We may be talking about the top of the hierarchy of power, especially those who make the decisions. However, the idea of government is probably complex, because it involves the power structures underlying it, especially the voice of the elite, or ruling class, which have ownership of so much property. However, so much sway of ideas may come from public opinion. So, there is tension between the leaders and those who it represents. In addition, so much conflict and fear may be projected onto leaders, and it is hard to know on what level this has an impact on the government and turns it into an illusionary entity, holding on to collapsed illusions and disillusionment. So we may ask what is a government exactly, and is it truly about leadership?

You speak of government as, 'The consequent system of humanity's free and successful interactions per individual', but I am not sure that we always feel, in reality, that it is serving our interests. It depends on the nature of the particular government in power.

Government = The consequent system of humanity's free and successful interactions per individual. — Gus Lamarch

This statement presumes that success in interactions is bilateral. In actuality, we compete for reasons such as attention and control. For example, your announcement is call for attention and attempt to solicit social energy towards a proposed course of action. Someone, like, for example me, contends. We have many intraspecies confrontations stemming not only from resource scarcity, but from need for arbitration between our opinions, ideas and plans...

Government = The consequent system of humanity's free and successful interactions per individual.

This statement is so interesting. You are considering the government as a "consequence" no as a need or must. If it exists in today's society the modern term of "governance" is due to human's behaviour. You say freedom and success. I would say selfishness, fear, balance and moderation into the nature of humankind. Every citizen wants to be "free" but how free? This is when the government appears.
The system of "rule of law" will limit us in the behaviour inside of the state. Therefore, the government wants to put limits in our nature.
It is comprehensive.

This statement presumes that success in interactions is bilateral. — simeonz

If we take into account that "success" equals emotional and material "well-being", there is no reason why it cannot be achieved on both sides. In the event that your realization negatively affects - directly or indirectly - others, this is no longer egoism - the point that I defend with my publication - but, egotism.

Therefore, an individualistic success brings with it the indirect consequence of the success of third parties.

We may be talking about the top of the hierarchy of power, especially those who make the decisions. — Jack Cummins

I'm not - with this publication - talking about people and their finitudes, but about the concepts behind human actions in midst of the finite. Existence is a direct consequence of the "Ideal" - aka, Egoism -.

The metaphysical remains still; it is static. We, as individuals, must try to approach it.

Not sure I follow this. Can you express this via an example in action even if theoretical.

I would say selfishness, fear, balance and moderation into the nature of humankind. Every citizen wants to be "free" but how free? This is when the government appears.
The system of "rule of law" will limit us in the behaviour inside of the state. Therefore, the government wants to put limits in our nature. — javi2541997

Interesting the fact that you interpret humanity as having to be ruled in order to function in "community".

However, I do not see the human being as someone of a "collective" nature, but instead, of "individual" nature. The entire human experience in civility had been forged along the path of establishing society through the Government, and consequently, the State, which, in the long run, ended up having its duty reduced only to keeping the population under the "Status Quo".

If we allowed humanity, governed by its egoistic nature - here, see "egoism" as individualism - to establish, independently of a leadership and its apparatus of political power - the State -, we would eventually come to the conclusion that the "Government" is not a "Is", but "something that is being", resulting from the successful individual interactions of humanity.

Concepts such as "freedom", which is completely subjective to the individual's will, would not be necessary in such a government because they would no longer comprise any political power.

You are only considered "free" because there are those who benefit from your freedom, just as there are those considered "non-free" because they are beneficial to the establishment of political power.

Individual power overrides the need for political power.

I think that you need to be more specific, with examples, to make your argument clearer in making it fit into your philosophy of egoism. At the moment, it appears to me to be rather abstract. The idea probably works for you, but when it is read out of context, it seems a bit fuzzy, as if you are telling rather than showing the underlying picture you are presenting.

Not sure I follow this. Can you express this via an example in action even if theoretical. — Tom Storm

You, through your egoism, create and already have a pre-established purpose: - Self-realization.

You seek with all your strength - but without creating detriment to others - to have the maximum existential success.

You go, and you get it. With your success, during the process of achieving it, indirectly, the lives of other beings will be positively influenced in some way. And this, consequently, will make them reach the same levels of individual success as yourself, and that will influence other individuals and so on.

Ex:

"You just became the very first individual who discovered agriculture. Contrary to what has been done in history, where this knowledge was used as a political means of power to create dominance over other individuals, which would create divisive concepts such as "hierarchy", "civilization", etc ..., you use your wealth and its success as a motivational and technical example of what to be followed, without seeking to have any conscious influence on these individuals."

In short, if you, without any kind of perversity, seek to succeed, not only you, but everyone else will succeed. This fact would eventually result in a society without "government", but at the same time, it would be its own immanence of government.

