[planfaster]

And yet it seems resilient enough that European countries are importing low-skilled third-world people without any concern for the frafile framework of mutual trust and playing by the rules you speak of.

Not to mention your argument sounds suspiciously like Intelligent Design believers explaining how the universe was obviously created by god since it is built on a fragile interplay of fine tuned distances and sizes and if only they were slightly different humans wouldn't exist!

EDIT @TeMPOraL: I'm the one that argues that it is all within-the-system, without the need for an external omnipotent actor. You're the one that thinks we must introduce the government as an external (above the rules) omnipotent (law-making) actor to the system of human interaction that is originally solely comprised of people and rules that apply to everyone without exception (but you want to introduce the external actor "government" as an exception to this otherwise global rule).

Hence why I argue that what you said is akin to Intelligence Design arguments. You are saying this delicate societal balance is all thanks to the external actor called government, like ID-folks say the balance of the universe is due to god. Both of you believe systems would collapse without this external omnipotent actor. The similarities are not just superficial.

[TeMPOraL]

> And yet it seems resilient enough that European countries are importing low-skilled third-world people without any concern for the frafile framework of mutual trust and playing by the rules you speak of.

Well, it's a huge issue in Europe now, creating a lot of mess. The tension between member countries of the EU has increased, and some people worry that the whole issue may actually turn into a civil war. The world isn't limited to having only one problem at a time.

> Not to mention your argument sounds suspiciously like Intelligent Design believers explaining how the universe was obviously created by god since it is built on a fragile interplay of fine tuned distances and sizes and if only they were slightly different humans wouldn't exist!

Did not see that coming... I don't see anyting but superficial similarities. The difference is, we've seen how societies big and small form and evolve over time. We've been observing it for thousands of years, and we took notes. We know what happens when the rule of law breaks, how fragile it is. It's all within-the-system, there is no need to postulate an external omnipotent actor.

EDIT to reply to 'planfaster's edit:

I don't see where I introduce government as an external actor. Government is a completely in-system being, it's something that occurs naturally whenever a society grows past certain size, when it can no longer hold together by enforcing the rules directly through day-to-day interaction between its members. It's just a more formal form of in-group coordination, and a common pattern in all human organizations - companies, churches, clubs, etc. Hell, it's even the base of multicellular life itself (also note that we have a name for cells that refuse to coordinate with the rest of the organism and instead decide to grow as much as they like - they're called cancer).

A government is something a society forms that allows it to grow beyond a very small size. I implore you to show me a thriving organization or society with more than 500 members that doesn't have a formalized set of rules and governance.

My point against Uber would work the same way if "Uber" was just a village asshole with a horse, going against the "rules that apply to everyone without exception".

But if you want to play it as religious debate, then tell me please, who paid for the roads and the schools and police? How do you call the entity that orders those projects and distributes the resources to accomplish them?

[planfaster]

> (also note that we have a name for cells that refuse to coordinate with the rest of the organism and instead decide to grow as much as they like - they're called cancer).

Right, like the government, which is always growing (like cancer) and never dwindling, always passing new laws and regulations but never deprecating any, all the while refusing to coordinate with the rest of the organism since it claims to be exempt from the laws and regulations to which it subjects its cells/people.

Just like all the cells in the body go by one rule (don't grow unchecked), and cancer doesn't (it grows unchecked), so is everyone under government forced by it to go by one rule (do not initiate force) that government doesn't need to (it may initiate force unchecked).

Do you really not see the similarities?

I am not against a formalized set of rules and governance, I am for it. You are the one who seems to be against it since you are for an actor that does not abide by those rules and governance, namely the government. I am for everyone, without exception, abiding by a set of rules and governance, and the first rule is the one we all agree on so much that the government enforces on us, namely, do not initiate force.

Roads in the US were started by cyclists and war veterans:

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/the-petition-that-pa...

Walter Block (philosopher) has a free book (all his books are free, as he has irrefutable arguments against intellectual property) on the problem of roads: https://mises.org/sites/default/files/The%20Privatization%20...

The problem of schools and police are not as hard (the government of South Africa uses only private police, non-Prussian school models do not require teachers, etc) as that of roads, so I leave them to you as an exercise.

[TeMPOraL]

Where does that "do not initiate force" thing comes from? I'm all fine with it if you can show me a system that would work without it. "Do not initiate force" means "do not punish defectors", "do not enforce coordination", means cancer. Seriously. Every human and animal society has members "initiating force" against people who defect, and that's what keeps those groups together. Even cells in your body often initiate force against ones that grow at the expense of everyone else, or intruders who risk destabilizing the system. We have a specialized branch of cells, called "immune system", that could be considered the police arm of the "government" of your brain.

It seems to me like you believe governments are aliens from outer space that land their alien militaries and alien parliment buildings on our planet and start doing the governing. Governments are actors created within the system; if they're extempt from anything, they're extempt from it by our own design. Like, you know, instead of everyone keeping everyone else under MAD stalemate, some time ago people agreed they'll let one group monopolize the violence, and it worked out for the better for everyone, and that group is by definition extempt from "no violence" rule.

> I am not against a formalized set of rules and governance, I am for it. You are the one who seems to be against it since you are for an actor that does not abide by those rules and governance, namely the government.

I honestly feel like you're trolling me at this point.

[planfaster]

Alternatively, why would you not be OK with a system where the rule that everyone must abide by is "do not initiate force"? I wonder what problems you have with it. Is there something you'd like to do, that would be impossible for you to do under that system?

Again, I am for a formalized set of rules, and I am suggesting that the rule be "do not initiate force". You on the other hand, have not suggested any formalized set of rules, as something cannot be a rule if everyone is helpless to keep the biggest offender from breaking it.

> "do not enforce coordination", means cancer

You say things like that, and you think I'm trolling you? Not to mention, the word is "exempt", not "extempt".

> Governments are actors created within the system

This is meaningless when both good and bad are created "from within" according to you. If I pointed to US History and asked you were Central Banks on the good side or was Andrew Jackson on the good side, I'd say Jackson, but you'd still point out the Central Banks "are actors created within the system". So to me this is meaningless. It's better to talk about how much consent the government has. Recent Gallup polls show more than half of Americans fear their government. I'd say fearing and consenting do not go together. So it seems the people are saying they'd like to treat the cancerous government within our country.

> some time ago people agreed they'll let one group monopolize the violence

They did, or do you assume they did? If the people did agree to this, as you said, then please point me to the historical documents, like a social contract being signed by everyone in a given territory. Otherwise, don't make up facts while trolling me and calling me a troll.