Debt Ceiling Debated…Again! How America Could Prosper Without ANY Government

Are all news topics these days driven by people trying to sell books?? Does the media do ANY work anymore?

Must everything be done in the extreme: either massive unsustainable deficits, or NO gov't at all? What a ridiculous choice. How about NO deficits going forward while we pay down the debt? We should live within our means, meaning we only have a government as big as we can AFFORD every year. Yes, there would be exceptions for war and disaster, but deficits are currently NOT the exception, they have become the norm, and most recently, gargantuan deficits with huge increases as far as the eye can see.

Come on people. If we tighten our belts now, we won't have to make draconian choices later as this article suggests.

Please pass the crack pipe. We tried this, we have been there before and it was not the utopia that he claims that it will be. Yes, we do need to limit the size of government, but the fantasy of no government and everything working just fine is never going to happen. This guy is off his rocker.

I will try to put this as simply as possible. This man is an idiot. There are exactly 0 instances where an economy grew and provided the services described by the private sector absent a functional government. None. Nada. Nothing. All you have to do is look at the countries now and in the past that have not had a functional government. Somalia. Rwanda. Egypt after Mubarak. Syria now. The US after the Civil War. Germany after WWII. Countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was not until AFTER they had functioning governments that the economy began to grow again.

You want more? Japan after WWII. Russia after the Bolshevic Revolution. The Roman Empire after the collapse. Iraq after our taking power. Libya.

That isn't to say that these were bad things. But the economy always, 100% of the time, ground to a halt. The private sector froze. There was no economy, sometimes for years.

There has to be a balance between no government and oppressive government, called effective government. Anarchy doesn't lead to boom times. Anarchy leads to devestating economic consequences that sometimes lasts for a very long time.

Want more? Territories prior to the joining the US. Mexico-US border on the Mexico side.

Name one single country that had something else happen. One instance where the private sector swooped in and made everything OK. Provided schools to everyone. Provided a road network even 1% as advanced as our 1950's era network. Provided power to rural users at a cost higher than they would ever be able to pay. Never happened. Not one single solitary time without government to make it happen.

Only an effective government and a robust private sector can give us everything we need. These are not mutually exclusive principles. On the contrary, one demands the other. A robust private sector needs effective government to set the rules, make sure everyone follows the rules, and that the rules are even. A government can ONLY be effective if it provides a robust private sector that provides goods and services as well as jobs to the population.

The imbecile who spouts off that anarchy provides the perfect business environment is simply wrong. In every way.

Boy, this must be book promo day. But imagine all the promos we'd be getting from (completely unregulated) Wall Street banksters if we had to hand over all our (former) social insurance payments etc. to them. Eventually, America would be run by a few multi-national super-corporations that could just as easily abuse your hard-earned money, instead of a democratic government from which The People can demand accountability, if they want to.

The government doesn't mind borrowing china's money to support it's policeman of the world imperialism, knowing the middle-class tax payers for generations will have to pay it back, or learn to speak chinese... Our government has failed the people of this once great nation!!!

Great poll, with a simple enough question. What is the number of responses though?

I guess the military would be funded by voluntary contributions.

Some of the people on here need to read "The Social Contract" by Rousseau. In there he outlines that Government is a necessary evil in order to stand against the right of might. Giving up certain natural rights in order to gain certain social benefits.

I just don't understand why people have become so extreme. It seems more and more people are yes or no, do or don't; they have no middle ground of sometimes.....

been there done that, no government of laws is largly the history of the world, welcome to a world of mafias power lords and slaves, just look at afganistan and you will see your future in a world without government, or do you really beleive those with power would share it voluntarily and creat a more egaltarian world, no one owns there own farm any more to say the hell with the rest of you come on my land and i will defend it, those days are long gone, another world view that could come into place would be something like china in the early 1900s, war lords that treated there people like slaves, either way i would rather have some government, what we need are less rules about doing business, but the rules are there because the big corporations like them they keep the millions of small competiors from competing, if they do they send in the "governement" police, inspectors, tax collectors to shut it down, for instance I can not even sell on bottle of wine from my little vinyard or I break the law, why because the big vinyards and wine merchants do not want the competition,, all wraped up in the guise of some crap about public safty, get rid of this kind of law and things would become local and thrive, but the big corporations would not like it.

These loud mouths need to put their vote where their mouth is !!!!!!

If our government had just followed the Constitution, we would have a small federal government and the states would have most of the power. Since state government is closer to the people things would be more likely to be done as the people want, not as politicians want. At least we would have a better chance of being in charge than with the Megalasaurus we have in Washington now.

this guys is an idiot. Free markets? can you say Road Warrior cause that's the world you would be living in load up the ammo and pass the gasoline

I want whatever this guy is drinking. No government would be better? How's it working in Somalia? How well did it work on Wall Street in 2006-7? How well are weak governments working in Mexico (Do we want government by drug cartel)? Do we want powerful (rich) people with private armies divvying up the country like has happened in Afghanistan, and soon to happen in Iraq?This guy Barker is insane. This bull about regulation causing all the problems that has been the theme of Republicans since Reagan lead us to a near depression, and there is plenty of evidence in the world today that unregulated societies will allow only th #$%$ to rise to the top.

Interesting but humorous mind game. "The rule of law" would be defined not by elected government based on geographic borders, but by huge competing capitalistic "free market" corporations. No thanks. Life for the 99.99% would once again be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."(Hobbes) .

I do agree that the federal government could collapse, however, what would happen is that each of the states would pick up the ball and run with it. In my opinion, there would be not as much calamity as some predict. The states already have almost every part of government needed to flourish with the exception of a money supply and the old US dollar would be used in the short term until something better replaced it. Over time, some states would probably do a lot better economically without the federal government and some would be like Greece. The Republic of California would be a disaster, just like it is now.

Nobody is saying that we should not have a government. What conservatives are saying is that we need to have a far smaller, less corrupt government with more personal freedoms. the government does nothing efficiently and the bigger government is the more corrupt it is.

Let's put them back doing the only thing they were required to do in the first place. Defend our borders and keep the peace between us... Everything else must go back to the free market! Government Bureuacrates are not smarter than a Free Market. I know some Grand Poobah at the Federal Reserve thinks he knows what interest rates should be set at, but that's why we are now in a such dire situation. Government egg heads that never held a real job think they know whats best, but they only screw it up even more...

Listen to this guy. He might as well be moving his hand up & down over his crotch.

Barker is a quack. An ideologist not grounded in reality in any sense. The one thing that would boom for sure without government is crime. What does he suppose would happen to all the nukes? I don't think its in Google's business plan to control them all. No FDA? Think we could rely on a business to maintain the same health standards we have today? I'm pretty sure the coke would be back in Coca Cola. If Capitalism can live without government, then why do these businesses spend billions to on lobbying? I'd like a day without government to show Mr. Barker what it would be like. I would go to his house, kick his #$%$ take his money and drive off in his BMW. What's he going to do about it?