Check out the Czechs

[Universe Prince]

Without government, chaos and death would run rampant through the streets, killing puppies, children and the elderly in a massive fit of suffering, poverty and destruction. Or would it? Czech out the... oops, sorry. Check out the article at the other end of this link. The article is about the Czech Republic and the political situation that has left it essentially without government since June.

All the while, the Czech economy continues to perform nicely. Unemployment fell from 8.8 percent in August 2005 to 7.8 percent in August 2006, and economic growth is projected to reach 6 percent this year. The continued growth of the economy suggests that the investors perceive the Czech Republic as a safe place for their savings. That is a vote of confidence in the strength of the Czech institutional framework and the progress that the country has made since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Whole thing at TCS Daily.

[Mucho]

The Czechs are a peaceful and civilized people, we are not. The lack of govt here would be the same as it now is in Iraq.

[Plane]

Do the civil servants still carry on the business of government?


The legislature need not interfere in the day to day business of government , most of the government we have is appointed or just hired.


I imagine the Czechs have civil servants .

[Mucho]

Do the civil servants still carry on the business of government?


The legislature need not interfere in the day to day business of government , most of the government we have is appointed or just hired.


I imagine the Czechs have civil servants .

They do and they respect them not like our US RWers that hate all bureoucrats.

[Amianthus]

They do and they respect them not like our US RWers that hate all bureoucrats.

ROFLMAO

[domer]

What makes you think that the formal absence of "government" means as well an absence of socially binding rules and mores that can operate in tandem with, or supplant, formal government law enforcement?

[Universe Prince]

I don't think that at all, Domer. Just the opposite in fact. But whenever the topic of minimizing or doing without government comes up, the most common objection to arise is that without government to maintain social order, society would devolve into chaos. Clearly, at least in the Czech Republic, this is not the case, which was my reason for posting the info.

[Universe Prince]

The Czechs are a peaceful and civilized people, we are not. The lack of govt here would be the same as it now is in Iraq.

That is a good example of why I tend not to believe liberals when they talk about believing in and/or caring for their fellow man. When they start talking as if we're all brutal savages kept in check by government, believing that they're motivated by faith in their fellow human beings becomes extremely difficult. Which is why they seem so similar to the fundamentalist Christians who want to run the government. It's not so much that they care about others as it is that they believe that they need to control others to keep them from acting like lustful, selfish beasts. That they also insist this desire is some sort of socially conscious compassion doesn't help at all. The veneer hiding the judgmental condescension toward anyone and everyone who does not agree with them is much thinner than most people realize. This is not true for all liberals, of course, but it is true for many.

[_JS]

I don't think that at all, Domer. Just the opposite in fact. But whenever the topic of minimizing or doing without government arises, the most common objection to arise is that without government to maintain social order, society would devolve into chaos. Clearly, at least in the Czech Republic, this is not the case, which was my reason for posting the info.

But this doesn't disprove that at all. Clearly the government, as far as the institutions of government (to which Plane alludes) still function in the Czech Republic. They simply function without the elected Parliament. Honestly speaking, most state governments function just fine when their elected assemblies are out of session or in recess. The institutions themselves remain viable and continue to serve in their legal capacity just fine. The only problem would be in regards to Czech laws concerning appropriations of funds. Once the budget runs out, then you might start running into legal troubles.

If anything I'd argue that this is a very anti-libertarian principle. The truth is that elected assemblies are probably not as important as most people think, though that depends very much on the legal democratic framework.

[Universe Prince]

But this doesn't disprove that at all. Clearly the government, as far as the institutions of government (to which Plane alludes) still function in the Czech Republic. They simply function without the elected Parliament. Honestly speaking, most state governments function just fine when their elected assemblies are out of session or in recess. The institutions themselves remain viable and continue to serve in their legal capacity just fine. The only problem would be in regards to Czech laws concerning appropriations of funds. Once the budget runs out, then you might start running into legal troubles.

I don't know how many institutions of government the Czech Republic has, so I cannot comment on how much of the current state of the country is because of such institutions and how much is just people going about their lives. I will say, however, that the essential lack of a national government has not resulted in people doing anything they please. That organizations normally thought of as institutions of government continue apparently without a national government to make sure they exist and function seems a very direct proof to me that such institutions do not need a government to exist or to operate. I don't really see how you claim that it doesn't. Yes, funding could become an issue, but there is no reason to assume that government is the only means of funding such organizations.

