Can government be "outgrown"?

I don't know about that - oligarchies have always governed. They give themselves different labels, and accept different conditions for gaining and retaining power, but the first governments were oligarchies and the last ones will be.

Yea, I think the question - as I took it - evolved into this:
[INDENT]If humanity was to evolve to the highest levels of intelligence, respect, compassion, courtesy and empathy (all of humanity), is there any reason for anyone to have any government at all?
[/INDENT]To me, the answer would like in: Is there something necessary that a_government could provide (by mustering the resources of all people in a unified fashion) that individuals acting on their own, couldn't?

I think there are, but admittedly, I'd need to think though this more.

Good discussion, thanks.

The two democracies I know of well, the UK and US, are pretty much two-party states and the members of those parties are largely trained career politicians who know how to manipulate the media and other forms of advertising to gather popular support.

Once in power both parties from either system have poor track records of keeping promises or abiding by referenda. Of course things are left to faith - people have faith in the manifesto of those they chose to vote for. As for fate - how much of the western democratic political discourse since 9/11 been dictated by something that was completely out of the common man's perception of control or expectation?

This is not my own idea of self government (though I think it might be the best we can do).

It's the lesser of varied evils though - I would agree with that - it is self government relative to certain totalitarian systems - but they are still oligarchial systems. In order to join the oligarchy one usually has to be a trained career politician, or know how to play the game invented by the trained career politicians.

The benefit of the democratic system is that one oligarchy can be replaced by another oligarchy if the former oligarchy is inept, and that this process is usually relatively bloodless.

But if you think democracy = choice you've just fallen for democracy's foremost media trick.

i think there would be things the masses would have to agree on, like laws.

If you think your so called democracies are democracies there really is not much hope for you... They are designed to limit choice and limit freedom and protect privilage and profit...Majority rule is not self government...If it is democratic it is not a democracy, just as being athletic does not make an athlete...And party rule is not self government either...In fact, the parties put one more wall between government and the people...If our government holds unity as a stated goal, is there some reason party division should be accepted before the fact??? Is there some reason, when the parties are not provided for in the constitution that we must first move parties to move government???

The US is a representative republic, which does not actually mean one person one vote. I'm pretty sure Fido is talking about a true democracy where it is one person one vote. Some might call it mob rule.

Well, it's an easy enough question to analyse. Break down everything the government does and ask if each is possible without government. For instance, its capacity to control behaviour (law) could be made redundant if the human race evolved toward a universal ethical code.

We don't need codes because codes don't work...Anyone who is not born mentally deformed knows how people should behave toward others...

Have you ever raised kids? Do you understand the massive effort it is just to make sure they know right from wrong enough not to go to jail when they get older?

The reason for these disparate interest groups is that people are individuals who have conflicting needs and desires. Humanity is not an actor.

At the risk of putting words into your mouth, I detect a bit of "if only everyone were an individualist, like me" argument brewing here - surely it's an oxymoron? No one, as far as I am aware, denies that people are individuals. The various degrees of generalising or grouping people under governments comes about due to differing degrees of worry about the individual desires of neighbours, rivals, strangers and so on (and, of course, manipulation of that worry by those who seek power).

The irony seems to me to be that because humanity is not an actor, and has no telelogical movement towards putting government behind it - ever more sophisticated governments are held up as actors on behalf of groups of people.

Fair enough - no one can deny that those who seek power are, on an individual level, rarely without a thuggish aspect.

However, isn't this simply an ugly truth of those who seek power, and whatever system is developed power seekers will act as thugs to exploit it? People are not alike in appetite for power, and not alike in the skill needed to aquire and retain it.

Better to have thugs where you see them and have some degree of holding them to account.

I know of no state that promises it's citizens that this is a dainty world. Those utopian visionaries who do promise us a dainty world also seem to go on to create the most horrific states.

Fido:
Ah okay, although i still don't agree with the larger picture of no need for a government, and think people have a fundamental utopian mistudnerstanding of human nature concerning "democracy/anarchy", at least now i get where you are coming from, I was misunderstanding some of what you were saying before that last post. I agree whole heartedly about the need to raise children to be good people and stop enabling bad behavior into adulthood by thinking discipline is "bad fow theiw fwagiw wittow minds."

The only way that we can outgrow government (in its classical political system) is if we abolish the monetary system.