offenses and reformed themselves. Which is also what free people do. The Federal government stayed out of it, however, and let a free people do their thing.

Freedom that recognizes unalienable rights may have some fits and false starts, but it inevitably results in better or more satisfying success than ANY other method. Again it is important not to confuse anarchy with lack of a controlling central government.

And for heavens sake people, know the history before you start holding Somalia up as the paragon of 'governmentless' success. There are no unalienable rights in Somalia though their newest government is bringing about a bit of stability and some relief from the viscious warlords of the type that anarchy almost always produces. For a mini-history summary, the BBC did a pretty good summary here: BBC News - Somalia profile - Overview

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There was no constitution during colonial times. Most of the american colonies were set offs of the corporations chartered by England. The only way that one could move about freely (or at least freely for those days) was to peacefully exchange with the Natives for land and start their own community/colony. Which happened, at least for a time before the central authority swooped in and removed those rights by force. I suggest having a solid sit down with Rothbard's comprehensive tome called "Conceived in Liberty". He explains in great detail how colonial times worked under chartered corporations and on through history.

As for government-less success, thats rather subjective to say the least. What I did point out, is that Somalia has been without formal, central government for over 20 years. Contrary to the claim that anarchy doesn't work for more than a mere smidgeon of time.

So the founders ideas worked for 150 years...great. So for the last several hundred years it's been the inevitable, and i do mean inevitable, creep of central authority casting iteself upon the people. Granting itself more authority while curtailing or removing individual rights. You know, the ones it was suppose to protect. Regardless of intentinos, it is the outcome that matters. This is always the outcome of government. it can not be constrained. it can not be limited for long. Government, even one suposedly by and for the people, is a failure. As observation shows. Regardless of cries to reform this, change that, etc...

it grows bigger, more intrusive, more infringing and does the exact opposite of it's claim. Whether it worked for 150 yrs at first or not. i tno longer does and there wont be any going back to times when it "did". That's a pipe dream. it's nostalgia of the past that doesn't match up to reality.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

1. Anarchism is simply without government
2.People should embrace it to get back to their natural roots of self governance and self reliance. Its not for everyone. But it is gaining steam
3.Nothing,Its not for everyone. National Anarchists choose to set up no go areas for the state/government where we take care of ourselves our own etc..others can do as they choose
4.National Defense would be the same as a militia. Voluntary army/navy etc...We know to defend our society we would have to band together to keep our society safe.Foreign Policy,do unto others as they do unto us. What else is there to say? What most people don't understand about National Anarchy is its never intended to be a HUGE thing...its intended for people in communities to take care of their own people in their community,confederacies can happen voluntarily but there would be no central government to coerce people into paying for anything,pr obeying their rules etc...there would be communities of whatever people want...people want an all black one so be it,all gay one go ahead,all muslim OK fine go ahead...voluntaryism at its best.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't an organized military be a contradiction to what anarchists (absence of order) believe?

 

[Foxfyre]

There was no constitution during colonial times. Most of the american colonies were set offs of the corporations chartered by England. The only way that one could move about freely (or at least freely for those days) was to peacefully exchange with the Natives for land and start their own community/colony. Which happened, at least for a time before the central authority swooped in and removed those rights by force. I suggest having a solid sit down with Rothbard's comprehensive tome called "Conceived in Liberty". He explains in great detail how colonial times worked under chartered corporations and on through history.

As for government-less success, thats rather subjective to say the least. What I did point out, is that Somalia has been without formal, central government for over 20 years. Contrary to the claim that anarchy doesn't work for more than a mere smidgeon of time.

So the founders ideas worked for 150 years...great. So for the last several hundred years it's been the inevitable, and i do mean inevitable, creep of central authority casting iteself upon the people. Granting itself more authority while curtailing or removing individual rights. You know, the ones it was suppose to protect. Regardless of intentinos, it is the outcome that matters. This is always the outcome of government. it can not be constrained. it can not be limited for long. Government, even one suposedly by and for the people, is a failure. As observation shows. Regardless of cries to reform this, change that, etc...

it grows bigger, more intrusive, more infringing and does the exact opposite of it's claim. Whether it worked for 150 yrs at first or not. i tno longer does and there wont be any going back to times when it "did". That's a pipe dream. it's nostalgia of the past that doesn't match up to reality.

Before the Declaration of Indpenedence and the Revolutionary War there was no United States of America or any other American government. We were under the authority of the English crown who exercised its power as best as it could from such a long distance.

But you are missing the point here. It was precisely the DUMPING of the Founders' concepts--first by Teddy Roosevelt and then by all who followed him--that have brought us to the dismal state of affairs we have in government today. It was NOT the Founders concepts that didn't work, but a would be dictator sidelining those concepts.

And you didn't read the mini history I provided you re Somalia did you. The anarchy you so favor has NOT provided any benefit that you seem to hope it has because anarchy is far far worse than monarchy. And both run roughshod over the unalienable rights of the people that the Founders intended all to recognize and respect.

After watching how successfully the Founders' experiment with self governance was working, I am convinced that if we would return to that concept, bust the federal government back to its constitutional roots, we would again enjoy the blessings of liberty promised in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution.