Government.
 

As far as I know, in power theory there are two main groups: government and subjects. We, subjects of the government, work and pay taxes to the government so it can direct it to their objectives; which can benefit you or not.

This raises the first question: if a government, even if it's chosen democratically, acts against the will of the people; do they have the right to keep going on? For example, in my country they approved a strong pro-abortion law being the 70% of the population Catholic, who made several demonstrations.

Secondly, there's the direction question. See, in any community (family, syndicate, cultural association,...) people join their efforts to reach a certain ends (like feed their sons, protect the workers or share their knowledge; respectively). If we put a common government to all this communities, this would have to care about trying to satisfy all their needs to reach their ends; but we know governments are not perfect, and people in there are rather to make vague and common laws rather than providing what every subject needs.

So is it fair to put a common government to a large population?

And lastly, every single person has a very basic needs (food, water, home and health system) which are absolutely undeniable. Should the governments provide a basic level of those for free? I'm not meaning that "We're giving your stuff without working", but rather making a common fund to provide these to people whose salary is extremely low.

True. This raises some very important questions. This is the general theory.

If a democratically elected government goes against the will of the people then there needs to be a serious overhaul of the elected leaders. In my country, in every poll, it is very evident that most of the people are NOT in favor of the sort of health care bill that is being voted on However, my country's leaders don't care about the people at all. NONE of them do and will vote for this silly bill even though we DON'T have the money to pay for it. From what you are describing, are you from Spain?

No. The common government gets to large to help. It becomes to stretched. To much bureaucracy. Look at the late Roman Empire. It got so big that they had to split up. First, they tried to Tetarchy. That didn't work. Then later on, under Constantine, they divided it up between Western and Eastern Roman empires. The Western one fell for all intents and purposes, dividing themselves up into smaller kingdoms while the Eastern Roman empire, who became the Byzantines, survived for another 1,000 years. When a government gets to big, it must be broken up. It gets out of control if it doesn't.


No. Local groups should help though. This is why I think that localism is a good idea. The community can help those who can't work (for health or mental reasons). We don't need the government to have greater control over us than they already do. When they get too big, they must be broken up. I would like to see greater local control. This also can apply to corporations as well.

I am not a subject of my government. You see there was a war fought in north america at the end of the 18th century by a group that was fed up with being subjects. Things started going downhill again soon after, but I consider myself a citizen. It is a subtle but important distinction. In my travels I have met many who referred to themselves as pohm's or prisoner of her majesty. Now that seems more subject like.

Another distinction is republic vs. democracy. In republics concepts like a constitution and rights are more than just words. Subjects have no rights. It's how those things like the 70% against yet the policy still stands. Just because 51% of the population wants something does not make it right.

I hate to say it, but fair just doesn't really come into it. When has the world ever been fair? I've not seen much of that. It would be nice though. At least we can complain about it and that is a great improvement compared to the situation over history. I can even severely criticize my government and as long as I'm not making violent threats, it's mostly tolerated. Try that in a more unfortunate spot on this globe and the results can be violently different. All governments rule with the barrel of the gun. It's how tolerant they are that is the real difference.

I live under the most enduring continuous constitutional democratic republic the earth has ever seen. I happen to think our government is messed up most of the time, but it's must be doing something right.

See, I have a thought on that: it could be worse, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. Using your own example of the American Revolution, imagine how things would have been if they were like "Hum yes we have no representation in the Parliament and pay excessive taxes, but hey, it could be worse! Look at France, they're starving right now; we at least have food and home."

I believe we're just halfway to the real democracy, to really give the power to the people. We just need to see where we can improve and change. Yes, the world has never been a fair place. But we can still fight for making it be, just like the Founders did. And it's not easy to change, but making the 13 Colonies or the Kingdom of France become republics wasn't a piece of cake.

Don't deal with the problems. Face them.

And in answer to rapuntzel, yes, I'm Spanish; but not Catholic.

The point of goverment is to govern. Those chosen are delegated leadership by the people, i.e. the people choose who will make the best decisions, or who is most qualified to make the best decisions, to lead.

