End of Governments

[cbeast]

I don't bind myself to currently accepted paradigms.

The rights of the individual vs. the power of the collective is one of the oldest paradigms there is. What paradigm are you working under?

There are many others. Morals, mores, religious experience, customs, rituals, laws, etc., spring from the mirror neuron receptors. Social dynamics such as heirarchy predate the evolution of homo sapien. Technically we are nothing but food machines for the bacterial collectives that we spring from and infest our bodies and will consume us when we expire.

[1714730662]

1714730662

[1714730662]

1714730662

[1714730662]

1714730662

[1714730662]

1714730662

[Severian]

Technically we are nothing but food machines for the bacterial collectives that we spring from and infest our bodies and will consume us when we expire.

If that's your paradigm, it's no wonder we have a difficult time communicating.

[mobodick]

However, nowadays "centralization and confiscation" is fairly repressive but the only method to keep stability in "modern" society which consist may be of over 90% "zombies" who depend mainly on social programs and subsidies.

I would actually suggest the tribal areas of Somalia. It's still 3rd world, so it's not up to the safety and health standards of the US, but from reports, it's pretty decent.

Sorry to add just a quote as a response, but it's apropos.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

-Jefferson

Sais you by typing it on a computer and sending it to us over the internets...
It seems to me you are not willing to live without these inconveniencies.

[Severian]

Sais you by typing it on a computer and sending it to us over the internets...
It seems to me you are not willing to live without these inconveniencies.

I live with the evils of too much liberty. How you structure your life is no concern of mine.

[mobodick]

The "end of government" would mean the end of peace, security, freedom, and all the infrastructure that has never worked without a governing authority.

Security is a service, like any other, and we do not need a monopoly provider of this service. Infrastructure, even today, is mostly privately built, contracted by the governments. The "end of government" would only mean the "end of monopoly provision of security."

Nope. Security is a status.
A service can then make sure a status of peace is maintained.
If you do not more or less centralize the power used for maintaining peace you get rivalry (because one mans peace is another mans chaos) and that means no security untill a top dog arises. This top dog would be basically the same thing as a government protecting you only it will be Sony or Nike or Microsoft. And you will live in a city protected by such a multinational and will be working in their (or their friends) factories.
This will happen because multinationals have enourmous power world wide (they provide goods, they provide jobs, they have capital, they have real estate and they have an established global organisation). Some multinationals already have more power than some nations.
You will exchange a broken democratic system for a slave-worker operated multinational where a human beings life is measured in how much money they can make for the company.

And all that because you want to float your peace on a market.

[mobodick]

So the basic question of this thread is:

If we disband government, can we stil have a free and safe society?

Answer: YES, WE CAN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

Yeah, well that guy is pretty amazingly wrong.
He is constantly arguing from within a protected society.
He only deals with people following their incentive to cooperate.
Unfortunately not all humans feel this way and they are a large enough group to form a society of their own with completely different sets of laws from your local laws which will prevent interoperability.

I think he is right that you can create a core of a system that operates like he suggests.
He is just way too optimistical about how such a system would operate at the fringes.
Dealing with fringes has been the greatest success of modern society and it is why we got to have this period of relative peace.

Another striking brainfart on the part of the narrator is that he seems to think that the most profitable way for any company to operate is by getting the best possible deal for their customers.
Companies usually have only one incentive: make more money.
If that can be achieved by screwing over their customers than that will become a reality sooner or later.

Another effect of his way of thinking is these protection enforcement service agencies will have to conglomerate over time.
This is because he argues that these agencies will mediate in the differences of law between themselfs.
This naturally leads to stuff like treaties and in the end you get a multiheaded dragon not disimilar to our current military systems, but with the incentive of making money.
So after all these law arbitration processes have settled down we will get a new military top dog that does all the 'peace keeping' in the world and has the incentive to make money from operating.
Great...
 

[mobodick]

Most roads are actually built by private contractors... Paid for with public funds.

I suppose if no one stole the money to pay these people, no one would ever pay for roads to be built, right?

If a market need exists, someone will be willing to provide it. If no one is willing to pay for it, no market need exists.

Yeah, and since these works became increasingly built by private contractors the quality became an issue.
That is because the step of outsourcing gives an incentive to the issuer to get the job done as cheaply as possible and it gives the contractor an incentive to do it as cheap as possible. Result: expensive roads that break easily and in the long run cost more to society than had it all been done by an institution.
By creating incentive for ever cheaper services we are digging a hole under society.

[mobodick]

A completely philisophical thought experiment. You may believe this argument if you wish, but it is not based on forensic sciences. There are a lot of ifs used and no historical examples.

Right, no historical examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_commonwealth
And since it's St. Patrick's day, let's not forget the Irish Tuatha: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tuath

Historically, anarchies have been more stable, long-term, than States.

Wait, what?

