What special qualities are needed for a "government" to be consided a "government"?

[Tod]

What are the distinguishing features of a "government"? Clearly, there is some dispute on the forums as to what makes "government" "government".

Would a Lion's Club considered "government"? How about your neighborhood Baptist Church? (not to pick on the Baptists). Maybe the biggest, strongest dude on your street?

"Government" is an individual or individuals that possess not only the ability but the authority to rule, also known as the right to rule. What does it mean to "rule"? Quite simply, it boils down to the right -the special and unique right- to initiate aggression against others. Without this perceived "right to rule", no one would consider them "government". Instead, people would view them as nothing more than a criminal gang like a mafia.

If a group is claiming the right to rule, how does it obtain that right? No ordinary individual has that right, if osan's cardinal postulate is accepted, so how does that right come to be? I don't believe that there is a legitimate way for it to happen and I have yet to see anyone even begin to offer a plausible mechanism for its creation.

Well known anarchist, Larken Rose is in the process of formally challenging 200 members of academia to, in effect, show the world that there is a means for any "government" to obtain the moral authority, the right, to rule, to initiate aggression against others.

[Sam I am]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government?s=t

the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration:

If that was too wordy for you, something is a Government if it has control over a particular group of people.

[Tod]

I know of no one that considers ordinary gangs to be government.

[Sam I am]

I know of no one that considers ordinary gangs to be government.

Ordinary gangs typically don't have enough control to be a government, but the the Mafias of the 20s and the Mexican drug cartels of today might have counted as governments.

I wouldn't expect most people to say that powerful gangs are governments, but that's because most people will make an emotional decision as to whether or not they consider them governments because they don't want them to be governments, but wanting and be-ing are different things.

[erowe1]

Would a Lion's Club considered "government"?

Yes. Or rather, a Lion's club has a government. And this government is not a state.

How about your neighborhood Baptist Church? (not to pick on the Baptists).

Baptist churches also have governments. And these governments are not states.

Maybe the biggest, strongest dude on your street?

I'd say no, unless he uses that strength to control others without their consent. In that case, he would not be just a government, but also a state.

[The Gold Standard]

Any group that claims and enforces the authority to violate the rights of others. But that is using 'government' almost interchangeably with 'state'.

[erowe1]

I know of no one that considers ordinary gangs to be government.

I do, at least within limited contexts.

I'd even say that if one lone individual broke into my house with a gun while I was there and used my fear of getting shot as a means of forcing me to give him stuff, within that timeframe he would be the state that governs the geographic region that my house occupies and I would be his subject.

[thoughtomator]

Government is two parts violent gang and three parts sadistic paperwork.

[Tod]

Any group that claims and enforces the authority to violate the rights of others. But that is using 'government' almost interchangeably with 'state'.

Claiming to have authority -the right to rule- is not the same as actually having it. I can claim all I want, to be your king with divine right to rule you, and I theoretically could rule you, but that does not mean I actually do have the right.

[Ronin Truth]

What is government?

Clearly, all governments are simply groups of men or women which are put together for the purpose of finding strength, of providing protection. Every possible combination of rules, codes, laws, charters, constitutions, regencies, protectorates, treaties, contracts, specifications, and customs has gone into the tens of thousands of governments which have been devised during history's meteoric course. But however the framework is made, however the structure is built, the fact remains that government is a tool of man's devising, neither better nor worse than the men who devise and use it, and calculated to make man stronger and better able to protect himself in his weaknesses, by the use of force, exerted by some over others. That is all.

The understanding of what government is, and what government is not, is of paramount importance. The importance of understanding government lies not in the importance of government itself, but in the importance men place upon their beliefs respecting government. The importance of understanding government lies in the importance of the security and protection which governments have been devised to provide. Thus, while men may believe that a government is important in itself, beneath this belief is the fact that government is a means to an end, not an end in itself. So we must not only examine this means, this tool of protection, but we must also explore protection, and the necessity for it if it exists.

http://mises.org/library/nature-man-and-his-government

[Tod]

Yes. Or rather, a Lion's club has a government. And this government is not a state.


Baptist churches also have governments. And these governments are not states.


I'd say no, unless he uses that strength to control others without their consent. In that case, he would not be just a government, but also a state.

You are using the word government as a synonym for leadership, which is not the political sense that I intended. Lion's Clubs are a volunteer group, which is not within the arena of political power: they don't imagine themselves to have a right to initiate aggression.

Same with Baptist Churches, although they are more likely in some areas to be able to appear to govern, but they still only exert influence through the vehicle of civil government (I know of no actual Baptist theocracies).

