By what writ?

People spend a lot of time debating things like what person to elect to represent them, whether or not a representative government is an accurate portrayal of the "people's interest", etc. Yet, little discussion touches upon whether or not government is, in and of itself, moral (or just, possibly).

The problem arises fundamentally when we examine the very goal of government. It is to maintain social order by restriction, coercion, etc. Now, if that is all government is to do, maintain social order, it follows that the stronger government is the better government. Yet, despite the strength of the government, it is necessarily antagonistic. Government cannot be a mechanism to promote moral behavior, because an action through coercion cannot be a good action (despite the outcome). From a moral vantage, government is immoral.

There are further arguments to the detriment of government. If policy is ethics-based, then what ever justifies the implementation of a certain system of ethics? Even if we think that we have a consistent/sound system, how is this justification for us actually having a consistent/sound system? This would require us to check an unlimited number of cases, which is obviously absurd.

If policy is not ethics-based, then it is immoral.

Yet, policy could not be moral, since it is in place to coerce people, and thus prevents good actions from occurring.

Even a rule by consensus would be antagonistic. Suppose a certain law is established, by consensus. People born into the society after the law was implemented never consented to it. Also, people that originally consented may dissent, or realize that the law is in fact unjust.

Here, advocates of government state that government is necessary to prevent social discord. Well, social discord is still present. Governments are established and, despite the illusory "constitutions" or other mandates, they deteriorate into a self-serving mechanism, attracted heavily towards seats of power (capital).

This is necessary for the government to continue to function, for if the power was divested the government would no longer be in place.

Plus, by advocates of government's assumption, discord and anti-social behavior is intrinsic within humans. How does it follow that we should implement a government that is run by intrinsically malevolent, or at least self-serving humans to dictate themselves? In fact, wouldn't it be immoral to implement a government with self-serving rulers? But by their assumption, that is all we can have!

If humans are intrinsically pernicious, then government only intensifies this in individuals that gain power.

What is the justification for government?

It seems that the only incentive to retain it is the apprehensiveness, insensitivity, reward/punishment based system that is imposed on us by those with power.

That is, the only people that truly want to maintain government for what it is, are those that have power.


Market economies have a similar problem, but I will address that later.