10 votes

Do We Really Need Governments?

In spite of all the governmental crimes committed against humanity, the cronyism, the tax and debt bondage foisted upon the people of the world by the global elite, In spite of all of that, human beings power the global economy regardless of the obstacles.

We parrot the predictions of others who claim the world is going down the drain.

I say it's time for the people of the world to flush governments down the drain.

Get rid of these criminal parasites who add nothing and only suck energy and vibrancy from the global economy and the social eco-system with criminal monetary/fiscal policy and wars.

This short ad sums up what I'm getting at;
"A quarter of goods and services produced in ALL of human history were produced in just the last 10 YEARS!
The world economy now produces more goods and services than ever before in history.
Seen in that light, global trade, investment and economic activity are still in their infancy."


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


~ I posted a question that impulsively surfaced in my mind...
~ Quoted an unsubstantiated assertion from an investment company's advertisement...
~ An got a gold vein of well thought out debate on the key issue facing America today...


Just about every issue facing Americans today arises out of a government (or puppet theater) -- call it what you will -- that has become bloated and oppressive to almost every area of a person's life.

Thanks to the DP'ers.

Affording Fraud


"Corporate Government then assumes financial control of your estate, and they – aware that most of us do in fact live beyond 7 – continue to treat us as living slaves."

No more legal criminals?


Yes to government, no to the state

Government is discipline and order through conscious choice. We govern our behaviors for our health and well-being, submit to sensible rules in public settings.....We govern others' behaviors through force when they fail to respect our property or others' property, etc.

All of this is done when people are at all civilized, and would be done without a monopoly government because there are universal standards for sane, non-offensive conduct.

The State is a mafia organization passing itself off as a given group's or region's mechanism of government....That kind of government we don't need.

Obama commencement address:

"Reject voices that warn of government tyranny. ... They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner..."

There is no such thing as "the government."

A silly and conceptual point... But there is no such thing as a forest, a family, a government.

You cannot point to the FOREST if there are no trees.
You cannot point to the FAMILY if there are no people.
You cannot point to the GOVERNMENT if there are no people.

So if you enjoy some benefit currently provided by "the government," then people could keep on providing you that benefit, without using the TITLE OF GOVERNMENT, and PEOPLE could keep on providing that benefit to you, WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE which is what the government truly is.

Government = the monopoly of force.
Government = the monopoly of violence.

So, what "good" can ONLY come

So, what "good" can ONLY come from gov't.....FACTUALLY?!?!?!

What, factually, do THEY provide us with that WE can't provide for ourselves?

How are gov'ts DIFFERENT from gangs, FACTUALLY?

...The one thing that everyone thinks necessitates a gov't, physical protection, is a logistical IMPOSSIBILITY.

Is it necessary to "do something", even when that "something" can never achieve the end it seeks? Even when that "something" can only make the situation worse?

Forcing everyone to live by one person's or one groups will, alone, is what makes gov't "evil". What makes up the "necessary" element of the "necessary evil" theory?

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Enemies foreign and domestic

Lending moral and material support to enemies of liberty is just another way of saying payments to the fraud and extortionists, and it is just another way of saying investments in profits earned through crime, legal, or otherwise.

The case where people banded together Declaring their Independence, and fending off the largest aggressive army of military criminals on the planet Earth, at the time, constitutes no evil, it constitutes remedy of evil, it exemplified Free Market Government, and voluntary defensive power, and it happened between 1776 and 1788, in America, before the criminals regained their power of legal fraud, and crime made legal.

Perhaps that ought not be considered a theory, since it demonstrated factual examples of the design intended: defense of liberty.



The word government can mean self imposed limits upon the self.

Some people are liars, and they do not impose the self imposed limit of only using words to convey accurate meaning, upon themselves, so instead of that limit they use words to injure their targeted victims with those words. The common law term is fraud.

A liar may learn how to transfer all the power created by all the productive people in the world to that one liar, if that one liar could make the targeted victims believe the lie that the liar is the power of government.

If you believe that the liars are the power of government, you may, by being subject to that lie, transfer most, if not all, of your power to those liars.

You may give up your own precious power to govern your own precious self.


Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

A group of self-government people created a Free Market Voluntary Government then called a Democratic Federated Republic under The Articles of Confederation, including Sovereign State Constitutionally Limited Governments, and Trial by Jury based upon sortition.

In other words the mechanism by which The People could enforce improvement in the Free Market of Government was put in place by those people, and it worked. It worked as a Voluntary Free Market Government Power that did not "have to" be the lesser of two evils, instead it was a government that could be a choice of which government was higher in quality and which government was lower in cost.

It was, in those days between 1776 and 1788, a Free Market Government Power, so Thomas Paine was speaking historically in Common Sense in 1776, and Thomas Paine was not speaking currently, as the Free Market Government Power he was much a part of, was at that time improving the supply of good, defensive, moral, high quality, and low cost, government, at that time.

Unfortunately, as today, as then in 1776, the really evil ones, like those Central Bankers of old, those financiers of The British Crown, those Alexander Hamiltons, those treasonous vipers, there still exists evil people, doing evil things, and they create these so called choices between Evil A and Evil B, which are false choices, they are liars.

There still exists, in many people, the self governing concepts of common sense, common laws, based upon every sense of the word morality, to do no harm to no one, whenever possible, and that includes the concept of choosing not to abandon past, current, or future victims who may need help as those victims are currently being lied to, threatened, and injured by criminals inside of, or outside of actual, true, just, right, moral, common, law.

You may find, as I found, it interesting to know that the use of the word "anarchism" to mean the opposite of what it commonly means today, was originally turned from BLACK to WHITE by a person named:

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon


Quoting from the above link are the words offered by:

Steven Pearl Andrews

Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others.

Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter.

Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it.

If the most powerful inhuman beings stalking the Earth can get all their victims to argue over words, what do you think happens?


FOOLS..all of yer...

It's not "governments" you fools.

They use violence, money, bribery, and intimidation to seize control of governments and hollow them out, through their private Central Banks, and Roundtable groups (like The Council on Foreign Relations).

And it is they who decide what Wars will be fought, what Resources will be stolen, what Economies will be plundered, and plan the Police State, and decide what puppets will be chosen to give the false illusion that we even still have a government.

But we don't.
There is no government.
There is no public representation.
There is only a bribery-controlled, CIA-Media-controlled, Iron Curtain that is totally controlled by The Banksters.

All you have is a puppet-show created by the Banks....which replaced the real government.

Hence: The problem is not that government is too strong, it is that our elected government was clearly too weak. For a strong government would've prosecuted the Banksters, and created an equal-time, equal-access election system where wealth, bloodlines, and power did not provide any advantage whatsoever ... and only the best policy ideas, creativity, and the satisfaction of the public mattered.

The history books lie. We did not win the American Revolution. All we did is just make the Army go away, but we were still stuck with same Rothschilds Bank Of England system in charge --- and we completely lost our Independence as a consequence.

They run the show, and so I refuse to celebrate the 4th of July holiday.....when we won no Independence at all.

Flame me, go ahead.

Anarchy is a pipe dream. Believe it, or not. Not my problem. It is the sheer opposite of Communism, but just as unobtainable.

Things I'm NOT saying:
"Our form of government is completely good."
"The actions of government are completely just, and fair."
"Our government's size is necessary and not wasteful whatsoever."
"This republic democracy thing works like a charm."

Things I am saying:
Government does serve a rational purpose, believe it, or not. In my opinion, someone claiming that all government is totally and utterly useless is very shortsighted.

The biggest flaw that I find with anarchy applied to a large society is the enforceability paradox.

The problem is the size of government, and few people here seem to give this a thought, let alone understand this. Transparency can help to reduce waste, with enough participation from the citizens. Perhaps a restructuring process is a good idea... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics

SURE we need governments !

What else could lie, rob, defraud, and commit mass murder on such a massive scale ?

"But what would you replace the state with ?
The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state.
Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be 'replaced'.
. . .
I miss the serenity of believing I lived under a good government,
wisely designed and benevolent in its operation.
But, as St. Paul says, there comes a time to put away childish things."
Joseph Sobran

Anarchy is the answer.

Libertarianism/minarchism is a fine short-term goal, but logically, anarchy should be the overall objective.

