Sorry but it just is not feasible. As flawed as it is our system is "fine" as it is. That is to say that it is the least amount of bad as it can be.

What you describing is actually the communist ideal. (Think behavioural aspects, not economics)

This is has been tried enough already for us to know that it doesn't work.

It doesn't work because:-

1) Information flow is imperfect2) Resources are restricted.3) Humans have a built in desire for RELATIVE status. Doubt me? I give you the world "cool". (This is a function of 1 and 2 of course).4) A small but highly dangerous minority of ruthless power hungry types find it easy to expolit systems not designed to deal with them. Stalin etc.

Ian Dickson

First, I submit that nothing is ever "fine as it is," that everything can be improved, and should be. Nothing will ever be perfect, but everything can always get better. If you don't like my extreme view, check out the Libertarians, lp.org. I believed as they do until I realized that I couldn't find any good point to stop when shrinking government.

"What you describing is actually the communist ideal. (Think behavioural aspects, not economics)"

That is about right. The communists screwed up the economic side of things. Here is a way to blend these ideals that has not been tried before.

"1) Information flow is imperfect"Everything is imperfect. Information Flow is getting better and better at an exponential rate. Witness cell phones and the Internet. There is more coming soon.

"2) Resources are restricted."Not sure how this applies. I believe that the pace of our technology (especially without regulation) is much faster than the depletion of what we currently believe to be scarce resources. If you are talking about people's individual resources, I believe potential wealth creation is unlimited. Severe (by historic standards) taxation is retarding the world economy.

"3) Humans have a built in desire for RELATIVE status."This itch can be scratched without a government. People can still make themselves wealthy at the expense of others if they choose. Nothing is forced on anyone.

"4) A small but highly dangerous minority of ruthless power hungry types find it easy to expolit systems not designed to deal with them."This is the reason why people submit to governments in the first place. They are afraid. They really believe that pooling their resources can prevent Evil. Actually, it creates those things that they fear. Governments fight wars with other governments. Only a people that is ready to submit to a government can be controlled by one. When a critical mass of people are ready to reject all authority, power-hungry types will not have a chance.

Nate Johnson

I am all for limited government. But with no government people just beat up people who write long essays on innovation websites and no one is there to protect them. Then the rabble steal their ideas, property, and wives. Contracts aren't inforced, people are enslaved, and life generally sucks. Its nice to know when you are eating a hot dog that its just unwanted animal parts from various types of animals, and not humans like before the government got involved in this stuff. Get rid of farm subsidies but keep something.

i agree with aschmidt.

"...with no government people just beat up people who write long essays on innovation websites and no one is there to protect them."

Would YOU beat me up and take my stuff if there was no police to stop you? Of course you wouldn't. It must be someone else then. Those evil OTHERS that we are always scared of. Do you know someone in the "rabble" that I could contact to talk to about this?

In reality (no jokes please) there are very very very few people that would qualify as rabble. It is in our nature to overestimate danger, to be too easily scared. This holds up back every minute of every day.

As we get the government out of setting our school curriculum and out of depressing our economy, we will get better and better at teaching (showing and demonstrating) our children to be enlightened, that is to make decisions based on a whole-world perspective out of "enlightened self-interest."

I am at once the most selfish and the least selfish person in the universe. It is a happy coincidence that the best way to make the world better for ME is to make it better for EVERYBODY. When I act on this knowledge I am acting out of enlightened self-interest. This knowledge will build the foundation for a world without a Central Authority, a world where you are once again free to decide what is best for you and your family.

We are evolving. Think about what we are capable of in the future based on sharing information and dispelling fear. Don't create the worst possible scenario in your head and then point to it as proof that improvement is hopeless. Instead create the best possible "ideal" scenario and point to it as something to be always working towards.

