When did 'liberals' stop believing in free speech?

[Maryland Patriot]

It's also funny how the state defines "qualified"

Usually it means they got a 70 on a standardized test.

Sorry but I don't think a guy who could only get a C (average) grade is qualified to give advice to anyone

not sure what degree or state certificate you are talking about but I can tell you that in order to become even a social worker in the state of Maryland you have to carry at minimum a 3.0 average ( B ) in all of the classes you take. If you get a 4.0 in every class but one, and that one class is less than a 3.0, you have to retake it before you can get certified.

Any so called professional licence exam required by the several states I held licenses in insurance and securities only required a 70 to pass
The same goes for contractors, electricians plumbers whatever

The more relevant question is weather or not you think that those tests were indicative of your ability to preform in that field.

I don't really think there is a difference if you scored 70% or 100% - most of those tests do nothing but gauge how well you memorized some material that has nothing to do with your actual job requirements.

So if the guy got the question wrong on the securities exam about some legal and very important aspect of fiduciary responsibility it's OK to say he's fit to handle other peoples' money?

How about the guy who got the question on load limits for circuits wrong on the electricians' exam? Do you want him wiring your house?

Depends to be honest.

Does he have extensive experience, good references and consistent quality work? Or do you think that answering the correct multiple choice on the load limit actually means something?

actually the load limit can be fairly important to know.
however if you dont trust anyone that ever missed a single question, you will never find anyone to do work for you.

 

[FA_Q2]

not sure what degree or state certificate you are talking about but I can tell you that in order to become even a social worker in the state of Maryland you have to carry at minimum a 3.0 average ( B ) in all of the classes you take. If you get a 4.0 in every class but one, and that one class is less than a 3.0, you have to retake it before you can get certified.

Any so called professional licence exam required by the several states I held licenses in insurance and securities only required a 70 to pass
The same goes for contractors, electricians plumbers whatever

The more relevant question is weather or not you think that those tests were indicative of your ability to preform in that field.

I don't really think there is a difference if you scored 70% or 100% - most of those tests do nothing but gauge how well you memorized some material that has nothing to do with your actual job requirements.

So if the guy got the question wrong on the securities exam about some legal and very important aspect of fiduciary responsibility it's OK to say he's fit to handle other peoples' money?

How about the guy who got the question on load limits for circuits wrong on the electricians' exam? Do you want him wiring your house?

Depends to be honest.

Does he have extensive experience, good references and consistent quality work? Or do you think that answering the correct multiple choice on the load limit actually means something?

actually the load limit can be fairly important to know.
however if you don't trust anyone that ever missed a single question, you will never find anyone to do work for you.

I didn't say it was not important. that does not change my point.

 

[regent]

The name of a political party may have some correlation with a political philosophy and it may not. Liberal and conservative are better labels of an ideology. For example after the Civil War, southern Conservatives joined the Democratic party, not because of the liberal ideology but because it was the Republican party that freed the slaves.
In 1798 the party of Adams, and Hamilton were considered conservative and the party of Jefferson and Madison, liberal. In fact, the Democratic party of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson. And it sounds like the conservatives of today trace their heritage back, not to Lincoln, but to Reagan.
High school students often have trouble with the political party names of that early period, Republicans which in those early days were the liberal party.
In any case, many historians believe, it was the Alien and Sedition Acts that spelled the end of the first conservative party, the Federalists.

The Federalists were not the "conservative" party. They were the big government party - liberal, in other words. Modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson and Madison. They often go out of their way to pain Jefferson as a racist homophobic sexist white male.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

The name of a political party may have some correlation with a political philosophy and it may not. Liberal and conservative are better labels of an ideology. For example after the Civil War, southern Conservatives joined the Democratic party, not because of the liberal ideology but because it was the Republican party that freed the slaves.
In 1798 the party of Adams, and Hamilton were considered conservative and the party of Jefferson and Madison, liberal. In fact, the Democratic party of today trace their heritage back to Jefferson. And it sounds like the conservatives of today trace their heritage back, not to Lincoln, but to Reagan.
High school students often have trouble with the political party names of that early period, Republicans which in those early days were the liberal party.
In any case, many historians believe, it was the Alien and Sedition Acts that spelled the end of the first conservative party, the Federalists.

The Federalists were not the "conservative" party. They were the big government party - liberal, in other words. Modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson and Madison. They often go out of their way to pain Jefferson as a racist homophobic sexist white male.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

So why did we the people establish a government if not of a benefit?
Why do most nations have a government?

