Can government be "outgrown"?

I have been contemplating government as of late and I have began to wonder... Would it possible to outgrow government? In other words, would it be possible to grow out of the need for government and controlling parties?

Can we, as a species, ever hope to achieve true political independence on a global scale?

How would you represent what the masses want without a government?

yeah that's one way of looking at it but how does talent merit etc get lost along the way? Do i have to read the book or cant you just tell me coz if the government represented what the masses want, say they stopped armstraffickers isnt that a good thing or do i have to read the book?

I think I see what Caroline's asking/saying... please scream if I'm way off on this, but if it's even close, I think it a very valid point:
[INDENT]If one of the functions of a_government is to act for the people it represents, in a concerted fashion. How might a mass of individuals have their in-common interests satisfied if there's no single-entity, no unified 'force' to act towards those needs/desires?
[/INDENT]How'd I do?

Well, arms trafficking is outside the scope of the book considering it was written in the early 20th century. Arms trafficking is a result of human tendencies towards barbarism so that would be an example of one of the functions that government ought to have. But the problem is that most governments are not involved in this process, rather facilitators.

Talent and merit get lost along the way, because these things make the mass man feel inferior. The mass men are self-satisfied and are offended my talent and merit. Therefore, the mass man seeks to eliminate their effect upon society.

[INDENT]If one of the functions of a_government is to act for the people it represents, in a concerted fashion. How might a mass of individuals have their in-common interests satisfied if there's no single-entity, no unified 'force' to act towards those needs/desires?

The "masses" don't want anything.

The masses don't want security and sustenance?

We are not the Borg, we are not the Lillies of the Field either.

What is security and sustenance?

Can you tell me how they are distributed?

Perhaps you can direct me to the nearest security and sustenance store?

Yes, people need security and sustenance, but these fields only apply because they are so broad that they are practically useless to the topic.

Prison provides both, shall government imprison us?

I simply mean that referring to the "masses" as if they have some collective set of wants is elitist thinking that has generally lead to the problems of government so far.

While there may be some universal values, they are extremely subtle and resistant to expression and standardization.

Security I would say refers to numerous things relating to feelings of safety, whether personal, communual or national. Sustenance I would say refers to such things as a roof over one's head, bread on the table, that sort of thing.

Products and roles relating to security and sustenance are distributed as goods, services and employment opportunities from and by a variety of outlets.

I haven't a clue what it's like round your way. My local shopping centre sells products and services (some of which are even apprently free) that sustain me and help me feel more secure. Of course the products of security and sustenance are not all similar, some are available from shops, others can be found in murky realms where hidden parts of government vie with organised crime.

No. People DO look to governments to provide these things - and in order to retain power governments must either do so, or invent very convincing cover stories for why they cannot do so.

To say "they are to broad to work within the topic" seems to me to be ignoring the elephant in the room - unless you can reason how to go about reassuring people that they don't need the government to provide the most obvious things that they look to governments to provide - then I don't think you're going to do more than preach to the choir.

I don't want to be seen to run from these queries, though I suspect they are rhetorical. Governments clearly do imprison people and a lot of the reasons behind imprisonments are to do with making other people feel secure, or to secure (or control, if you like) sustenance for other people.

I would also point out that, as someone who is a proponent of anarchism, I'm pretty sure you view certain government activity as metaphorical imprisonment.

As a fan of a certain degree of government I would happily admit that living in North Korea would feel like prison to me.

All things in moderation.

You may have a point - but on the other hand to ignore that there are certain things that the vast majority of people want for themselves and/or their loved ones is naive.

They are rhetorical and I asked them to point out that, while people may universally desire security and sustenance, the preferred services and products that provide these things are wide and varied. As an aesthetic pacifist and individualist, I would prefer to simply purchase insurance on anything I find valuable enough to physically defend and secure sustenance by working.

Unfortunately, I am forced to deal with state provisions of these things, and these state provisions are so beholden to enormous disparate interest groups that they do little but insure the decision makers of our society don't change.

I look at the state as an organized criminal syndicate.

It would be outright stupid to believe that. I simply believe it to be naive to think that the state will provide these things to the benefit of those who actually need them.

I have been contemplating government as of late and I have began to wonder... Would it possible to outgrow government? In other words, would it be possible to grow out of the need for government and controlling parties?

Can we, as a species, ever hope to achieve true political independence on a global scale?