[Tod]

http://mises.org/library/nature-man-and-his-government

That doesn't seem to address the issue of why anyone imagines that a "government" has the right to rule. If they can't show that they have the right, then they are not a legitimate entity.

[Cabal]

Are you trying to distinguish a government or a State?

[erowe1]

You are using the word government as a synonym for leadership, which is not the political sense that I intended. Lion's Clubs are a volunteer group, which is not within the arena of political power: they don't imagine themselves to have a right to initiate aggression.

I don't believe the word "government" entails anyone imagining themselves to have a right to initiate aggression. Wholly voluntary groups can still be governed.

All interaction between multiple humans is governed in some way or other. The process by which they are governed, whatever that may be, is governance. And if this process involves an official group of people with special regulatory responsibilities, they are a government.

The state, however, does entail a group of people imagining themselves to have a right to initiate aggression.

[The Gold Standard]

Claiming to have authority -the right to rule- is not the same as actually having it. I can claim all I want, to be your king with divine right to rule you, and I theoretically could rule you, but that does not mean I actually do have the right.

I said claim and enforce. If you claim to be my king and you come steal from me and force me to subject myself to your rule, then you are my king. I wouldn't recommend you try that unless you have a standing army though.

And the second thing, regardless of what you claim and enforce, you don't have the right to do it. No government has the right.

[erowe1]

Are you trying to distinguish a government or a State?

I am.

But I think the OP is trying to limit the term "government" strictly to "state."

[Tod]

Are you trying to distinguish a government or a State?

I'm talking about government as described in #2 at this link: http://www.preservearticles.com/2011...overnment.html

[erowe1]

That doesn't seem to address the issue of why anyone imagines that a "government" has the right to rule. If they can't show that they have the right, then they are not a legitimate entity.

The only way they can is when participation in their organization is voluntary, like it is with churches.

[The Gold Standard]

I don't believe the word "government" entails anyone imagining themselves to have a right to initiate aggression. Wholly voluntary groups can still be governed.

All interaction between multiple humans is governed in some way or other. The process by which they are governed, whatever that may be, is governance. And if this process involves an official group of people with special regulatory responsibilities, they are a government.

The state, however, does entail a group of people imagining themselves to have a right to initiate aggression.

You are right, but I am just using the word in the most common meaning, which would equate 'government' and 'state'. Rules in private groups can be called government as well but that's not how most people think of the word.

[Tod]

I don't believe the word "government" entails anyone imagining themselves to have a right to initiate aggression. Wholly voluntary groups can still be governed.

All interaction between multiple humans is governed in some way or other. The process by which they are governed, whatever that may be, is governance. And if this process involves an official group of people with special regulatory responsibilities, they are a government.

The state, however, does entail a group of people imagining themselves to have a right to initiate aggression.

Governments routinely pass laws the enforcement of which involve initiating aggression.

It seems that everyone wants to quibble over semantics rather than address whether it is possible for an individual or individuals to legitimately initiate aggression against others, which is what all governments do.

[erowe1]

Governments routinely pass laws the enforcement of which involve initiating aggression.

Some do. When they do, they are states.

Not all do, such as those of churches.

It seems that everyone wants to quibble over semantics rather than address whether it is possible for an individual or individuals to legitimately initiate aggression against others, which is what all governments do.

No, it is not legitimate to do that.

Not all governments do. But those that do, when they do, they act illegitimately.

But that doesn't mean that you can't have a government that doesn't. A perfect society, where no one ever initiates aggression against anyone else, could theoretically still have some kind of government.

[Ronin Truth]

That doesn't seem to address the issue of why anyone imagines that a "government" has the right to rule. If they can't show that they have the right, then they are not a legitimate entity.

I didn't realize that right and legitimacy was/is a requirement. All that is really necessary is the will, power and force to enforce the claim.

According to TJ, governments just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

I wasn't ever asked to consent, were you?

[Cabal]

I'm talking about government as described in #2 at this link: http://www.preservearticles.com/2011...overnment.html

A State is a centralized institution that holds a monopoly over the legitimate (legal) use of force (violence) within a geographical region. Most people tend to use government to refer to the State, and while that's not entirely inaccurate, a government doesn't necessarily have to be a State, though where there is a State there will always be a government.

But, I think I understand what you're getting at--you're specifically referring to the individuals that assume and exercise State powers, referring to them in general as government, correct? I tend to just refer to them as the State as well, personally--they are part of the State and they are using State power, so I don't find it very useful to confuse things by distinguishing them as merely government.

