Government: Freedom Reaper
Governments are in the business of taking away freedom. It is impossible for a government to give freedom. Any government exists at the will of its people. Military dictatorships wouldn't even be able to overcome the will of it's people in a situiation where they were overwhelmingly opposed to it.
What would cause a people to willingly give up freedom?
The most important fear leading to the birth of governments was undoubtedly security. "National defense" would have most likely been the first priority of a society organizing a government. An unorganized group would never defeat an (otherwise equal) organized group in battle. Government's first promise was to provide it's people with protection from outside invaders. This service would become important as the development of agriculture and domestication of animals allowed some groups to build permanent settlements, while there were still many other groups whom were nomadic. Government can facilitate the creation and training of a militia to ward off invaders whom want to take the food supply away. Even today, most people would say that security is the most important function of their government. Any government that continually fails to provide security for it's people is overthrown, either through revolution, or some democratic process.
Why did government grow beyond it's initial mandate?
It is my beleif that "national" security is the only service of government valuable enough to warrant the forefiture of any freedom. The other "benefits" of government I discuss will, in my view, simply be attempts by government to ingrain dependence in it's people to secure it's power. Government needs it's people to be unable to imagine life without it. In cases where it fails at it's true purpose of providing security, this artificial dependence can buy enough time for it to correct itself - preventing a revolution. - This characteristic of government leads to a continual need affect upon it's people an ever-inceasing level of dependency. Dependency is nothing more than the inverse of freedom. Government will need to convince society that surrendering freedom is in it's best interest.
How does government take freedom without raising concern?
Government would have to create new fears to protect the people from. In ancient societies this first manifested itself in the form of protecting groups from it's own members. It's a natural progression. Fear of other groups of people violating you eventually leads one to realize that people outside your immediate family could also wish you harm, and eventually even to being wary of people in your own family.
Providing military security for a society initially probally did not necessitate in the forefiture of individual freedom. There were likely many eager to volunteer to serve in the cause of protecting their society, so military conscription was unnecessary. But, a government would have to enact certain restrictions on the actions of it's people to protect them from each other. A quick observation of the earliest known "laws" supports this notion.
Government begins to take away society's job of instilling values
Ancient government charters (The ten commandments, Humarrabi's code, ect) all include a set of guidelines that members of a society is expected to adhere to. It is likely that some of these guidelines existed in the unwritten value system of the societies culture, but permanent settlement has made the family unit more inflluential than the collective group. Slightly different sets of values began to emerge from one family to the other. This made it much easier for government to plant the seeds of fear necessary to create the need for laws.
Certain specific rules seem to exist in most if not all ancient governments. Murder, aldultery, and theft are consistently addressed. Each of the aformentioned "crimes" appeal to people on a very personal level and are more related to "morality" than "legality". This personal appeal and a growing attitude of individualism would make the three aformentioned offenses the perfect target for government.
Obviously, murder is taken personally. No way can the intentional taking of a life be considered anything other than an offense against an individual or his or her loved ones.
Theft has probally existed as long as the existence of Humans, but permanent settlements cause it to become a particulary problematic practice. Nomadic groups were focused on hunting food, eating food, and probally some form of entertainment. This environment does not creat a strong sense of ownership. Even things such as weapons (which i suspect were the most important "belongings" of nomadic people, were just a tool for providing food for the group. Someone taking you spear would most likely just use it to kill an animal which would later be shared with the group.
Permanent settlements eventually caused people to construct dwellings, claim a piece of farmland, acquire or create various tools used for farming, keep animals for either food or labor. These events lead to a strong sense of ownership. Having something that you strongly believe that you own stolen causes a different response compared to losing items that are generally considered community property. This evolution of circumstances posed a problem that was foreign. Problems that were traditionally rectified by the progression of a societies value system now had this new creature (government) to solve this problem.
Adultery is also another very personal offense. Most non-human animals do not closely associate the act of sex with emotional attachment (or love). But humans have come to closely associate the two. A partnership between a male and female was likely also affected by the creation of permanent settlements. The process of creating a dwelling, working farmland together, and raising offspring only serve to further the emotional bond created by a sexual relationship. Also, having to spend less time hunting possibly lead to more idle time and sex is a mighty fine cure for boredom. Also, where before all the sex-capable men would be out together hunting, permanent settlement caused the possibility where one man could be working while another was not. A male (historically adultery rules were only enforced for the benefit of the offended male) whom discovers his female partner "mating" with another male would no doubt feel a significant amount of anger and disappointment. Again, instead of being dealt with by changes in the value system of the society, government was eager to "help"
Government sees this opprotunity to increase it's influence and power. The society just wants to deal with these issues which suddenly have an increase in occurance and impact. Eventually these problems became so common that the people were more than willing to accept the imposition of written rules by government. This would be the first time government acquired powers outside military security. Not wanting to waste this opprotunity, it began to take a life of it's own feeding on freedom.