 

[bripat9643]

The Federalists were not the "conservative" party. They were the big government party - liberal, in other words. Modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson and Madison. They often go out of their way to pain Jefferson as a racist homophobic sexist white male.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

The Federalists were not the "conservative" party. They were the big government party - liberal, in other words. Modern liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson and Madison. They often go out of their way to pain Jefferson as a racist homophobic sexist white male.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

So why did we the people establish a government if not of a benefit?
Why do most nations have a government?

People are deluded in believing that society can't exist without government. The urge of some to rule others will never be eradicated from humanity.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'm not sure on radio or tv shows. Does someone have to actually be qualified to give an opinion? Conservative talk radio is populated with some of the most ignorant people you'd ever meet but they talk like aliens landed and handed them the secrets to the universe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

So why did we the people establish a government if not of a benefit?
Why do most nations have a government?

People are deluded in believing that society can't exist without government. The urge of some to rule others will never be eradicated from humanity.

Government is simply the top level of people who have authority. If you removed all government with the wave of a magic wand, it would automatically regenerate by the need of the people to have some rules, people who enforce those rules and a body of educated people who make the rules.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure on radio or tv shows. Does someone have to actually be qualified to give an opinion? Conservative talk radio is populated with some of the most ignorant people you'd ever meet but they talk like aliens landed and handed them the secrets to the universe.

Do you ever post anything aside from the grossest insults?

 

[bripat9643]

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

So why did we the people establish a government if not of a benefit?
Why do most nations have a government?

People are deluded in believing that society can't exist without government. The urge of some to rule others will never be eradicated from humanity.

Government is simply the top level of people who have authority. If you removed all government with the wave of a magic wand, it would automatically regenerate by the need of the people to have some rules, people who enforce those rules and a body of educated people who make the rules.

Wrong. Government is the monopoly on the use of force. Without force, you have no government. Government didn't exist until the rise of the state in 3000 B.C..

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'm not sure on radio or tv shows. Does someone have to actually be qualified to give an opinion? Conservative talk radio is populated with some of the most ignorant people you'd ever meet but they talk like aliens landed and handed them the secrets to the universe.

Do you ever post anything aside from the grossest insults?

Gross? I merely said many of the radio hosts for the right are not very smart. I'm sure you disagree but 'a gross insult'?

One hopes their words have some impact but uh, huh? Let me apologize if that seemed too over the line. And yes I post many other things, I'm not sure if you can search someone's content but if so check it out. I post alot in music and art threads, rarely an insult and I thank people there always if they post something cool.

And lastly your posts are not generally uplifting and your avatar is a child flipping the bird. How about using a happy child at least?

By the way I snapped a tendon or ligament in my left hand a couple months ago and it is not healing up, apparently at all, so my left hand is in a large bowl of hot water. Any ideas on how to get this thing healed up? I think I'll have to see a doctor though at the time it seemed not that significant.

Hope you have a nice evening.

 

[Never3ndr]

People are deluded in believing that society can't exist without government. The urge of some to rule others will never be eradicated from humanity.

That is false, actually having a system of government is proven (both currently and historically) to be the best way for populations to survive.

Now, all I have to do to support that argument historically is point towards factions with larger amount of governmental structures like to Roman or Persian Empires as successfully advancing a lot of human ideals and allowing for its populations to remain relatively safe and prosperous. On the other hand, you cannot name large populations of people, historically, that have been able to operate without government and prosper. However, if you can, please name them.

We can even look to modern times as great examples. The strongest nations of the world all have governmental structures, from America to Germany to Japan. On the other hand, if we look at the sparse portions where governmental structure is either nonexistent or so destabilized / weak as to warrant little to no consideration...are all third world nations (Chad, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.).

So, if you think that society can exist without government, please move to a nation with a weak / non-existent government and tell us why it works instead of thinking about it in your head and agreeing with something you haven't even seen.

 

[Manchester]

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

What qualifies the government to be the only arbiter?

It's of the people, by the people and for the people. As opposed to business that operates with the sole goal of profit.

That's liberal theory. Unfortunately it's complete bullshit. People understand intrinsically that government is a gang of men separate from themselves whose intentions are largely predatory.

It's funny how established precident becomes "liberal theory" but gun ownership holding a government to account isn't "conservaative thory" but absolute fact.