Anyway, the State has no rights where rights are described as moral claims, not to be confused with legal rights (really just privileges, not sure why people call these rights ), and certainly has no right to assume the amount of authority it does over so many. It seems to me the only legitimate way a State could rightfully rule is via unanimous and perpetually sustained consent of those the State is assuming authority over, and even then it wouldn't be a right, but merely a privilege that may become null and void the moment that consent is withdrawn. Practically speaking, this doesn't seem like it's within the realm of possibility to me. The logistics alone aren't really fathomable. A voluntary government of some kind is much more practically possible in my estimation, but a State? I don't think States are compatible with legitimate consent.

Lysander Spooner explored a similar line of inquiry in No Treason.

III

But to say that the consent of either the strongest party, or the most numerous party, in a nation, is sufficient justification for the establishment or maintenance of a government that shall control the whole nation, does not obviate the difficulty. The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation" to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance and defence of any [*10] of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice --- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in the first place? How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?

Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both.

By what right, then, did we become "a nation?" By what right do we continue to be "a nation?" And by what right do either the strongest, or the most numerous, party, now existing within the territorial limits, called "The United States," claim that there really is such "a nation" as the United States? Certainly they are bound to show the rightful existence of "a nation," before they can claim, on that ground, that they themselves have a right to control it; to seize, for their purposes, so much of every man's property within it, as they may choose; and, at their discretion, to compel any man to risk his own life, or take the lives of other men, for the maintenance of their power.

To speak of either their numbers, or their strength, is not to the purpose. The question is by what right does the nation exist? And by what right are so many atrocities committed by its authority? or for its preservation?

The answer to this question must certainly be, that at least such a nation exists by no right whatever.

We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent.

[Tod]

Some do. When they do, they are states.

Not all do, such as those of churches.



No, it is not legitimate to do that.

Not all governments do. But those that do, when they do, they act illegitimately.

But that doesn't mean that you can't have a government that doesn't. A perfect society, where no one ever initiates aggression against anyone else, could theoretically still have some kind of government.

I guess I should have made it clear that this whole dicussion is about government in the sense of an organization that believes it has the right to initiate violence against people, which includes things like taxation (theft) and the enforcement of victimless crime law. That would include city, county, state, and federal governments in the US and comparable groups in other geographical areas. Obviously, the leadership (government only if we expand the scope of meaning) of the Lion's Clubs and churches do not meet that criteria and I clearly muddied the waters by even bringing the groups up in what I mistakenly thought was a clearly rhetorical way.

Continuing in that vein, a society made of voluntary interactions is governmentless (let me repeat, I am not expanding the meaning to include suggested direction rather than mandatory dictatorship); it is without people who imagine they have the right to force others. It would be anarchy.

Anarchy does not mean that there cannot be leaders; it means that there are no rulers. By that I mean that leaders differ from rulers in that leaders don't force anyone to do anything, while rulers do.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

A State is a centralized institution that holds a monopoly over the legitimate (legal) use of force (violence) within a geographical region. Most people tend to use government to refer to the State, and while that's not entirely inaccurate, a government doesn't necessarily have to be a State, though where there is a State there will always be a government.

But, I think I understand what you're getting at--you're specifically referring to the individuals that assume and exercise State powers, referring to them in general as government, correct? I tend to just refer to them as the State as well, personally--they are part of the State and they are using State power, so I don't find it very useful to confuse things by distinguishing them as merely government.

Anyway, the State has no rights where rights are described as moral claims, not to be confused with legal rights (really just privileges, not sure why people call these rights ), and certainly has no right to assume the amount of authority it does over so many. It seems to me the only legitimate way a State could rightfully rule is via unanimous and perpetually sustained consent of those the State is assuming authority over, and even then it wouldn't be a right, but merely a privilege that may become null and void the moment that consent is withdrawn. Practically speaking, this doesn't seem like it's within the realm of possibility to me. The logistics alone aren't really fathomable. A voluntary government of some kind is much more practically possible in my estimation, but a State? I don't think States are compatible with legitimate consent.

Lysander Spooner explored a similar line of inquiry in No Treason.

Excellent!

[Ronin Truth]

Who Authorizes the Authorities?


By Butler D. Shaffer
I began my class one day with an apparently simple question: Does the U.S. Constitution have legitimacy? As a follow-up question, I asked: By what right does one group of men get together and impose upon others a particular system of government?

These questions, of course, do not apply only to the American political system, but can be asked, with equal force, of every government that has ever existed. By what right did the Bolsheviks, or the Catholic Church, or William the Conqueror, or Genghis Khan, or any other group or individual, assume the authority to make and enforce laws upon other men and women?

