What if the world governments were attacked and destroyed?

[Genecks]

As of the past couple of years, I've been studying law. I'm not in law school, but I've been re-evaluation various aspects of law. There is the continual argument that ignorance is no excuse for the law on the premises that (1) the government puts out information for its people to understand and know the law and that (2) ignorance of the law would be willful (that is to say that people willingly seek out to know and understand the law. Allegedly, these two premises are supposed to enable people to be pro se, thus their own attorneys. However, in the face of the metaphysical argument that anything is "willfully" done, there exist determinist if but fatalistic arguments. Although it was never brought forth into fruition throughout my education into my initial legal adulthood, the potential for Einstein's relativity to be an argument for fatalism makes a metaphysical argument that no individual willfully seeks out knowledge of the law. Furthermore, I don't get mail from my county, state, and federal government on laws that were recently passed: As such, I believe it's complete bull that the government attempts to make people know the law.

 

These issues along with metaphysical arguments against free will have persuaded me that the current model of government maintains a tyrannical form with a metaphysical belief system that relies on an empiricial rules of evidence. Regardless of the empiricial rules of evidence that exists in court room style argumentation, there is nonetheless empiricial evidence from Einstein's relativity and other argument in relation to the laws of physics that there is no free will. As such, an individual cannot willfully seek out knowledge of the law. As with moral blame, there is often the argument that free will is necessary for moral blame to exist. As such, it appears that many governments are seeking the paradigm of "legal compatibilism" in order to prosecute and blame people for alleged wrongful acts. This paradigm of legal compatibilism may as well be saying that there exist individuals in society who do not fit the mold that the government people desire, thus they need to be eliminated through incarceration, fines, or the death penalty.

 

From studying law, I came across complications, which felt Orwellian in nature. The issue was looking into legal systems that existed prior to the Christianity based legal systems. With this being said, I've attempted to look into the Stoic philosophy in relation to a legal paradigm. From what I've understood, the Christian school of thought did not like the nature-based, deterministic paradigm of the Stoics and strongly opposed it. Understandably, when there is no right nor wrong and only nature, it becomes difficult to argue for moral responsibility. As such, I perceived an existential indifference in relation to living.

 

From my analysis of law and government, turning back to clock and developing a just legal system would involve a return to stoicism or at least indifference. I conceive a possible society, such as in the movie Equillibrium: A very calm and conformist society devoid of much personality. It appears to be the main way to generate peace. As such, if governments were destoryed, there would be an indifferent human race. With indifference, there would be a lack of greed, desire, etc. etc.. It would be a very boring but calm society, as though people are awaiting their deaths and the end of the universe. That is not to say that people can't do something with their time, such as conduct metaphysical investigations and scientific research. But the system of moral responsibility would be thrown out. I think any government system would feverishly resist any attempt to bring about an indifferent society based on deterministic views of the universe.

[Ten oz]

It seems that your goal is peace? I don't think stoicism is the solution. What drives human violence is our ongoing struggle for more resources. It is why England went into India, why Spain came to the Americas, why today countries around the world are so interested in the middle east, and so on. Resources is even the reason why a criminal steals. A society like fictionalized in Equilibrium wouldn't address resources. People would still have to compete on a personal, city, state, and national level to ensure access to resources. So war would still exist. Crime would still exist.

 

Our global economic structure is based on growth. As a result we have an unquenchable thirst for resources. Every country and every individual person always needs more. If we, humanity, could acknowledge that we are over populated things could change. If people chose to just have a single child our population would shrink every generation. As it did our global need for resources would decrease. As it decreased things like recycling what we already built and accumulated would become preferred options over creating more. Eventually when populations got low enough there would be an abundance of resources for everyone. As result the need for war and crime would greatly reduce.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Ten oz

[DimaMazin]

It seems that your goal is peace? I don't think stoicism is the solution. What drives human violence is our ongoing struggle for more resources. It is why England went into India, why Spain came to the Americas, why today countries around the world are so interested in the middle east, and so on. Resources is even the reason why a criminal steals. A society like fictionalized in Equilibrium wouldn't address resources. People would still have to compete on a personal, city, state, and national level to ensure access to resources. So war would still exist. Crime would still exist.

 

Our global economic structure is based on growth. As a result we have an unquenchable thirst for resources. Every country and every individual person always needs more. If we, humanity, could acknowledge that we are over populated things could change. If people chose to just have a single child our population would shrink every generation. As it did our global need for resources would decrease. As it decreased things like recycling what we already built and accumulated would become preferred options over creating more. Eventually when populations got low enough there would be an abundance of resources for everyone. As result the need for war and crime would greatly reduce.

We have enough quantity of resources for development. We have insufficient quantity of resources to steal.

[Dekan]

I don't think it would be a good thing if all governments were destroyed. That would result in anarchy, with people starving to death in millions.

 

The existing governments may not be very admirable. But at least they maintain law and order most of the time. Especially - they haven't started any World Wars since 1945. Which is greatly to their credit.

Of course, our governments can't stop local wars happening. Like in the Middle East at the present time. However these small wars don't inconvenience most of the world's population. They're just things we watch on television.

 

Most of us lead quite good lives in today's world. We're getting better fed, and cured of diseases. Even in formerly backward continents like Africa, things are getting better. And in Asia, China is a modern marvel of progress.

This progress is demonstrated most clearly by the Internet. Here, all the world's people can meet in friendly discourse. Engaging in interesting scientific discussions, just as we're doing here on Scienceforums.net.

 

But none of this would be possible without Governments, to control us. If we lacked such control, we'd be savages, fighting each other all the time.

To prove this, let's notice that on Scienceforums.net, the members have to be kept in order by a "Government" of mods, who on the whole, and allowing for human failings, do a very good job.

[dimreepr]

Especially - they haven't started any World Wars since 1945. Which is greatly to their credit.

 

 

That’s unnecessary and inaccurate, I realise you were being humorous but the jokes well over 50 years old and stopped being funny 30 years ago, and your date is 6 years out.

 

As for the rest of the post, I broadly agree, other than the last part.

 

 

If we lacked such control, we'd be savages, fighting each other all the time.

 

 

 

And that's just twaddle.

Edited July 5, 2014 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

 

But none of this would be possible without Governments, to control us. If we lacked such control, we'd be savages, fighting each other all the time.

To prove this, let's notice that on Scienceforums.net, the members have to be kept in order by a "Government" of mods, who on the whole, and allowing for human failings, do a very good job.

This reads almost like a God justification. That without the guiding hand of a omnipotent leader humans would be savages. Using this forum as an example is something of a false equivalency. We all willfully choose to use this site and can stop doing so anytime. People are not born into a government by their own choice and can not choose to leave whenever they want.

The idea of human savagery without rule is an old one which has been used to justify some of the most deplorable treatment of people throughout history. Africans, American Natives, aborigines, Indians, and etc all suffered holocausts driven partly by the attitude that they were savages that lacked proper governance. Regional tribal warfare did not lead us to wars where hundreds of millions have been killed, tortured, raped, and enslaved. Governments and Kingdoms have done that. In order to control the savage nature of man governments have laid waste to interior cultures of people. The irony is clear.