Government is a gang of men put there by everybody to look after their interests. Yes governments tend to look after their own interests as well from time to time and that is a bad thing. Businesses ONLY look after their own interests, does the honesty of their averace somehow make them better? God no. Business would happily screw us all for an extra dollar and are answerable to nobody. Governments are answerable to us all at the ballot box.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's also funny how the state defines "qualified"

Usually it means they got a 70 on a standardized test.

Sorry but I don't think a guy who could only get a C (average) grade is qualified to give advice to anyone

not sure what degree or state certificate you are talking about but I can tell you that in order to become even a social worker in the state of Maryland you have to carry at minimum a 3.0 average ( B ) in all of the classes you take. If you get a 4.0 in every class but one, and that one class is less than a 3.0, you have to retake it before you can get certified.

Any so called professional licence exam required by the several states I held licenses in insurance and securities only required a 70 to pass
The same goes for contractors, electricians plumbers whatever

The more relevant question is weather or not you think that those tests were indicative of your ability to preform in that field.

I don't really think there is a difference if you scored 70% or 100% - most of those tests do nothing but gauge how well you memorized some material that has nothing to do with your actual job requirements.

So if the guy got the question wrong on the securities exam about some legal and very important aspect of fiduciary responsibility it's OK to say he's fit to handle other peoples' money?

How about the guy who got the question on load limits for circuits wrong on the electricians' exam? Do you want him wiring your house?

Depends to be honest.

Does he have extensive experience, good references and consistent quality work? Or do you think that answering the correct multiple choice on the load limit actually means something?

Of course it means something

 

[Manchester]

So what this story is isn't censorship, it's man who isn't qualified to do job who may be told to stop doing job and kicking up a fuss because he wants to keep doing that job.

How did you determine he's not qualified?

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

Nor is the government able to tell them how high the fence needs to be - they do not get eaten when they are wrong.

The ones that are actually qualified for that task is the chickens themselves - they have a vested interest in it. We call that the market...

Sadly the market relies on forces where 1% of the chickens have 90% of the say on how high the fence is meaning that the vast majority have very little input. It's why they need a government where one man has one vote.

 

[regent]

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

The size of government is not part of a political ideology it is a means to achieve the goals of a political ideology.

If your goal is freedom, then the desired size of government is "as small as possible." therefor, government is part of political ideology.

Which party the Federalists or Antifederalists insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution?

The anti Federalists were the ones who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

So why did we the people establish a government if not of a benefit?
Why do most nations have a government?

People are deluded in believing that society can't exist without government. The urge of some to rule others will never be eradicated from humanity.

So would you live in a society without a government? In fact, is there such a thing as a society without a ruling class, a ruling class that makes the rules and enforces the rules?

 

[FA_Q2]

How did you determine he's not qualified?

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

Nor is the government able to tell them how high the fence needs to be - they do not get eaten when they are wrong.

The ones that are actually qualified for that task is the chickens themselves - they have a vested interest in it. We call that the market...

Sadly the market relies on forces where 1% of the chickens have 90% of the say on how high the fence is meaning that the vast majority have very little input. It's why they need a government where one man has one vote.

No - it actually does not. The market is controlled by the majority of those that are purchasing those products. That is not the 1% for the VAST majority of items (and certainly not for those that matter). It is exactly the common person that controls the market.

 

[Manchester]

I don't. The law will, it's why he's kicking up a fuss. Keep up at the back.

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

Nor is the government able to tell them how high the fence needs to be - they do not get eaten when they are wrong.

The ones that are actually qualified for that task is the chickens themselves - they have a vested interest in it. We call that the market...

Sadly the market relies on forces where 1% of the chickens have 90% of the say on how high the fence is meaning that the vast majority have very little input. It's why they need a government where one man has one vote.

No - it actually does not. The market is controlled by the majority of those that are purchasing those products. That is not the 1% for the VAST majority of items (and certainly not for those that matter). It is exactly the common person that controls the market.

In the case of toilet paper I agree entirely. In the case of stocks, bonds and shares I disagree entirely. And I'm pretty sure most economies are not built on daily retail.

 

[FA_Q2]

So only the government can determine qualifications? The market can't do that?

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

Nor is the government able to tell them how high the fence needs to be - they do not get eaten when they are wrong.

The ones that are actually qualified for that task is the chickens themselves - they have a vested interest in it. We call that the market...