Having been educated in traditional schools, most of my students answered with the kind of conditioned responses that it has been the purpose of traditional education to provide: “We all got together and agreed to this form of government,” they declared.

Even though the fallacy of such explanations of governmental origins were quickly dispelled by asking the students to tell me the place and date at which they attended this “meeting” with “everybody else” to establish a government, I have no doubt that all of them truly believed that the American government was formed out of the common consent of all Americans.

I forged ahead with my questions: “If we all have inalienable rights, how can some men vote to take away the rights of others?”

“How does the fact that ten men may choose to join together for their common protection impose upon the eleventh man any obligation to go along with them?”

True to their public school upbringings, my students tried to take comfort in the process of voting.: “If they majority are in favor of something, that makes it right,” a number of them agreed.

“But what makes the will of the majority sacrosanct?” I asked.

I went on. “Suppose three muggers confront you on the street and say, ‘We want your money. But don’t worry -- we’re going to let you vote on whether or not you should give it to us.’ If this group votes three-to-one in favor of taking your money, does this legitimize its actions?”

A few of my students saw the obvious analogy to government, but for others the characterization of government as nothing more than sanctified theft and violence was too unsettling. One student tried to rehabilitate the democratic process with the weak plea that “It has to involve more than just a few people,” while another felt obliged to defend democracy and voting at all costs, as something in the nature of an ultimate principle.

“Majority rule is just the way our government is set up,” he argued, not seeing that he had succeeded in arguing himself into one big circle.

“But that’s what I’m asking you to explain.” I went on: “ How does this -- or any other -- system of government acquire the legitimacy to impose such processes upon those who do not choose to be bound by it?”

The discussion ended with a number of my students resorting to the traditional method of all totalitarian systems and ideas: “If you don’t like it, you should leave the country,” they shouted.

When the discussion was over, one of my students stated that this had been a very “unsettling” and “uncomfortable” experience. “It was my purpose to make you uncomfortable,” I replied, “ for only in facing hard, uncomfortable questions will we be able to overcome the dependencies on authority that we have accepted for our lives.”

I remarked upon how institutions not only cause most of the social conflict in the world today, but absolutely require conflict in order to maintain their power over our lives. Government, in particular, generates and manages conflict and, in the process, solidifies its base of power over us.

“But what is the answer to this?” a number of them asked. “What alternatives are there for us?” I told them that since the problem of government involves our self-induced dependencies on authority figures, for me to give you my answer is simply to substitute me as your new authority.

The social problems of our world are occasioned by our consciousness. They are the problem of how we think -- about ourselves, others, and our responsibilities for our own behavior and our own conclusions. “The answer,” I concluded, “ is that you must figure out your own answers.”

That has always been the source of the human dilemma. Because we have come to enjoy the luxury of having other people make judgments and decisions for us, we are terribly uncomfortable when someone comes along and challenges our complacency.
We enjoy triviality -- a fact that has spawned mindless television programming, gossip magazines, and a general banality in what used to be the art of serious conversation -- and eschew fundamental inquires. But if life is to have any meaning, if we are ever to overcome the viciousness and vulgarity that are destroying the quality of human life, we must get ourselves in the habit of asking the sorts of questions we have been trained not to ask.


Butler Shaffer teaches at Southwest University School of Law. He is the author of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival.
[/FONT]

http://www.johnnykramer.com/shaffer.html

[Cabal]

When the discussion was over, one of my students stated that this had been a very “unsettling” and “uncomfortable” experience.

Dat cognitive dissonance.

[TheTexan]

Government has your back when noone else does. Government wants the best for you. Government invests in your future. Government won't always give you what you want, but you'll get what you need. Government protects you. Government straightens you out if you get out of line.

But most of all, government loves you. Unconditionally.

[otherone]

The history of civilization is the history of "moral" violence.

Temporal authority has nearly always claimed divine motivation; propaganda to exploit the superstitious sheep who, according to Orwell,
"sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Things are the way they are for a reason, the flock demands overlords and the sociopaths happily comply. No amount of "waking them up" is going to change anything.

[acesfull]

I know of no one that considers ordinary gangs to be government.

However there are many that consider government to be large organized gangs IE, the IRS, DMV, SSA any taxing agency of the G..

Municipal courts are in fact organized gangs of government employees using scare tactics against citizens with threats of fines, fees and may be jail time for non compliance with unconstitutional statutes and ordinances etc...

My .02

Acesfull