So then what is the actual ratio of successfull anarchies against successfull states?
Or even, how many stability years have been noted throughout history for anarchies and for states?

Don't try to falsify history.


Also, the icelandic commonwealth was far from an anarchy.

[mobodick]

I think you should be free to choose which country you want to live in up till you are 18-25. By this I mean you arent a citizen untill you actually sign a contract. A child cant understand or sign contracts so why should they be forced into one because of birth ?

This is why the Amish let their teenagers go into the world for a year or two as teenagers so that when they return it is their own choice.

That would be pretty shitty because most adults have no clear understanding of complex contracts, never mind one that defines your role in society.
And what if i find out that i don't like the country when i'm 40? Tough luck? Who's gonna accept that?


The amish will be making your brain so small when you're a kid that when you're confronted with the rest of society you are sure to get a sensory overload and run back home to mommy and poppy while crying 'Why is is flashing so much?!'.
Then mom and pop can reassure you that here is the best place for your tender soul to spend the rest of its time.
It's a pretty effective way of indoctrination and propably the only mechanism that keeps the amish population somewhat level.

[mobodick]

I don't believe either one of us can be persuaded from our positions so I'm going to refrain from further engagement in a pissing contest. I've found that by and large, an individual's nature is either geared toward bending to the authority of the State and its decrees or its geared to less centralized modes of existence. No amount of debate is going to change a person's nature.

An excellent history of the rise of centralized authority of the past 100 years and its fruits is found in Advance To Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare From Sarajevo to Hiroshima by Veale. You probably won't see this work used as a history book in any state-funded university.

As a return, perhaps you could direct me to a work that details the positive aspects of the centralized control of economic, jurisdictional and civil matters. We have examples in the Soviet Union, Maoist and modern China, the European Union and the United States so there's plenty to draw from.

Interesting notion altho i would say that in general this varies much more than just being extremes.
I think that it is strength in numbers in a given situation that forces people into either of the camp. But when not forced to choose i'd say every person has a different subset of what they want secured by what level of their social group and what they want to secure as individuals.

[FirstAscent]

I don't believe either one of us can be persuaded from our positions so I'm going to refrain from further engagement in a pissing contest. I've found that by and large, an individual's nature is either geared toward bending to the authority of the State and its decrees or its geared to less centralized modes of existence. No amount of debate is going to change a person's nature.

Bending? Wow. You must be the real deal, a guy who whines his whole life and simultaneously projects the facade of being someone who doesn't bend. Guess what? I bet you've bent over all your life just like the rest of us.

Only difference is, most of us don't whine, nor feel like we're bending over, because we aren't. But those who whine about it - those are the ones really feeling the shaft. Life sucks so bad for you, dude.

[Severian]

Bending? Wow....

I'll repost this as a reminder:

I don't believe either one of us can be persuaded from our positions so I'm going to refrain from further engagement in a pissing contest.

Have a great night.

[Jobe7]

Just to add,

"End of Government"

Does not = end of security, safety, civil jobs/service, etc, etc, etc

Most everything is privatised these days anyway.

And generally I meant the "end of government (as it exists now, e.g. corrupt and greed led)"

And the recognition of a State towards Bitcoin -

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=154672.0

Blink and you'll miss it, welcome to tomorrow

[abbyd]

I find it unlikely that governmental authority would dissolve, yet the Internet would continue to function well enough for Bitcoin to be an exchange medium.

[Jobe7]

Wrong - that's called tax evasion.

So what? That's why Bitcoin was invented.

Actually, if we want to get technical, Bitcoin is pretty much tax avoidance rather than tax evasion, tax evasion means you're still in the country with your wealth etc. not paying taxes from what I understand, tax avoidance means you're just not wanting to pay taxes at all and stay away from it? I think that's how it works but there's two definitions but tax avoidance is where you go out of the country to stay away from paying taxes. I think Bitcoin either falls somewhere in between or something because we're all putting our wealth in our computers to avoid paying for taxes rather than just simply not pay them at all, it's a whole new currency and you could argue it's like making a country on the internet rather than just simply not pay taxes which is what tax evasion is supposed to be.

Now I understand why the governments haven't said anything much about Bitcoin yet LOL this is a headache.

Ding ding ding, you win a cookie Sir

[myrkul]

I find it unlikely that governmental authority would dissolve, yet the Internet would continue to function well enough for Bitcoin to be an exchange medium.

The internet is run completely privately. There's no reason whatsoever that it couldn't keep on chugging, and plenty of reasons why it would. (Primary being that it was designed to.)

[Jobe7]

End of governments? Nope, it wont happen anytime soon. Some governments are so strong ( Germany ) that they can rule entire countries without military need. Well globalisation is the key...

1 word - Cyprus

Now I know you all didn't see this coming, but there it is, the start of the end, welcome to tomorrow, glad to ride these waves with you

[Jobe7]

Most roads are actually built by private contractors... Paid for with public funds.