If we look back to the first democracy, Athens in 390 BC, we see that demokratia is not the same as nowadays. Everything was decided at the hands of the people, all issues were discussed at the Pnyx, at a weekly Assembly. Back then, women were not given a say, only the men were and only if they were citizens of the city at that. So, only about 20% were allowed to vote on matters, in theory. In practice, however, there were a few politically active figures who did all the talking and thinking and dominated the Assembly.
Nowadays, the entire population above age 18 has the option to vote for candidates they think will be best suited for the task in hand (at least in the UK). This system is similar to the true democracy of ancient Athens in that a select few are active in proceedings as they are voted because they are best suited to it. They also have to think of the population as a whole, not only about specific groups. They will not always make law that the people agree with but there is nothing really to stop them except their own common sense and morality. On tricky matters like abortion, legislatures (law makers, most often Parliament) make law that most conforms the with societal attitude of the day. What I mean is that if we were a very Catholic society then the law on abortion would be that it is illegal, perhaps. However, other things are considered, like what is the time that a foetus is considered to be alive? Conception, when the heart starts to beat or birth? Would it be murder?

You question whether it is best that a common government leads a large population. What other way is there? Return to true monarchy, dictatorship? Or have every single citizen vote on matters? That is very impractical.

To a certain extent in the US and Germany, they do put the government more in the hands of the people. They are federal systems where there are local governments (of each state in the US) that are all governed by the larger national government (the White House in the US).

Your question about essentials of life (food and water etc) I can't answer as thoroughly. Those are not provided free of charge in the UK and the only time I can think they would have been would be in communist Russia. Communism is a very noble and good thing, in theory, however, in practice it is not so good...
However, the European Convention on Human Rights does provide that everyone has basic rights. The most basic being the Article 2: The Right to Life.
If we were to provide the poorest of the poor with basic necessities they may feel no need to change their situation and just stay poor and live off the state. That sort of thing happens a lot in the UK. State benefits are abused so much by people who are too lazy to get up and find a job. It is difficult to judge whether they should be given these basic necessities or not and be encouraged to get a job and that is why we have politicians, to make these difficult decisions (because I really wouldn't want to make such a decision)

Sorry for rambling on :P

I think that the ideal solution would be to use some sort of machine intelligence that could actually comprehend the issues in all their complexity to make the decisions. That's probably quite far off though...

You just decreased the credibility of this debate :P Jokes

One of the things that always burns me up about government discussions (in the United States) is that there are some self-fulfilling prophecies out there. The main one is "Government always fails." This is usually perpetuated by people who, not surprisingly, believe that government can never do anything correctly.

Thus, when these people are in charge, they are proven correct because words become actions. Their belief translates into their policy.

This is not also meant to be a reverse-argument ("When people who believe government can do X are in power, X will happen"). I just get sick of people asking why government "doesn't work" then voting for people who believe government doesn't work.

Democracy is the worst form of government, after all others.

From a practical point of view, it is not possible to give 300 million people direct input on everything. Even if we reduce that to "voting-age population" we're still way too big for direct democracy. I believe government best serves its purpose when it does what is best for society. That means sometimes going against the will of the majority (Brown v. Board). Majority rule doesn't always produce the most optimum result.

Overheated rhetoric suggests either "what is popular is always right" or "When something is opposed, it should be stopped." The first tends to be invoked by majority parties when in power and they want to do something or when the minority wants to stop something the majority is doing. Technically, it's an ad-populum fallacy (appeal to the people). The second is usually used by minorities playing the "oppression" card or majorities trying to stop "minority tyranny" when the minority grinds the government to a screeching halt.

Take the US healthcare debate. The left conjures up nightmares of grandma dying because she has to choose between food and her meds. The right conjures up nightmares of grandma being put to death by the government. Being that the US is considered center-right (compared to Europe--though from a technical standpoint the US has been marching leftward ever so slowly since its inception), the "right wing fairy tales" tend to get a free pass and are easier to start. For example, there's a popular chain email going around claiming the healthcare bill specifically exempts politicians from any of its stipulations on "page 122, line 14." This is complete and utter trash, to the best of my research. The major healthcare bills contain nothing of the sort at the alleged point.

The people are left with politicians who either do "The people want" (to stop X, to have X) or "The sky is falling" (if X passes, if X fails). The people are only useful when they agree with the politicians.

Free food, water and the like in the extreme would only cause people to sit on their butts. However, it is also true that a government that provides nothing, leaves everything to a completely uninhibited market is asking for trouble. There is a certain amount of service governments should (in my opinion) provide to maintain social order.

I'm an advocate of social democracy because true communism is impossible, but checks on capitalism are needed.

The government of the UK at the moment is really annoying me.

Don't know if anyone has heard of the British "Digital Economy" bill which they are forcing through parliament. Its quite funny that they have managed to find loop holes to avoid the Public Debate and have it debated in Parliament like Bills are legally meant to do simply because they know it will get shot down. I can illustrate how unpopular this Bill is with a simple list:

People for the Digital Economy Bill:

• Media Companies
• Small Section of the Labour Party

People against the Digital Economy Bill:

• The General Public
• The Police
• MI5
• MI6
• ISP's
• The rest of the Labour Party
• The other political parties
• Music Artists
• Film Directors
• British Business Association
• and many, many more...

Yet it is still getting made law. Yeah, way to act in out interests.

Is that the only reason it is annoying you? LOL
I can say with all honesty that I am irritated with the current Government but I would rather have Labour in than the Conservative swine, Airbrushed Dave and his motley crew.

No, a lot of the Bill itself annoys me, its just quite a large bill, and therefor will require more ranting than is permitted in a post :P

It is quite funny when you see people being asked about the government on TV. Reporter: "So, what do you think of the current Labour Government?" Person: "Nah, I don't like the Labour Government." Reporter: "So next election you will be voting Conservative then?" Person: "Actually, the Labour Government aren't that bad." :P

I'm guessing that is a UK version of the DMCA that we have over in the US. Actually after reading a bit it's even worse in some ways.

Hey it doesn't matter if the people don't want it. I would imagine that my members of congress and your members of parliament share one important quality. Both are bought and paid for by business interests.

LOL cynic much. Nah, it's probably true :P

There's always the liberal democrats, they haven't been in power since 1934 I believe, maybe it's time they had a try.

It kind of irritates me that people always think "it's either labour or conservative", there are other parties out there y'know...

(Sorry for taking this off topic somewhat, just wanted to say that.)

You want Cleggover in? He is rubbish. Although the Lib Dems did get rid of tuition fees in Scotland :)

On the subject of UK government, the biggest problem I have with them all at the moment is they all seem to have blurred into the same thing, when I was younger & 1st got an idea on who these people where, there where clear differences between all the parties, now they all just seem the same, I really don't think it will make much difference to the country which of the main 2 have power, there all just grey nobodies in suits that value there own interests above anything else - take the expenses scandal as the best example of that.

Thats why you're lucky. We only have two choices in the US. Unless you consider throwing your vote away to be a choice.

Agreed. Compare the labor party in the 1970s, to the 'new' labour we have now. Labour practically are the conservatives, the line between the two is so blurred, it's almost non existant. And again, agreed, they're all as bad as each other no matter which party they stand for.

Yeah i'm not so sure about Clegg myself, but their policies are far better. I myself believe education should be a right, not a business...

I have to admit, I feel sorry for voters in the US. Over there, it seems to be a choice between right or far right, which is fine - provided you're right wing...

I think I would be classed as a 'wasted vote', there's no way the SLP would ever get into parliament but I do see the new generation in our country as generally left-wing. (Correct me if that is a false judgement.)

there is no real government , there's only a few people who control the states , politicians and presidents and partys are only there to give you the thought of having a choice , but you really don't , the media is used to control peoples minds , to force them into a way the people behind the curtain want it to .

Or when was the last time you had a choice , when did your oppinion and your choice matter the last time ? Did your oppinion matter when the US Army invaded Iraq for oil and used a cheap excuse to make iraq become it's foe and take from them what they wanted ? Does that sound a little familiar to you ?

"When people are sitting on s*** that you want , then make them your enemy , then you justify in taking it"

I'm not trying to be offensive against the US , every nation on the planet has blood on it's hands which it's desperately trying to hide from it's people .

So what did your choice matter in the case of war ? The Iraq war wasn't wanted by the people of the US , still Bushs corrupted government attacked Iraq , because they wanted the oil , with the cheap excuse that there are "weapons of mass destruction".

I remember an interview of Bush in which he was like "Whoops , no weapons of massdestruction there" and he laughed , in the same moment he laughed at the thousands of dead iraqis he bombed to death , he laughed at the dead american soldiers and their widows who will never see their husbands again , he laughed at the children whose fathers and mothers were killed in that war of profit , and in the end he laughed at his people too for not stopping him .

So just think about once again how much YOUR oppinion is desired/counts .

They don't want you to be smart , they want you to stay ignorant and dumb , or why do you think 90% of the TV program is about how Paris Hiltons new style is and how Britney Spears is having trouble with managing her own life ?