To quench this increasing appetite for control, government would add in many other "rules", making sure to attend to enough of the people's true concerns to keep them from being opposed to other more "minor" larcenies of their freedom.
Government's move toward complete opression
The appetite for freedom has transformed government's role of providing military security, which was unquestionably beneficial to all members of the society, to include protecting the society from it's own members, which necessitated the forefiture of indivudual freedom to a code of rules imposed by government. Government was becoming a living entity, with it's own goals and cravings which will be the stimulus for the eventual role reversal that led people to be hamstrung by their dependency on government resulting in government controlling people in oder to protect itself rather than the people inventing government to protect themselves.
How would government balance it's requirement to continue it's self-perserving consumption of individual freedoms, with a natural human instinct of viewing individual freedom as a prescious commodity?
There are a couple of ways to solve this problem. Government would either have to convince (trick) the people that any increase in regulation was created by their collective responisbility to protect and improve their society, or government would have to create a situiation where rules came from someone or something that was so unquestionably powerful and good that the people's respect (or fear) for the source removed any need to question.
The farce of the democratic process
Government could trick the people into believing any government extraction of their individual freedoms were a result of a descision their society arrived upon in order to acheive some greater good. Often this occurs in a situation where the government is structured in a way that allows for some level of democratic participation by the people. This democratic activity leads to certain individuals suggesting ways to improve their society.
Eventually, it is discovered that some of the people are much better at convincing others to support their ideas. These people become leaders in the government. These leaders are usually working under the assumption that they are providing a great service to their society and earn a feeling of pride which often leads to the birth of an ego hungry for power. The leader, who is now at the mercy of his hunger for power on some level, has no idea that his actions are being dictated by government which has invaded his spirit disguised as the feeling of pride. Government allowed the leader to enjoy this pride enduced satisfaction long enough to earn the loyalty and respect of the people before it took control of the puppet strings. The leader created through the ability and desire to create good, is now nothing more than a puppett doing the bidding of a freedom binging monster called government that they had created, but were unable to tame.
While the puppet show performed in the democratic manifestation would allow government to eventually have complete control, it was limited by the communication prowess of the puppet being able to overcome any reasonable opposition presented in the democratic process. Also, the onset of the puppet show was not instant, and the process of the leader becoming self-absorbed enough to allow government to infect him causing his transformation to puppet must be repeated each time the puppet is replaced due to death or other circumstances.
The dictator is not the tyrant
Another common way for government to steal freedom from people without having to provide much in return is through a fear or awe based entity that is usually believed to be superior in every way to themselves. What person would possess the bravery to question someone or something that the whole society views as a superior being that they are all duty-bound to respect and protect in return for it's unquestionably wise advice and it's unconditional affection for the society it uses it's unimaginable talent to guide. Any opposition to such an entity would undoubtedly be met with violent opposition or be completely discounted by the vast majority of the society.
In most cases such a powerful leader would be expected to select his successor or more often the family of the leader were all understood to have special abilities or power and authority was a birthright. Government would have a much easier time enacting it's will under this situiation, any impositon on freedom was accepted as the gift of a superior being, and the process allowed for a more permanent revocation of power by the people to a line of rulers.
The abuse of human spiritualism
***Disclaimer*** - Any refrence to the concept of religion are non specific and only express my presumptions and are completely removed from any views I may or may not have in regard to religion. This is not an analysis of the validity of any particular religon, or even a commentary on the existence or nonexistence of any god. Simply a suggestion that it is possible religion has been used as a means of control at times, independent of the valadity of religion ***
There is no power that can be realized by humankind greater than the omnipresent power weilded by an entity that has the ability to create everything in existence, change the weather, bring about disease, causing the success (or failure) of their crops, and determining their fate once they exhaust the whatever amount of time granted by this great diety.
This would of course be through the implementation of a (or modification of a current) religion. Ignorance (lack of knowledge) or unexplainable questions will often be satisfied with any answer that is proposed. Government would simply need some sort of vessel (prophet) to spread the belief of and speak for this creation. This would be so-perfect a tool that the people would not only allow government to take freedom, they would beg for it to be accepted as a gift in an attempt to gain the favor of the best puppet government has ever had. The command of such a great force would become the most important motivation for every thought and action of the society.
Government enjoy's retirement
So far, I have described an evolution which transformed government from an idea created by people to help facilitate their security through defense to an out of control beast. This beast now poses a much greater threat to the society than that of the potential invaders that provided the need for the protection that led to it's conception. The society is left in a state of unrecognized subversion to an opressor that is neither human nor divine. The pandora's box that has been opened will continue to increase it's acquisition of their freedom which only serves to contribute to the progressively accepted dependence the people have not only come to accept, but take comfort in.
Government has now fashioned tools that are invaluable to it's existence. The confience granted by this accomplishment is the last ingredent required to make the already excesive confidence of government to manifest itself into full blown arrogance. Any concern focused on keeping the needs of the people satisfied are no longer present. The people have by now lost the sense of individual responsibility and can no longer even remember a time when they were able to make philosophical judgements. In fact, some are beginning to lament the fact that they must make basic everyday descisions on their own. Government has achieved such a great level of success that people are now asking to give up rights, not in an offering to a higher power, but from simple addiction to dependency. Government no longer needs to take freedom and can simply be fed by its people. The resulting mutual dependency will lead to the death of government.
The unsustainable nature of mutual dependence
The specific design used to facilitate the process of government is irrelevant at this point. Government structure is basically just a costume, and not matter what form it is using, the results are the same. The people are now demanding that government take their offering of freedom because it has become a burden. Eventually so many rules (which by their very nature, rules can only work by consuming freedom) are enacted that the population of lawbreakers exceeds the lawful citizens. Government has consumed it's entire supply of sustinence (freedom) and is faced with the prospect of starvation.
Too little, too late
Government can prolong it's existence by tapping into new sources of freedom. Offensive military action is the most common method used to accomplish this objective. This method requires government to go beyond the cruel practice of stealing freedom and instead impose conscripted military service of it's people. Volunteers are likely sufficient to provide defensive protection, but an aggressive invasion of another society will require many more resources to be successful. The people have likely noticed the onset of government's starvation and are possibly questioning the ability of it to maintain their level of dependence. To supress this seed of doubt government must either promise a future increase of services to feed people's dependency addiction, or convince the people that they owe government this service as restitution for the centuries of care they have been provided. A military victory gives the government a new food source (conquered peoples), as well as a renewed level of respect and servitude from the people. Government will continue this process until suffering a military loss (which results in government dying and being replaced by the government of the victor), or the external sources of freedom eventually disappear as every society falls under it's pestilence. Which returns government to the aformentioned state of starvation, which is unavoidable for even the most successful government. The demise of government is an unavoidable consequence of the same conduct that allows it's domination.
Autopsy Report
The natural cause of government's death is the extinction of freedom.
There are two possible scenarios resulting from the extinction of freedom:
1. Government slowly dies resulting the the society having a steadily accelerated resupply of freedom created by the birth of future generations each being further removed from the oppresive traditions that were the legacy of their ancestors.
2. The people's addiction to dependence leads to a demand for a continued expansion of government support. The famished state of government makes the fulfillment of this demand an impossibility. This leads to an enraged population turning against government in a revolution that easily overcomes and eradicates a once omnipotent government that is now in a state of complete frailty.
The rest of it.....
Epitaph
The inception and eventual demise of government is what I believe to be the unavoidable life cycle of government. This cycle occurs at different speeds depending on the values of a particular society, and the method used by government to consume the freedom of people. Certain systems of government binge on freedom to such excess that the cycle ends relatively quickly, other systems utilize a more deliberate and forward thinking diet which produces a much longer, but less powerful life. I will concede that in practice, the cycle is usually interrupted before completion. There has usually been a group of people in each society with special leadership skills and the ability to recognize the signs resulting from a government faced with imminent starvation and managed to inspire the people to give birth to a new government, which replaces the old government with a new one which resets the cycle. The people have an unwarranted optimism that the new government is better than the old and this false sense of accomplishment creates a new sense of freedom. Like all cycles, this one is in a state of constant motion, with only a few minor variations in it's detail from one government to another.
The unfortunate conclusion
Humanity will not allow an absence of government control. The passage of time has only strengthened this. The legacy left by thousands of years of government is a lack of community responsibility that is beyond repair. The disregard for others created by the lure of individual success has become too rampant. The innate responsibilty to the society that freedom requires is too rare.