I suppose if no one stole the money to pay these people, no one would ever pay for roads to be built, right?

If a market need exists, someone will be willing to provide it. If no one is willing to pay for it, no market need exists.

That's a lot of ifs. Evidentiary facts would be better.

Those aren't "ifs," they're if-then statements. As for evidence to back up those statements, you need only look at the black market. People want drugs. They are willing to pay for them. (There is a market need for drugs.) Other people are willing to provide these drugs, even at significant personal risk.

Drug trafficking is an excellent example of a secure, industrious, and well-adjusted population.

No, it isn't. Well, not "secure" or "well adjusted", but they certainly are industrious.

Well, if a drug cartel run country is your best evidence of a free-market economy, then you can have it. Try Afghanistan, you might like it there.

cbeast, don't worry .. well actually, you should worry.

A drug cartel run country ... I must assume you live on a different planet. There's around 5 countries in the world of whom their governments don't have their fingers in the drug trade. You are extremely naive if you think otherwise. All the evidence is right there, they ARE that arrogant.

GW Pharmaceuticals heads various organisations (bayer) globally (just to name 1 drug cartel). And yes, certain individuals have their sticky fingers in the 'illegal drugs' trade.

Here's a tiny bit of information for you - very recently (a few months ago) the Director of the financial part of international terrorism in the UK was caught being involved in money laundering. Ofc this information wasn't splashed all over the mainstream media, because the ones in charge are getting paid off also, but is the information is there, if you wish to open your eyes and look.

Also, (patented years back), GW has now put forward a new patent design for the treatment and prevention of Cancer (cannabis), now that they can commercialise it the governments (US first) will twist the law appropriately so that GW (and bayer by extension) will be able to 'legally sell' their cannabis as extortionate prices as a 'Cancer Cure'. The patent went forward for review a few days ago.

http://www.clear-uk.org/new-patent-granted-on-cannabis-compounds-for-treatment-and-prevention-of-cancer/

(yes, I'm plugging us, but its the most relevant)

Also .. about the 'drug cartel run country' - who do you think let HSBC get away with laundering soooo much money (yes, they got caught with xxx amount, how much do you think they didn't get caught with?) - no government will touch them, because they're hand in hand with the drug cartels.

Wake up.

[Jobe7]

In their current incarnation, yep, definitely.

2. When they finally adopt it, employees of the states finances will be much more transparent. This would hopefully force disbandment of corrupt parties and officials and growth of honest/transparent parties.

These bits.

Let me ask, what government would YOU like? The current style? or if you had the choice to design a 'people friendly' government, are you happy living under your current government? Or would you prefer a transparent government? And whatever you answer, try saying the same answer when your government decides to copy Cyprus.

Just to add, someone early in this thread said something along the lines of;

But they could just create extra private wallets

Indeed, and I hope so. But the major point is, that the 'initial' wallet that government officials get paid with would be identified and would be visible for ALL to observe whenever they wished. So any 'extra under the table' money can be observed.

Yes, they could have other wallets that they'd be using to be getting 'under the table bribes'. And here's how a system can stop that.

-  ONLY allow a political party to spend money from their designated wallet (or wallets) -
- IF things look dodgy, then ANYONE can go looking through the bitchain - This will be the fear into the corrupt to abide by the people.

And here's a little secret for you,

There are hardly NO Governments left (huh?? shock horror?!) - what exists is the global banking empire - your government is dead, it died a long time ago, what exists is a shell of a corpse that the global banking empire has crawled into and pretends it's your government.

Tell me about how yours, or any government, around the world has dealt with HSBC as a government SHOULD (according to constitution and international law). Tell me about how yours, or any government has dealt with the lies to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and Libyia, and everywhere else that's been invaded. Tell me about how your government protects its people as it raises taxes and cuts benefits whilst dolling out HUGE bonuses to bankers. Tell me about how your government continues to bring to light pedophile investigations into their administrations (US & UK, I havn't had time to look into other countries, but they were/are involved) over the decades. Tell me about your government making sure that voting is not twisted and cheated upon (especially in the US, I feel sorry for you guys and gals). Tell me about how the Greek and Cyprus governments protect their people as they steal their money for the EU and international banks. Tell me about how Iceland's government survived when their crisis hit the fan a few years back.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Your governments are dead, or maybe there's a breath in there somewhere and we can kick out the parasite .. or we leave the infested corrupt body to die with the bankers as we move forward into a new era.

Cut the puppet strings and watch the infested puppet corpse drop.

[mobodick]

I find it unlikely that governmental authority would dissolve, yet the Internet would continue to function well enough for Bitcoin to be an exchange medium.

The internet is run completely privately. There's no reason whatsoever that it couldn't keep on chugging, and plenty of reasons why it would. (Primary being that it was designed to.)

The internet escaped the milspecs long time ago.
Only parts are redundant these days and they also rely on working infras in society.