They want you to be focused on senseless and unimportant stuff , they don't want you to think about what is going on in the world , the sheeps have to be entertained and that's what they do , they entertain you so you won't do anything against your slavery .

Democracy , dictatorship , socialism , that's all just the same , it's names , and that's the only thing that is changing , NAMES , the people who control everything stay the same , confusion is just another tool they use , and the number of parties and ideologies is there to make you belive you had a choice , but you really don't .

Change , criticism and autarchy aren't desired , everyone who ever tried to tell people that they should use their own minds and that they are free , has been taken out throughout the history of mankind , for example Martin L. King , who wanted to tell people that they are all the same , though he got killed , because the government wants you to stay in conflict with other people with different ethnic backgrounds to not let people gain power with putting aside their differences .

In the so called modern society of mankind you are permanently being numbed with unimportant and senseless things like materialism , most people are consumed by it and accept it as their deity and let vanity and corruption come over them just like the government wants it to be , with that you sell your freedom for a quantum of "safety" which is not even 100% guaranteed , and what is the most important thing , you sell your humaneness for "profit" and "safety" , everyone who does that is merely a slave without a free will , and what is a human without his or her free will ?

But what is profit, what is wealth ? Another thing that is taught you through Avatar , "The wealth of this world isn't in the ground , it is all around us" , materialism is false , it is an illusion that is brought to your mind to make you forget about the real important things .

Governments don't work for the people , or why are their actions mostly hidden under a cloak of fog , why do they hide their actions from us if they claim to be our guardians and helpers ? Why do they keep telling lies and half-truths ?

In my oppinion , mankind will never be free as long as it's controlled by governments , mankind will only find it's peace and freedom when it finally is given the chance to define it's fate by itself .

Now fkeua has raised a very important question: Do we need the government?

He's clearly for the no, using a proved along history argument: people in the power usually takes advantage of their situation and use the work of their subordinates to satisfy their wishes.

However, I have to say that, although I'm completely against the abuses of authority, we need governments.

Why? Anarchy (this is, no government) leads to a "Welcome to the jungle" situation. Those who have a natural advantage (the strongest or those who have a big popular support) will take over the weakest. One of the things governments do well is to protect the weak against the powerful by nature, giving each what they deserve (this is what we call justice).

But this justice can be easily manipulated by the power, so they can say that it is fair to kill people and damn the murdered by just approving a law. They rule the system, and they can do whatever they want with them; even in democracy (they won't be doing referendums constantly to keep their policy going, you just voted them and they can do almost whatever they want for the next 4 years)

Our governments are now unable to be understood if you haven't studied 9 years of your life a pile of books related to Law; there is way too much bureaucracy and (unnecessary) processes that makes it critique-proof and impossible to improve by the common people. We need specialists (aka politicians) to manage our so complicated lives; when life is actually not that difficult.

Why do governments don't work nowadays? Because what we did is to democratize the previous system; based on the power over a territory, and therefore its inhabitants. Politics don't care actually about the people, they care about the country.

In summary, politics sucks hard; but we need it if we don't want to end up summed in the chaos.

That's why I say that the only necessary government is the fair one.

EDIT: God I need to focus myself on a single point; every paragraph is talking about a different topic.

She , is actually a dude :P

Besides there is no fair government , since governments ALWAYS , and that's without exception , want to gain power and "wealth" .

And I'd like to clear things up referring to Anarchy/Chaos , Anarchy (In my oppinion) is the only way in how to gain full freedom and independence , there is no government or group of people who can force you into doing anything you don't want to , you define your own fate .

The term anarchy has been perverted throughout mankinds history because politicians saw the danger that came from it's potential , which would grant every man and woman the right of freedom , thus they created democracy to keep people chained to their systems , and keep them working to maintain the machinery they built up , which is still kept alive by each of us .

Plus it doesn't have to be that if Anarchy would come to existance , that people suddenly would start murdering and raping each other , why should they take from others , if everyone has gained the ability to live autarkic again and produce everything they need by themselves .

As far as I can say for myself , I'd rather live in a world of Anarchy , and be a free man in deciding my own fate and living my life the way I want to , than living in a "society" that forces me to do things I don't like , or be a number under the masses who is permanently being brainwashed by it's government and being exploited by it .