Saying we NEED "a little bit" of government is akin to saying we NEED "a little bit" of slavery.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


The problem isn't government

It's the people ELECTED TO the government.
There should be a test of some kind to determine if those seeking a position actually understand what that position entails - the do's and dont's of the position. And there's got to be an easier way to oust those who renege on their oath - and make the punishment the end of a noose!
Seriously, the problem with our Constitution was Madison and Hamilton. Madison originally wanted a national govt and to pretty much erase the states. Hamilton was a closet monarchist. And I'm just a wee bit ticked off with Patrick Henry - he should have bucked up and put a mask on to avoid the stench of the rat. Had the true Federalists advice been taken it might have avoided some of the tyranny we are under today. And they should have been a bit more specific about the actual job of SCOTUS who are too willing to make crap up to suit their agenda and not uphold original intent.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

it doesn't matter

who is put in charge of government, no matter how good they are... it matters not at all... please watch "If you were King" by Larken Rose: http://www.larkenrose.com/video/2139-if-you-were-king.html

and the problem with the constitution is that it is just a piece of paper. For a short but almost comical, but entirely true explanation, please watch "I'm allowed to rob you" by Larken Rose: http://www.larkenrose.com/video/1964-im-allowed-to-rob-you.html

um yeah

In the 2nd vid Larkin's railing about the IRS which is an unconstitutional organization. Plus, in Pollock v Farmers SCOTUS ruled fed personal income tax unconstitutional. He's stretching.

I also didn't agree with everything in the 1st vid.

You are never going to get utopia on earth. There will always be someone who wants to overpower everyone else and those who want to be left completely alone and others who won't do for themselves. Almost everyone has experienced a nosey neighbor. All societies become structured in some way - we structure our personal lives, our families. I don't have a problem with government - but I have a big problem with those who abuse that structure and claim powers they were never authorized to have.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Well said.

Well stated.

Of all forms of government...

...anarchy is the worst of all worlds.

I can't imagine how horrific it would be without any laws at all regarding crime, especially corporate crime.

An example: In China, because there are no laws at all regarding dogs and cats, let alone other animals, an estimated million dogs and cats are skinned alive (ALIVE) each year for fur -- which, btw, those factories mislabel as "faux" fur because there are no laws against mislabeling over there either.

In some other countries, because of no laws to protect women -- let's just say you wouldn't want to be a female in those countries.

As the Founding Fathers knew very well -- and every Christian who reads the Bible would also know well -- government is a necessary evil.

Where in the Bible does it

Where in the Bible does it imply Government is a necessary evil. I find Jesus' message to be quite the opposite.

What message did you hear?

The Christ of the Bible or the worldly version of Christ? Just wondering because there are many views of Christ and I don't know if you're a Christian or if you've read the Bible, since I don't know you.

But as to your question, you may want to look at Exodus, Deuteronomy, Judges, and Romans 13. You should see from the Bible, as the Founders saw, that some government authority is absolutely necessary for civilized society but that it's also the duty of the people to elect the kinds of leaders described here:

Exodus 18:21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

And there are some who believe...

...that Jesus would be a zionist today. There are still others who believe Jesus would be a liberal Democrat today.

As I said, there's a huge difference between the world's varying views of Christ and the Christ of the Bible.

Laws are just words on paper.

Laws are just words on paper. Laws don't turn bad people into good people. I obey all laws except the ones I don't. Each individual decides what actions to take or not take based on their own moral guidance system. A society with no morals can't be controlled by a list of moral laws.

Females being mistreated in certain countries is not happening due to a lack of certain laws. Its in theirof society, not the other way around. When enough people in those countries feel that it is wrong to mistreat women, then and only then will the laws be written.

Do you believe a million cats and dogs are skinned alive and mislabeled just because a law hasn't been passed? If so how do you explain all the murders around the globe every year? I'm certain murder is illegal in (almost) every country on earth and has been for quite some time. How about the drug users and dealers? Didn't they get the memo? why are you worried about cats and dogs in China, anyway? They are as irrelevant to me as those mistreated women somewhere. All I can control is me, and I haven't skinned any cats or mistreated any women. Leading by example, just like Dr. Paul says....