I think that the post you have just written makes your argument a bit more explicit, but I am a bit troubled by your use of the word, 'perversity'. It seems to be a rather loaded word, and we all probably bring all kinds of preconceived ideas when thinking about this term.

At the moment, it appears to me to be rather abstract. — Jack Cummins

My philosophy is completely descriptive. It seeks to project an image that has been painted through years and years of historical, anthropological, philosophical, and psychological study, for itself.

How it will be understood, used, criticized, refuted, etc... is of complete and total unimportance to me.

"Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it."

but I am a bit troubled by your use of the word, 'perversity'. — Jack Cummins

In summary:

"If you have any conscious thought of bringing harm to another individual for your own sake through the "Government" I describe here, this is" perversity"."

Perversity here, understand not only as being something attached to reason. All kinds of perversity - sexual, idealistic, physical, rational, irrational, etc... - are considered something that turns that individual no longer capable of conceiving and participating of the "Government".

I don't see how your conclusions follow from your ideas, sorry. I am a Hobbsian. No one lives without perversity to my knowledge. How would you even demonstrate this is a thing?

A society without government - can that even be described? Having said that, I am sure there are many labyrinthine Utopian theories of society out there.

Not trying to be rude but I can't see how this argument works.

However, I do not see the human being as someone of a "collective" nature, but instead, of "individual" nature

@Gus Lamarch

I wish one day we can say we are allowed to live in individualism. I guess in today's world and society is really difficult. It is interesting here how Karl Marx defended in his "communist" theories that is completely impossible to be a human by "yourself" meaning that the humankind by nature is forced to live in communities and social interaction. Those, are ruled by the law and then the government we "vote"
But why this happen? I guess (as I have shared previously with you) in a negative way that we need this abstract political figure called "State" to just controll or better said "preserve" us in the social community. There are citizens who robb, murder, evade taxes, etc... I mean these type of people which clearly do not want to share in the community. Well the government is there to enforce their duties to stay in the State.
For this reason if you do not accept the rules the government with the state will punish you with jail, fines, etc...

Throughout the recorded history of mankind, the concept of "Government" had only been functionally expressed through its establishment through the "State", which creates order through the use of fear. — Gus Lamarch

Athens had a democratic form of government. Athens wasn't a state.

The claim order is created through fear is just... silly. In fact, fear creates instability, if you have to worry or fear about crime, health the economy etc. civil unrest increases. The order governments create principally reduces these fears, good government more so than others.

For the rest, individualism is overrated and a poor description of the human condition.

Perversity here, understand not only as being something attached to reason. All kinds of perversity - sexual, idealistic, physical, rational, irrational, etc... - are considered something that turns that individual no longer capable of conceiving and participating of the "Government". — Gus Lamarch

So your system only works if everyone involved manages to shed human nature and is able to be truly altruistic. Never going to happen. Sounds very similar to theoretical Communism. Looks good on paper...add people...non-inspiring result.

I enjoy your formulation and largely agree, though we could probably quibble with the terms. It reminds me of Thomas Paine’s distinction between society and of government in Common Sense: “Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices”.

I am a Hobbsian. — Tom Storm

The fact that you categorize yourself as a follower of someone already shows that you are incapable of the originality necessary to conceive and understand the concepts that I have here presented.

Formulating:

Egoism + Success = Government
Egoism + Perversity + Any Other Categorization ( Success, Experience, Etc... ) = State

If the individual is not able to contain his irrational instincts, he is no longer able to be self-governing, and therefore unable to emanate the "Government".

I wish one day we can say we are allowed to live in individualism. — javi2541997

The Western world has been in love for more than 2000 years with the distortion of the concept of "individuality".

True "individual" died when the State was born, since the focus of society was no longer the Unique, but rather the citizen - aka, the concept that represents the individual as being intrinsic property of the government. Thing that it is not -.

Karl Marx — javi2541997

A prime example of a negative-egoist; someone who does not accept his nature and resents it, however, as there is no escape from egoism, he ends up developing a whole altruistic abstraction that morally justifies his actions.

"Communists are those who deceive themselves, or even truly believe, that their deeds are done for a higher cause. The Egoist is superior in all ways by the mere realization that his existence is simply based on self-realization. Without any need for "greater causes", "afterlife", etc... The cause of power is power, and the end of power is, also, power."

Athens had a democratic form of government. Athens wasn't a state. — Benkei

Athens was a city-state.

Honestly, your presence, in trying to refute my thoughts, ends up just strengthening all my work about egoism.

Here, I present to you people: - A Negative-Egoist!

That who only exists to bathe himself in his own resentment over being egoist, and not being capable of accepting his true nature!

“Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices”. — NOS4A2

But only because government is expressed through the state, and not through the indirect interaction of individuals.

The government shouldn't be the cause. It should be the end.