If anything I'd argue that this is a very anti-libertarian principle. The truth is that elected assemblies are probably not as important as most people think, though that depends very much on the legal democratic framework.

Please explain how people getting along fine without elected assemblies is an anti-libertarian principle. The notion that people don't need government to create social order is very much a libertarian idea. So I am just not following your apparent argument that people getting along without government proves that people need government. I mean, you seem to be saying that people can get along without government because they have government, which seems contradictory to me.

[_JS]

Please explain how people getting along fine without elected assemblies is an anti-libertarian principle. The notion that people don't need government to create social order is very much a libertarian idea. So I am just not following your apparent argument that people getting along without government proves that people need government. I mean, you seem to be saying that people can get along without government because they have government, which seems contradictory to me.

The problem is in your very first two sentences (as well as the last one). Look at the transition. You are equating government with elected assemblies. An elected assembly isn't necessary at all for a government to exist. What I am saying is that the Czech Republic has a government that functions, they simply don't have an elected assembly right now. A bureaucratic state can exist just fine without an elected assembly.

Does that make sense now? That's why I brought up state governments (or the federal government for that matter). State legislatures are often on recess or out of session, but does that mean that the state government is no longer functioning? Of course not. Highway Patrol, County Health Departments, Treasury Departments, health inspectors, bank regulators are all still working. They don't need an elected assembly.

So it all hinges on an assumption I made about Libertarians. I assumed that you all prefer an elected democratic state that oversees the bureaucratic civil service that would have to exist, even in a small capacity (unless your military works for free and gets weapons, and fixed costs donated). As opposed to a completely bureaucratic state, which still is a government, but has no democratically elected component.

[domer]

We can try to extend the permutations of a "Czech phenomenon" endlessly, but it will never get us past the particular circumstances, very broadly speaking, including the historical, social and all else that bears. The matter is extremely complex. Before we can elicit out principles of universal application, the inductive method demands that all factors be sorted and given their true weight, accurately. And the time element is critically important: how long can an "anomalous" situation last?

[Brassmask]

That is a good example of why I tend not to believe liberals when they talk about believing in and/or caring for their fellow man. When they start talking as if we're all brutal savages kept in check by government, believing that they're motivated by faith in their fellow human beings becomes extremely difficult.

Not all of us are brutal savages.  Give the Czech Republic about 10 years and there'll be several Skillings who realize that there is no one around watching them and they'll be even worse than the corporations that are controlling everything here.

And what exactly is meant by "absence of government"?  They don't have cops or presidents or what?

[Plane]

Afganistan was entirely without government for a while , and that was not a good time for Afganis.


The Government of Czech-no-slovocika is not absent they just have no present ability to pass new law.


The Czecks are not panicked and their government services have not disapeared , it is something like the USA during times of devided government when new law is difficult to pass.


Times like that are generally good for business because the government is not as busy changeing the regs.

I don't see any Buiness panic in the USA over the prospect of a devided government for the next two years, the Republican platform may be good for business but it may not be better than just haveing nothing new at all.

[_JS]

Times like that are generally good for business because the government is not as busy changeing the regs.

In fairness, even that is not necessarily true. Most executive agencies within the United States Government have the remit to make regulatory and procedural changes on their own, without new legislation. In other words, they can make changes within the scope of the law under which they are granted authority to operate specific programs or initiatives, or just general operations to carry out their mandate. In fact there are monthly updates published on the new regulations passed by different Executive Agencies. Now, if they wished to change their scope of operation, or if the law applies limits, etc then they'd have to seek Congress to amend the law (or write new legislation).

In general the executive agencies of the Federal Government (and most states) are relatively strong and can function rather well without legislative support. The real issue is that congress (and most state legislatures) control the purse strings, and the budget is how they keep such agencies in line (in theory).

The day-to-day functioning of government is the job of civil service and the executive branch (a little different for Westminster-style governments, but still civil service oriented). The only question I see raised here is whether or not one wants democratic oversight and input into a bureaucratic system.