Is Government the success or failure of man?

Government is a success, and it is what has made possible all of our survivals in all our variety.... Rule, even majority rule has been a failure.. There is only one form of government, and that is democracy...And democracy requires consensus as well as individual freedom....

Democracy is majority rule...

Government is an inevitability. When you get many people living in one area then there are going to be conflicts over one thing or another. The natural solution to these conflicts is to solve them in a rational way, and lay down a basis for what to do if that situation presents itself to the society again at a later period. This is one of the biggest functions of government: to help establish preventative measures so the citizens that live in the direct area will all be held accountable for actions that are deemed social hazards. This theory then leaves the person pondering the question of whether government is helpful or hurtful with two options:

1) The person accepts this theory and decides that government is indeed an inevitability when multiple intelligent beings live with each other for prolonged periods of time.

-or-

2) Rejects this theory and believes that government is a preventable case.

I believe that's a false dichotomy. The emergence of Government is not necessarily a rational choice, although that is an idea which is not surprising considering the influence of Locke and Hobbs. Social contract theory is based on hypothetical grounds - it normally goes (as I'm sure you know) that, given certain circumstances, a Government would arise. The purpose of such an experiment varies, but nevertheless it normally frames Government as being a rational way to go.

Government, however, could be created for other reasons, be it ambitious tribes with leadership (which is not necessarily chosen for rational reasons) or a Government which emerges to protect land for exchange for it's ownership, taxes etc (which is still not necessarily entirely rational, but can have a rational basis to it on some individual levels; a peasant may be looking after his well being if he submits himself to an absolute authority, even though it may hurt him in taxes). There's many reasons why Government would arise, but it's not always on a rational basis. Power is a key concept here, but there's always going to be religion playing a part - we've seen in anthropology how there's been people who have been given authority by communities by their religious activities for the tribe.

The History of mankind shouldn't be placed under a false concept of progress - it's not only problematic on a historical basis, but it's also problematic on a philosophical basis. There may very well be solid reasons for Government rooted in basic political philosophy, but it does not guarantee why Government arises or that it necessarily will. If we assume, for example, that Government is a logical necessity for all large human communities, does it guarantee that humans will do so? No, it could be possible that large chunks of our population would be killed off without Government, or population would decrease until they were a small, sustainable community as opposed to a large one in need of regulation. It could be the case that Government is inevitable in human beings but it can't always be on entirely rational reasons. I think such enquiries are best off being a job for anthropology.

Whether or not Government is a success is a different question to whether or not Government is going to be guaranteed. If Government is guaranteed, it could be a necessary evil which might not be a success.

This is incorrect... Social contract theory has some examples in fact...It is only that society forgets what must have universally been the case, that justice is promised for peace...

Gentile governments where based upon gentile relationships, and that is easy enough... And when one nation conquered another you have the basis of civilization, with one group laying down the law for another... What has marked later governments has been wealth as a qualification of leadership... We can see that best illustrated by Charlemange, for it was at that time that the stirrup first made its appearance, which made the cavelry for the first time a formidable force...Before that time equality was general among the Franks,and after, if you did not have the wealth to support horse and armor you had no say in the laws by which you were ruled...Equality was lost for the Franks, and never recovered... Their gain resulted in the loss of much of Europe to the Vikings, when a united people might have put up a creditable defense against the Norse, instead the Norse met a land already divided between lords and peasant...

If we assume, for example, that Government is a logical necessity for all large human communities, does it guarantee that humans will do so? No, it could be possible that large chunks of our population would be killed off without Government, or population would decrease until they were a small, sustainable community as opposed to a large one in need of regulation.

Government is a success, and it is what has made possible all of our survivals in all our variety.... Rule, even majority rule has been a failure.. There is only one form of government, and that is democracy...And democracy requires consensus as well as individual freedom....

If you look at American 'democracy' it seems to me that its not fair at all. 90% of the time the party that spends more money wins the election.
Plus Democrats and Republicans are back by the same corporate round table so who ever gets in your going to get much of the same thing, as they have to please their 'sponsers' if you like. It doesn't matter how much you say change, actions speek loader than words and in this case the actions of putting more troops into afghanistan seems to say something very different from change.
Also you say freedom, but the U.S.A is controlled by media, freedom of choice has become a delusion.
Burney Merdock is Democracy.
Money is Democracy.
Lies are Democracy.
Coruption is Democracy.
George Bush is Democracy.
Obama is Democracy, you might think that it is od to but obama in, but no matter how good his intensions are, more soldiers are being sent around the globe to spread American Imperialism. Doesnt matter whos presedent i bet you Dick Chainy (dont know how to spell his name) will get his afghan pipeline.

Partocracy is not democracy, and I may agree that the quality of a democracy will not exceed the morality of the people, it is also cetain that a corrupt goverment will train its people in corruption...

Although i agree, the Tebiten people have not been corrupted by the chiness government.
The Karmapa is a excellent example of the pure min resisting corruption, if you interested search 17 karmapa, somthign will come up about his escape to India. that was pretty off topic anywaaay haha

I believe anyform of government is both good and bad weather or not it is a success is very depended from governmen to government switzerland is a good example of fantastic working democracy, so i hear.

Government is a result of population size playing off the human nature of living in social groups. A group can afford to live in relative egalitarianism when it is small enough for every person to know the intimate details of every other person. However, once population gets too big the band has to split or to settle down. Settling means agriculture or manufacture of somekind for sustenance. Once agriculture has started at least an informal sense of private land property becomes common place. and from there on management of property coupled withj managment of identity, and terretory/commodity expansion require more and more complicated governmental structures as the population grows to admit the required specialized occupation, sub-cultures, conquered or immigrant cultures, military defense, terretory/commodity expansion etc...

Completely open post away (:

Democracy, the freedom to change a corrupt government and the ability to voice disagreement...It should be secular and void of inducements.

The word government is not valid in terms of open debate, it has to be defined.

We cannot change our government, but we can change the faces... They can set their own rules, and when they limited the growth of the house they were voting for less democracy, less public control of the government, and the Supreme Court said that was fine, because those who had framed the constitution left a rat hole for them to squeeze through, so the error was not with them...