Sadly the market relies on forces where 1% of the chickens have 90% of the say on how high the fence is meaning that the vast majority have very little input. It's why they need a government where one man has one vote.

No - it actually does not. The market is controlled by the majority of those that are purchasing those products. That is not the 1% for the VAST majority of items (and certainly not for those that matter). It is exactly the common person that controls the market.

In the case of toilet paper I agree entirely. In the case of stocks, bonds and shares I disagree entirely. And I'm pretty sure most economies are not built on daily retail.

Of course they are built on retail - everything is based on that. It certainly is not based on stocks and bonds. Stocks are worthless - they represent nothing whatsoever without the 'daily' retail the companies are able to sell that the stocks represent.

 

[Manchester]

For legislative purposes? Yes exclusively. You can't have business deciding what is legally necessary for business any more than you can have the wolves deciding how high the fence to the chicken coup should be.

Nor is the government able to tell them how high the fence needs to be - they do not get eaten when they are wrong.

The ones that are actually qualified for that task is the chickens themselves - they have a vested interest in it. We call that the market...

Sadly the market relies on forces where 1% of the chickens have 90% of the say on how high the fence is meaning that the vast majority have very little input. It's why they need a government where one man has one vote.

No - it actually does not. The market is controlled by the majority of those that are purchasing those products. That is not the 1% for the VAST majority of items (and certainly not for those that matter). It is exactly the common person that controls the market.

In the case of toilet paper I agree entirely. In the case of stocks, bonds and shares I disagree entirely. And I'm pretty sure most economies are not built on daily retail.

Of course they are built on retail - everything is based on that. It certainly is not based on stocks and bonds. Stocks are worthless - they represent nothing whatsoever without the 'daily' retail the companies are able to sell that the stocks represent.

How little you know of modern Economics. Bonds, Stocks and Guilts are what makes the western economy work. We could all stop buying groceries for a week tomorrow and economists would n't notice. You drop a country's credit rating a point or release a profit warning and all hell breaks out. As I said, 1% of the people hold 90% of the money, and they don't spend it at wallmart.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nor is the government able to tell them how high the fence needs to be - they do not get eaten when they are wrong.

The ones that are actually qualified for that task is the chickens themselves - they have a vested interest in it. We call that the market...

Sadly the market relies on forces where 1% of the chickens have 90% of the say on how high the fence is meaning that the vast majority have very little input. It's why they need a government where one man has one vote.

No - it actually does not. The market is controlled by the majority of those that are purchasing those products. That is not the 1% for the VAST majority of items (and certainly not for those that matter). It is exactly the common person that controls the market.

In the case of toilet paper I agree entirely. In the case of stocks, bonds and shares I disagree entirely. And I'm pretty sure most economies are not built on daily retail.

Of course they are built on retail - everything is based on that. It certainly is not based on stocks and bonds. Stocks are worthless - they represent nothing whatsoever without the 'daily' retail the companies are able to sell that the stocks represent.

How little you know of modern Economics. Bonds, Stocks and Guilts are what makes the western economy work. We could all stop buying groceries for a week tomorrow and economists would n't notice. You drop a country's credit rating a point or release a profit warning and all hell breaks out. As I said, 1% of the people hold 90% of the money, and they don't spend it at wallmart.

How little I know of economics?

Whatever - weather or not the economy 'works' because of stocks and bonds is irrelevant. That is not what it is based on. It is also an asinine assertion that no one would notice if people stopped buying things for a week - it would devastate the economy. Consumer spending changes by 5% and stocks respond accordingly because that is what they represent.

 

[regent]

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

And are the Anti Federalists considered to be liberal or conservative?
At one time liberals did deem government as evil but then as liberals became the government they deemed governments less and less evil. Today, American liberals, see government as a benefit to we the people, just as at one time the Noble class saw government as a benefit to nobles.

You're describing the process by which liberals turned into fascists. Government has never been a benefit to "we the people," and it never will.

So why did we the people establish a government if not of a benefit?
Why do most nations have a government?

People are deluded in believing that society can't exist without government. The urge of some to rule others will never be eradicated from humanity.

Government is simply the top level of people who have authority. If you removed all government with the wave of a magic wand, it would automatically regenerate by the need of the people to have some rules, people who enforce those rules and a body of educated people who make the rules.

Wrong. Government is the monopoly on the use of force. Without force, you have no government. Government didn't exist until the rise of the state in 3000 B.C..

Are you confusing recorded history with the rise of governments?