People tell you that Anarchy is "dangerous" , because they have been brainwashed into thinking like that , in the end we have come to existance through Anarchy , and guess what , we are still here , we just became slaves on our way at some point and got subjugated by few men who "rule" this planet and sold our freedom in exchange for a little security .

Hey fkeua, with all that Neytiri stuff on your profile I thought you were a dudette.

Anyway, people who say that Anarchy will bring the world to the state it should be are mostly people who can think by themselves. I had my Anarchic phase too, huh; but eventually realized that if someday that system is imposed it would be uncontrollable.

Why? Because of these brainwashed people, who cannot think as well as you do (like for example the ganstas). See, you've got no punishment for your actions, what would you do if what you really want is to kill that mother****er? Or **** his sister? Hey, nobody's going to stop you! Go do it! Imagine you're a countryman and have your piece of land. Why would you let the rest of the world take advantage of your harvest? Have your part, let the people starve.

The reason why anarchy, communism and capitalism, every single goddamned theory didn't work, doesn't work and will not work is because they most of the times forget to include the human factor and focus on the utopia. Because we're free to choose between the easy and the correct, very few people are to choose the second one. Put no restrictions, and they will go directly to the easy way: instead of counting up to ten when you're angry with your neighbor you kick her head. No legal consequences.

Fkeua, I agree with most of what you are saying. We have had several discussions on this. However, I do think that government has a role to play named defense of the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. They do have the responsibility for that and to maintain order. As for as commerce, they should have a role in that too but it should be limited.

As to what you said Shatnerpossum about the 2 party system in the US, you bring up an important issue. Why should we only have two? I as a voter feel that I have NO choice anymore. There is no one to choose from. They are all the same. They rattle off promises to get votes and then they do what they want once they get elected. It gets very tiresome. I am tired of the two party system. I don't like either one. People are more complex and can't be regulated to democrat or republican, liberal or conservative. I have a mixture of political beliefs that don't fit in either party. I used to believe that voting 3rd party would be wasting my vote but I don't think so anymore. I am tired of the status quo.

Well the reason why people want to kill and rape each other is because people have been manipulated by their so called leaders into being greedy , greed is the killer Nr.1 in our world , so if you think like that , the chances of Anarchy being the right system , if you consider that the most of the people can't think out of the box , would likely fail .

But what would you think of as the only right system , if every single one has proved itself to be the wrong one ?

In my oppinion , Anarchy is the best choice if it comes to freedom and self-determination .

Democracy is actually correct , if they would finally take it into practice and stop fooling people with having a chance , actually there should be a voting on every more or less important decision the country or the state has to take , and everyone has the right to vote , the vote would also be 100% valid and undoubtable , but then there's the question again , how can you be sure that your vote is transferred correctly ? Votes can be manipulated .

It's not that "the greedy top bosses have corrupted mankind". No, we're like that; not bad or good at all, we've got both in our nature; but depending on our identity and education we develop certain aspects to one or other side. Anyway, the bad is already done and if you liked to impose Anarchy in the world and see that it is good in practice you'd have to change the mentality of the whole world. Yes, I'd also love and wish to see every single person being completely free, but we aren't, because we're bad people who like to **** the other's stuff and dominate (curiously, Christianity said this before: sinners shall not be free).

No, I don't believe in the current democratic system. In Spain is just like the on the US but the wasted votes at least kinda count. My father works on the Deputy Congress (aka the Spanish Parliament), and says that what actually happens is that on the election day you might lose or win. If you lose it's all about being on the second place and show the people that your party is better than the winner one, show its defects and eventually win the elections again.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson: "If we say certain people can't take control even over themselves, should we let a single person rule all over the population of a country?" Our governors should be sublime in the moral aspect and clearly choose the common good before their own interests; however they don't.

And why we let them do it? Because we don't know them until they get in power. We vote unknown people, or have you ever met personally Obama or Brown?

Wow, that sounds like what is going on here in the US. The republicans are kicked out of office and the democrats get in. Each party vilifies the other. NOT one of them actually brings out any solutions. All they do is attack the other person without actually hearing their views. In fact, that is a problem with most of political discourse today. The atmosphere is so toxic. Everyone bickers and no one offers any solution. There also doesn't seem to be any respect. Its sickening. I'm tired of the whole system.

Exactly right. We don't know any of these people. They just say what everyone wants to hear and then when they get into office, they do only want they want. They are greedy for power and prestige. That is what it comes down to. That seems to be the only reason they are in office.

that wasn't what I wanted to say , it's right , man has always been quite evil in his nature , but the "bosses" who control this world actually made it worse , they've paved the way for evilness to spread , for greed , vanity and corruption and the list goes on .