An updated (always evolving) version of my original essay here is on my website:

http://betterdifferent.com/government/fairytale

"Contracts aren't inforced"Contracts will play a major role. They will all be public and thus the parties will make good on their obligations to avoid being "named and shamed" publicly. Growing transparancy and information sharing makes this phenomenon inevitable.

"people are enslaved"Some would argue that we are enslaved now, paying 50% of our income to various government taxes and fees. The majority of the world's population and who are against slavery will choose not to do business with anyone who uses slavery. Market forces will check the vast majority of unpopular activities. Again, information flow and transparancy will force everyone to explain themselves.

"Its nice to know when you are eating a hot dog that its just unwanted animal parts from various types of animals, and not humans like before the government got involved in this stuff."What about the people that NEVER eat hot dogs? Should they be paying taxes to inspect and certify your dogs? Wouldn't you rather rely on private groups to certify food contents and pay, say $.10 per package of hot dogs for a stamp of approval? Instead, even vegetarians pay $5.00 a month (a guess, but certainly it is a lot more expensive) to maintain and grow the USDA empire.

"Get rid of farm subsidies but keep something."All government spending is a subsidy of some kind: a forced re-distribution of resources from one party to another through taxes, fees and duties. To me, none of it is moral or justified.

If we have to keep something, let's make sure it is funded by voluntary contributions. Turn the government into a charity where individuals can choose what programs they are funding. There you have it, VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENT.

Thank you very much for your comments. Keep 'em coming! -Nate

Individuals naturally create and assume "authority" of some sort. Just because civil government is eliminated, per se, doesn't mean the same for man's tendency towards it. Even the idea of "shame and ridicule" as opposed to a proscribed set of punishments enshrined in law for all to see and know seems, well, uncivilized.

The voluntary nature of the system you propose either A) wouldn't be voluntary at all as it would be forced upon people who might not want it (unless they voted to abolish the status quo, but bear with me here), or B) would re-evolve into a psuedo-fuedal / paleo-republican form where small groups organize themselves to meet certain needs as they perceive them (be it for police, a fire dept., etc.). People would, without fail, recognize certain figures as authorities for one reason or another -- a leader would emerge and so goes the cycle. Just because said leader(s) isn't endowed with lawfully outlined powers or responsibilities wouldn't make them any less of one. They would still possess power, but it would be in an informal and, arguably, illegitimate way. This is a problem civil government attempts to address: the assumption of power without process.

I'm kind of babbling here, so let me just say that I don't entirely disagree with you -- I'm a conservative libertarian in the Adam Smith / Milton Friedman tradition. But what I see as a given of human nature - "government" in some form - I see best controlled by a federal democratic-republic, such as ours, that allows the majority to rule while protecting the rights of the minority. The federal government should do only those things delegatd to it by the Constitution, and States and localities should be free to do all else as they each individually see fit...

...and if that happens to be cooperating and doing things as they currently do, so be it. At least there's a process.

The market is the cure for most things, but true liberty can only exist under limited government.

Without government protecting you, I might be tempted to beat you up and steal your property, food, wives, children, and ideas. If it isn't nailed down, it's mine, and if I can pry it loose, it isn't nailed down.

Very very silly. See "Lord of the Flies" for things that can happen without a central authority. Or gangland, USA. Its true that people will always abuse power, but just because it is difficult to organize does not mean there is a better choice. Ever try to run ANYTHING -- even a kids sports league? Even for ultra-low stakes, and a nobel purpose, the strong try to take advantage -- every time.

The analogy is imperfect, but non-government is as unreachable as is a perpetual motion machine. Even libertarians concede that the best which can be achieved is "the least government."

I had to scroll down three pages just to downgrade this idea. I like how "since you are a blahblahblah-ist, you know how to run the government". Therefore, since I am msalexan, only I truly know that best way to run the world, and that is only by following me and my msalexan-ist party.

How does an anarcho-capitalist propose we manage health-care? Leave the uninsured on the streets to die? There are inherent efficiencies in government. www.socialist-alliance.com.au