From: jdd@aiki.demon.co.uk (Jim Dixon)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 94 10:41:07 PDT
To: elton@sybase.com
Subject: Re: Voluntary Governments?
Message-ID: <7278@aiki.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <9408221729.AA14060@fnord.sybgate.sybase.com> Elton Wildermuth writes:
> Jason Solinsky said:
> >Government has nothing to do with throwing people into prison or using
> >guns. It is an entity that exercises authority. Or an entity that enforces
> >laws.
> 
> Er.  No.  Government has _everything_ to do with throwing people into
> prisons, _and_ with using guns.  Further, "exercises authority" is a
> code phrase that means "throws people into prisons and uses guns."
> 
> If you want a working definition of government, it would have to be "a
> group of people who have assumed to themselves the exclusive power to 
> regulate and use coercive force within a set of established borders."

I grew up in a small town of 5,000.  It had a city government.	The
county government was in the same town.  No one denies that California
has a government, I think.  And then there was the US government.  And
we had city police, the sheriff's office, the Highway Patrol, and the
FBI paid an occasional visit.

So drop the word 'exclusive'.

In our high school we had a student government.  We had no prisons
and no guns.

You can't simply take over the ownership of words in the English
language.  'Government' is indeed the name used for an entity that
exercises authority or enforces laws.  There can be more than one
government exercising control over the same geographical or political
area, and that control need not be effected with guns.
--
Jim Dixon