Doesn't happen here

The U.S. Government would shut down such industries, as they've done countless times other companies that break the law. Sorry but it's really a silly question.

Nobody but young people (or crazy people) would buy into this anarchy crap and nobody but the lost would think people are inherently good and therefore need no laws.



I've been saying this for a while now but nobody that I say it to 'gets it'. My point is that most of the functions of our original constitutional government are obsolete now thanks to real-time communications and the internet. A computer program could even take over most aspects of the Treasury/Fed were it not for the banksters.
We are at the crossroads of many new paradigms but most people will fight to preserve the status quo because they can't 'see' a world without big obtrusive nanny states. I don't believe that markets need government for stability. The 'markets' in that statement are the rigged banker's markets. If you believe in the NYSE then you are not ready for the new paradigms yet. People will eat and work and go into the world and create things regardless of who's calling the shots or what the DOW says. 'Markets' are simply a way of aggregating all that activity into a vehicle that can be controlled, regulated and manipulated.
The governments of the world need to get out of the way now. They brought us this far, to the brink of complete annihilation several times, its time they move aside. I hope I see it in my lifetime.

political stability is a

political stability is a necessary precondition of a robust market. This is why nations with strong, overly intrusive governments can still have stronger economies than when there is virtually no government(tribal and feudal societies). Anarchy does not provide as much public confidence in long term stability as government does. Stability is necessary for investment. The Israelites who lived in anarchy wanted government because they wanted more stability.
I would say that Government as a whole operates on something like a Laffer Curve. A certain amount can actually inrease wealth but too much is just counterproducted and wealth-destroying.

Ventura 2012

Government is slavery

The real question. How long will humanity continue to allow the few to enslave the many?


Cyril's picture

It's an interesting question

It's an interesting question and guess who gave some serious thoughts to it, speculating that, maybe, the founders intended NEITHER anarchy or government, but something else, much less coercive (than the latter anyway)...

But sadly, of course, MUCH unfortunately, an abuse of language/shortcut may have slipped through to make it in people's minds in the more involved, more handcuffing idea of government, which manage to impose itself ANEW, eventually:

"Which Is Best : Government, Anarchy, Or Protectorate?"


Another writing from G. Edward Griffin that I warmly recommend!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

LOL how did you get 3 upvotes

when you offered an anti-anarchy link?
Only on the DP!!!!

I like his idea of redefining our Republic as a protectorate and not a 'government'. Words do mean something.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Like a fish needs a bicycle

Friggin' awesome post.
My husband tries to make this point all the time.
100 years ago, men came out here and there were some BIG trees. It would take a pair of men running a saw all day to get one tree. But, getting the tree was a legitimate "days work" for 2 men in the free market.
The tree would go to a mill, where a man would spend a week processing the tree into lumber. The free market showed it was a legitimate week's work.
These men worked long days, but always took Sunday off, and did not work in the woods all winter. Pretty much everyone owned their home. While they would do other work through the winter, there was no need to turn to the government to survive.
30 years ago, when he was a logger, a team of men would arrive in the woods with all kinds of machines, chain saws to helicopters, and they would process the equivalent of one of those giant trees about every fifteen minutes. At the mill, the automated plant swallows the trees and spits out boards as fast as they can feed it. Before the Canadian lumber treaty, they would run 3 shifts at the mill, 7 days a week. Loggers would be in the woods at daylight, and stay till dusk, and often have to work Sundays. They work right through the winter now. During the rainy part of spring and fall, and if fire danger got too high, they had to shut down. These men would have to draw unemployment to be able to pay rent and buy food. All that extra production, but the WORKERS are WORSE OFF. Few people own their home, most are a whisper away from destitution, and if you want to try to live like a woodsmen, you'd better have a fistful of FRNs. Want to trap? Need a permit. Want to hunt? Need a permit. Want to gather mushrooms? Need a permit.
If you stop and think about all the increased efficiency automation has brought, and then compare how much of our lives our jobs consume, we have lost a LOT of ground.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

That's because...

..we've been protected from deflation.
Most of the benefit of increased productivity has gone into banksters' pockets.

"But look! I'm making a gazillion Wei-Marks an hour now!"

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued