Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I was pointing out that the fact that animals form social groups is not an argument FOR forming a government, because the animals formed these groups without forming government; that these groups and orders form in a state of anarchy.Touche.I am a vegetable. You'll have to bear with me if I miss subtle details. Or even blatantly obvious details.It also allows an individual to exercise authority that is divorced from the actual value that person has demonstrated to society.I'm not sure I've interpreted what you said here properly, but I'm not sure I haven't either. I could be just other-thinking it because you aren't using a simpler wording.I'd say a flawed democracy does this, but so what? A better, or perhaps I should say ideal, democracy would create a balance between elected and elector in which it doesn't matter whether the elected official is experienced or inexperienced, because it would give incentive to the politician that guarantees they don't deviate away from helping out the people whom elected them. Education or experience should just assist them in having credibility that gets them elected, while someone exceptionally intelligent or charismatic, but not educated or experienced, would need to prove themselves in some other way that isn't deceptive to have the same credibility.The point being, in a proper democracy, an elected official would not exercise authority directly related to their past value to society, because the power of the elector would be so great that the elected wouldn't have incentive to become corrupt.Furthermore, why should pre-established value to society automatically equate to having more power? We are all human beings. This isn't Beowulf. You shouldn't necessarily have more societal power just because you have done great things. Nor does the act of doing great things automatically mean you are fit to have societal power.Pure democracy is slavery to the "general will". Representative democracy is only slightly less so.In it's current, manageable state, it is. In the design we should be trying to achieve, everyone would be comfortably accommodated locally, and more generally accommodated the higher the scale of law being created.Furthermore, if most people disagree with you, you may want to rethink your opinions. Though, you moreover refer to the bullshit involving 51% over 49%, and with that, I agree it's stupid as hell.But to rectify such things on a national level, national lawmaking should simply not be extremely severe and frequent. Important things that relate on smaller scales should be the most important things to vote on, while unimportant things that don't have positively tremendous bearings on people's lives should be what's nationally voted upon.This isn't how things are currently done, but as I said, current democracy is not perfect, and we should be trying to constantly make it better. Getting rid of all order or all freedom is detrimental to our progression. We should be trying to build up to a utopia, not breaking ourselves down to a dystopia.Such a democracy encourages corruption by making the position of the politician dependent upon pleasing only the majority of voters (not producers), even to the detriment of the remaining minority.Not if the power in the elector is such that they have the ability to replace politicians they elect with the snap of their fingers.Like, say, take a senator from a state. The senator from the state does something that most people in his state disagree with. The people in that state immediately have the choice to pull him from office and replace him.In a democracy like that, no, corruption would not be encouraged. Not if each elected individual is at his or her wits end from trying to make sure they represent the their electors properly, knowing that making a mistake will cause them to be out of a job and paycheck that feeds them and their family.And if they would representing their electors on such a precise basis, it would be up to the electors to make sure that society is improving overall on every scale... unless an elected official wants to greatly risk loosing his job just so he can do something contrary to his reason for being elected. And hell, in our age of technology, I wouldn't be surprised if it could be possible to meaningfully vote people in an out of office at a convenient fly! And if that were to be done, then that further eliminates the power of the elected to contradict their electors.Furthermore, as long as nationally elected officials are not creating and voting upon laws that significantly change individual lives, then the worry of the majority opinions hurting the minority is a non-issue. If the smaller the scale, the more laws effect individual lives, then that just means people can conveniently live in cities, districts, and states which better accommodate their opinions on how the law should effect them.--Elmer T Peterson (disputed)This man's quote is absolutist. Since I fundamentally disagree with absolutism, I'm not going to bother picking apart his quote. Moreover, I think most of what I've already written throughout this reply already picks it apart. Plus it's fairly self-evident that speaking absolutely about something that is not absolute is a sign of someone foolish, misguided, arrogant, or some other some such trait that would cause them to illogically speak absolutely.I would argue that the goal of a society should be the greatest liberty, not the most order. Prisons are relatively orderly.The goal of society is to advance our species, like just about everything psychologically healthy humans do. I don't advocate more order, I advocate both freedom and order being properly applied in proper amounts as to create the most prosperity.And the complete elimination of either order or freedom is not conducive to this. Anarchy does not abhor order within itself, but it itself is not orderly. Order created within it was not orderly created, it was chaotically created. It was chance. It was not planned. And that's why it's unfavorable to me and what I think is best. If you have only order or only chaos, people are going to suffer, every time, and the more people that suffer, the less our species progresses. This is why the United States is a country preferred over some primitive tribal society or North Korea... because we don't eliminate one side of the spectrum or the other. We try and have a balance of both that creates as much prosperity as possible.