Could the world 'work' without governments/politicians?

[aadil717]

1) I was talking about the actual growing of crops and livestock. If there is a drought water dries up due to evaporation which means plants die which means livestock doesn't eat(than dies). Things like greenhouses can only make up for so much.

2) Where do you think the funding for this research is coming from? A majority of scientific research is government funded.

It's also a pipe dream, you will always have people with a lot of money, people with none and a majority of people inbetween.

That is also ignoring the fact that without government there would be no currency.

1) Yeah I think everyone knows how a drought works...
If there is drought, give them water.

2) It's nearly there, so if the government did go, there would still be hope.

Banks maybe part government owned, but they aren't government run - banks can still run without a government.

The essential use of banks is to store and give out money. If someone has money, then I don't see why we need a government for it to be saved or spent.

 

[Northstar]

Well, banks could easily establish a common currency.
If you've ever visited Northern Ireland, you'd know that all their banks press their own banknotes that have a common value in Pounds Sterling, so there are many different-looking £10 notes, for example. In addition to that, both Bank of England and Bank of Scotland (I'm not completely sure on BoS) notes are naturally eligible. It doesn't seem to be a problem that the notes don't share a common look.

What's to stop North Bank from making themselves the richest bank in the world?

Sure there could be an agreement, but one bank could still say 🤬 it and print so much money they could buy every bank. That is where government regulation comes in.

1) Yeah I think everyone knows how a drought works...
If there is drought, give them water.

How do you plan on paying for the trillions of gallons of water it would likely take to get the smallest of countries through a drought?

Charities? Will take care of some, but the fact famine still exists with government should tell you how that will work.

Private companies? No money to be made so not likely to find much cash there.

2) It's nearly there, so if the government did go, there would still be hope.

My point was it wouldn't have even started if not for the government.

You can't be for/against government when it's convenient.

- banks can still run without a government.

Where did I say it couldn't? There would just be all kinds of issues with currency.

 

[niky]

This is something that amazes me, but is also obvious when you think about it: every single penny you spend goes to the government eventually. All of it.
As an example, I'll try to simplify it (not using exact figures)...

1. You buy a sofa for £500. £400 goes to the shop, £100 in tax.

2. Of that £400; the shop pays tax of £80 and also £200 to the builder/supplier.

3. This leaves clear profit of £120 for the shop. this is spent on various things including wages and so on, all of which are taxed, and then anything the wages are spent on by the employees are also taxed (repeating step 1 + 2 for any other shops the wages are spent in until the money is gone as it gradually reduces with tax).

4. The supplier gets £200, £40 of which is taxed, the rest is spent on materials, wages and so on, all of which are taxed.

5. This process repeats continually until the amount is so small that the last 10 pence is taxed for 2 pence, then the remaining 8 pence is taxed for 1.6 pence and so on and so forth.

So even though the tax rate in the UK is 20%, it is actually 100%, eventually...

Doesn't quite work that way.

If the government takes 20% at every step, considering there are several, the amount will depend on the mark-up at each step. Typically 200% markup at the last step, going down to maybe 50-100% mark-up on raw materials. Out of that 80% left when you pay at the shops, 53% is markup. If you tax that at 20%, as income, the shopkeeper still has 42% in net profit.

Anarchy only works if everyone is of like mind. But if everyone were of like mind, we wouldn't have government and we wouldn't need courts, because we'd all agree.

As to transition... It's nearly impossible to transition from anarchy to full-on libertarianism, because, as Larry Niven would say... Anarchy is the least stable form of government. It collapses too easily into fascism.

Just the mere need to have a police or militia force to ensure security is already the first step towards creating a new government... The bigger the population that needs policing, the larger the bureaucracy needed to coordinate the police force, and the more money needed to support it. It's a vicious cycle, really.

 

[XoravaX]

What's to stop North Bank from making themselves the richest bank in the world?

Sure there could be an agreement, but one bank could still say 🤬 it and print so much money they could buy every bank. That is where government regulation comes in.

It would be in the bank's interests to keep the currency stable - the other banks could just stop trading in that "rebelling" bank's notes. Anyway, a board of the banks would be needed to keep the economy stable. Similar to the finance administration which allocates the amounts of new banknotes to be printed by each bank.

There would just be all kinds of issues with currency.

Sure there would.

 

[Omnis]

The world could work without governments, but not without social order.
Watch here:

 

[paddyree]

Have a look at this. Not sure whether it's a viable idea, but it's got to be better than what we have at the moment. www.thevenusproject.com