And you are right , people are lazy , they want others to do the thinking for them , thus they vote for a "president" who rules their country , it's all about responsibility , people hate it , they want to be a number under the masses and to be able to blame it on a party or a president if anything goes wrong , they don't want to be free because they can't take responsibility and it's effects , and so they let others rule over them , just for the privilidge of moaning ,complaining and blaming they sell their freedom .

Can we provide a fair alternative to past and current governments?

OOHH, very good and very important question. I don't know the answer to be honest. I don't believe we will ever have a completely fair system of government. That is probably unobtainable (no pun intended :) ). I like the idea of localism though. Dividing it up into smaller groups. Again, one looks at Ancient Rome. The empire got to large. It had to be divided. It became ungovernable. I certainly don't think we need more centralized government. That is scary and I know there is some people out there that think there needs to be a super centralized government for the world, etc. UGH. That would be awful.

What do you think? Is there a way for their to be localism now? Small communities getting together, working the land, growing their own crops, etc. It isn't just government that needs decentralizing. Corporations also need to be.

I like it too, it would mean a more active and direct participation of the people in their government and also make the rulers have little power, and then just work on their function.

However, localism presents the a small flaw: if you have little land you'll have little resources to give your people.

This is true. However, if we made the effort to plant our own gardens and become more self-sufficient that would help in the long run, I think. It is disturbing that so much of our lives is overly centralized :(.

According to Hobbes, in the state of nature everyone has a right to anything. That includes the right to take life, and worse. If he's right then anarchy is even more impossible. Because his state of nature IS no society, it goes to show why your definition of anarchy is the worst possible system.

We need government or society in order to resolve disputes. Ask any of the great thinkers.

I don't need a government to solve disputes I have with somebody else , besides if there wouldn't be governments and states who fueled their peoples hearts with hate against each other , there wouldn't be no reason for any disputes .

So if Anarchy is the worst possible "system" (it actually is not a system , it's the abstinence of any kind of system, which includes systems that oppress and control their people) , what would your advice be referring to a system that is fair and offers freedom to it's people ? Or better said , is that even possible , now that we can't go back from the idea of having a government/state ?

Yes you do. If you take retribution, invariably the other will feel he has been wronged, and he will lash out in response. Thus war occurs. You need a common higher power to moderate disputes. Thats why we create government.

Its still a system. Everything is a system.

Stick with what Locke wrote about. Read his treatises.

Well , that's not quite right , how can Anarchy be a system if nobody controls it or takes profit out of it ? That just doesn't make any sense .

What you mentioned is one of the biggest problems mankind suffers under , we can't talk about stuff , if people disagree , they just tend to solve the problem with firearms , which is simply foolish to me , and pathetic aswell .

Plus a "common higher power" hasn't changed anything about our nature, about the way we act , there's still rape , murder etc. ,nothing has changed , we are still wild beasts , we just exchanged our pelt with a suit and act all "humane" , but as soon as trouble starts , or we feel threatened we show our real faces , and governments won't be able to change that , the problem lies deeper , and you won't solve it with rules and laws or any kind of government , you can only tame the beast if you show it some love and give it the opportunity of choice , governments and their rules just deteriorate the situation , how do you want to guarantee safety for something you can't control ?

You have to change peoples minds in order to let evilness disappear out of the human heart , and you won't achieve that with cutting peoples freedom .

1 : a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole <a number system>: as a (1) : a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces <a gravitational system> (2) : an assemblage of substances that is in or tends to equilibrium

If there's interaction, there's some sort of system even if it just de facto.

People use knives, rocks, fists, etc. Blaming the weapon is disingenuous.

Read Hobbe's Leviathan and Locke's Treatises.

with firearms I actually meant every possible weapon , which could be everything since everything can be used as a weapon .

And with system , I was relating to governments , you can't say that Anarchy is a sort of government , since nobody runs it , in fact the people run themselves , and of course people interact within it .

People running themselves is society.

I think that in a large society, governments are necessary, unfortunately. That said, we give them FAR too much power, and they forget that they are only there because we chose them (just look at the current political situation here if you want an example of that, lol)
To work properly, governments need less power without having to actually find out the public's opinion, shorter terms and a more democratic system of election in many countries (e.g. the US or UK)