When I talk to someone about my views on things, government will inevitably come up. This is usually because I don't believe in government services at all; I abhor them.
Why do I abhor government? Is there something wrong with me? Am I a terrorist? Or am I utopian? Perhaps a stoner? Is it possible that I just have something to hide, and I want government to go away so it can remain hidden?
Am I just a criminal who is trying to justify his criminal intent?
Everyone else falls someplace within two different spectrums, the individual-collective spectrum and the victim-aggressor spectrum.
The individual-collective spectrum identifies a person's tendency to take care of themselves vs. their tendency allow other people to perform the caretaking function. The individualist, one who believes in caring for themselves, is on one side, while the collectivist, one who believes in caring for others and having others care for them, is on the other side.
Individualists are generally those people who believe in self-sufficiency, in which they are able and willing to care for themselves, eschewing the assistance of others. Individualists are not as efficient in their endeavors as the collectivists, but an individualist can survive with the lack of a supporting community. Often, individualists are seen as rugged individuals who eschew society for the wild, savage wilderness of sparsely populated areas, such as the iconic US State Montana. In addition, individualists tend to be overly controlling, as they take responsibility for everything that happens to and around them... this can often result in a more aggressive attitude.
Collectivists generally congregate thickly in cities, and are the opposite of the individualist. Collectivists believe in the combination of skills to produce a gestalt, or the ability to get more result than the amount of work that went into the work. The division of labor is the key to a collective, and collectivists are generally willing to do so. However, a collectivist, who generally specializes in one part of the gestalt, could not survive outside of it, due to the distinct lack of the other skills the collectivist forewent. In addition, a collectivist will not be as likely to take responsibility for a problem, as it is the responsibility of the collective to solve it... this can often result in a more passive attitude.
A balance of the two is usually independent cooperation. Such a person will recognize the benefits of living in a society, and are willing to bend their individualist tendencies in order to benefit from a gestalt, as long as they are not held to the collective bent. This usually results in a market, in which stronger skills are willingly offered to offset the weaker skills in each individual.
The victim-aggressor spectrum consists of one's tendency to accept or give violence, either in response to an aggressive act, or initially. This spectrum is important, as it generally determines one person's likelihood to lead or follow, and is the key to the question of government's legitimacy.
The aggressor usually uses some form of violence in order to achieve their goals, even if there is no violence being directed against them. The common examples for this rule are robbers, murderers, and rapists. Aggressors usually use a weapon to achieve their goals, because such would lessen their need to expend energy in the pursuit of their goals.
The victim is the opposite of an aggressor; they perform out of a fear of the aggressor, willingly going along with any demand made by the aggressor, and expending additional energy in order to appease the aggressor beyond their demands.
In the balance of the two comes the confident person. This individual is not passive to the aggressor, but they are not aggressive against the passive themselves. They do not operate from a level of fear or arrogance, but from a state of confidence.
Now that we know the tendency of people in those categories, let's focus on the collective known as Government. Government consists of two things: the controller, and their fighters.
The fighters generally are the people who have weapons. They are usually numerous and well-trained in the art of harming and killing people, depending on the demands of their situations. They are, essentially, tools to direct the cooperative, and to intimidate and subdue the uncooperative. Any additional roles they may play is merely to make them more palatable to the cooperative, and to further hinder the uncooperative. By their very job description, fighters must be both collective and aggressors; victims will prove ineffective, and individuals will prove uncooperative to the organization's goals.
The controller is the leading body, whether the meaning of body is literal or figurative. It can be a single dictator or a group of people. They are often individualist aggressors; they are well-aware of their positions, and are unwilling to cede control to anyone else, except as a subordinate delegation.
Many single-body controllers in history gained that role as the alpha fighter, a fighter that represents the pinnacle of the combative and intimidation arts. This was often the case in societies where combat prowess was highly valued; an example would be ancient Sparta. This also applied to those who built empires through conquest, such as the Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires. Other such controllers gained their role through the supreme advocate, in which case they had the ability to sway large numbers through convincing speeches, thereby turning the controlled into fighters. Adolf Hitler and Vladamir Lenin are perfect examples of the specimen.
One thing to keep in mind is that the single-body controller has one glaring weakness: it has a single point of failure. If the controller were to be removed, either by combat or by assassination, the government would then completely shift to a new controller, which could be either good or bad for the people they control. A group-body controller consists of multiple people in control, is more resilient, but much less flexible overall than the single-body leader. This means that drastic changes take longer to complete, but are harder to prevent. Most of the current controllers are of this type; among the largest are the United States Congress and British Parliament.
Constitutions were an attempt by the victims to keep the controller from being too aggressive. This method depended on the controller being among their number, which is the basis for the electoral systems seen in modern governments, especially where legislature (demand-making bodies) is concerned. However, the problem with this scenario is that those positions will become enticing for the aggressors. After all, even with a constitution, there is more power in a political position than their is in a non-political position, and aggressors seek as much power as possible to expend as little energy toward their goals as possible.
Over time, the aggressors filter through the constitutional collective until they reach the positions needed to cut the filter off, giving them the power they seek. The more complete the constitution, the longer this process takes. This is because alpha fighters don't automatically qualify for the office, as per the constitution of the government. However, the supreme advocate has a tool that can undermine the constitution's foundation: language. True to their advocate nature, a supreme advocate can alter the meaning of words just enough to change the meanings of constitutional passages, rendering them inert against the original intent. This, combined with the long chain of supreme advocates making their contributions to the undermining, ends with a powerless constitution, and controllers in full control of the controlled.
Now, for those of you who don't yet get the connection, let's bring this back to the original claim: I don't believe in government services at all; I abhor them.
Ultimately, a government is simply a single individualist/aggressor person, or a group of them, in the controller role, using collective/aggressive people in the fighter role, in order to keep the rest of the population in the collective/victim role for their own benefits. What benefit? Well, to exploit the victims for creature comforts.
"That's too simplistic!" I can hear many shout. "They provide many services for the people!"
This is true to a point. The "services" are foisted upon the populace, and even chosen by the populace, but it is not just the willing that are charged for the service, and much of the charged funds do not go into the "services," but into the pockets of the fighters and the controllers, with the leftover monies being invested into the services. This is the key to the scam; ultimately, the members of the government uses the services excuse to force payment, even from those who do not agree with the services or payment.
In addition to the forced payment, there are also monopoly privileges enjoyed by the services. This means that the failure of a service can be used as an excuse for extracting more money, rather than the reason to find an alternative to do a better job. Of course, this doesn't increase the investment much, it's just better pocket-lining for the individuals involved. Don't believe me? Ask anyone the reason why "Government work" is so sought after, and they will tell you, in no certain order, "The pay is good," "Good benefits," and "Job security," and perhaps some more honest individuals will also go with "More authority," and "Immunity to (insert law here)." This isn't by accident.
I hope this at least gives you something to think about, the next time you assume that there needs to be a law, or that a program is going to be beneficial.