But only because government is expressed through the state, and not through the indirect interaction of individuals. — Gus Lamarch

This idea does interest me - can you provide any examples where a robust egoist system has been achieved or close to being achieved?

True "individual" died when the State was born, since the focus of society was no longer the Unique, but rather the citizen - aka, the concept that represents the individual as being intrinsic property of the government. Thing that it is not -. — Gus Lamarch

This point is so important. Yes individualism dead when the State was born. But is due to about how complex the society is. This why we need to create a concept an abstract term like government to provide us how useful the State is. The rule of law is very important because we can force to live in a society where we can respect each other.
Also, yes, it is completely flawed our system. I guess we never will have a perfect system because it doesn’t exist at all. Are we the humans perfect? NO. Thus, we can never have a perfect relationship between state-citizens.

Athens was a polis. Equating that with a city state is false on several levels, which you'd know, if you knew your history.

- can you provide any examples where a robust egoist system has been achieved or close to being achieved? — Tom Storm

Unfortunately, humanity was not even able to conceive of this abstraction - I'm sure I'm the first to do it - Max Stirner got pretty close with his "Union of Egoists" but his concept was flawed - - much less it would be able, in the current way in which its entire existence was built collectively and negatively, to act, successfully, so that this Government could be emanated.

I believe that it is impossible, in this historical cycle, for humanity to reach such a level of existential independence.

My philosophy is descriptive because my purpose is to register such thoughts so that a future humanity, which will be the synthesis of the contemporary historical cycle, has such thoughts described, and that finally, we could then act in such a way that the Government can manifest itself.

It's a good idea, but we haven't got to the point where can fully comprehend it.

But is due to about how complex the society is. — javi2541997

The fact that, throughout human history, we have been debating how to sustain the institution of the State, is clear proof that, when it was conceived, the concept had not been structured so that it could function in a society with billions of individuals.

Humanity reaches points - during history - in which the individual develops the power to emanate, independently of the State, the Government, however, the elites pre-established by the State always end up using collectivism, because with collectivism, you destroy individualism and maintain the structure intact, which keeps them in full control of political power. When this battle is fought, society stagnates and begins to degenerate. In the Bronze Age this had happened, with Rome it had been the same, and today the same is about to happen.

The individual's goal is not revolution, because revolution simply destroys one state for the sake of another. Insurrection is the only means capable of attacking the root of the problem - political power.

No political power, therefore, the individual power is absolute.

The means of egoism are its own ends.

however, the elites pre-established by the State always end up using collectivism, because with collectivism, you destroy individualism and maintain the structure intact, which keeps them in full control of political power. — Gus Lamarch

Elites always have been one of the troubles that we the citizens have to face in the government. When you deposit your vote in an urn you think you are doing it to change the government for better. Nevertheless the reality is so different. We have to face some interests or powers that are literally occult from our eyes.
Exactly in this point we can point some classical organisations as Elites: richest, lords, masons, etc...

So here we end up in a dilemma of empowering our presence inside the government as a collective. Maybe yes we have our representatives but literally you cannot develop the rule of law and so called “State” “Senate” without this kind of elitist powerful bases

Athens was a polis. — Benkei

Pella -the capital of Macedon - was - using your bious views - a "Polis" too:

The "Polis" of Pella



You don't know what you're saying.

Elites always have been one of the troubles that we the citizens have to face in the government. When you deposit your vote in an urn you think you are doing it to change the government for better. Nevertheless the reality is so different. We have to face some interests or powers that are literally occult from our eyes.
Exactly in this point we can point some classical organisations as Elites: richest, lords, masons, etc... — javi2541997

The problem is that you see yourself as a "citizen", which projects the image and the consequence that you belong to a nation-state.

The elites who remain in power with political power only remain because the "individual" has been dominated by the structure.

As I had already said: - It is a fact that current humanity is not capable, even if one tries, to end the State, because to end the State they would have to destroy, consequently, an entire society already established of 5,000 years.

It is a situation for future individuals to win, we are already doomed to the future "Dark Ages".

The elites who remain in power with political power only remain because the "individual" has been dominated by the structure. — Gus Lamarch

True. Very well said this point. But somehow the structure was always evolving to lead us here where we are. Back in the day even in the Roman Empire slavery was legal also there weren't paid jobs, property, representation in institutions, etc... I think it was more clear how the powerful ones was ruling out the structure or "State"

We can think now everything changed. But you know we have in an interesting paradox of seeing ourselves as citizens: Are we still slaves to the powerful elites? Like back in the Roman Empire no, but... Capitalism drove us in a social structure where you have to work a lot of hours to just pay your bills and if you do not do so you are unemployed or worse in the street while the "Elites" are richer than ever, making the social pyramid structure thicker and having their income in secret bank countries like Andorra or Bermudas.
They changed the way of thinking but not the role since the Roman Empire.