End of Governments

[Mike Christ]

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/capitalism-steven-pearlstein-and-morality

I've been reading this article about double standards in US economy: lower classes are subjected to competing with china workforce, while higher classes, say doctors, bankers and lawyers are protected from that same competition. The problem is you see, that higher classes tend to bribe or somehow otherwise influence the politicians.

How to make the government resilient to this? One way is to only let wealthy folks into politics. But the newly chosen politicians (industrials, bankers, doctors) will stil protect their own interests and wealth. Put Warren Buffet for a president and you'll see some bailouts!

Other way around this is, of course to disband the government...

Depends on what you want.  If you're wealthy, everything's peachy.  If you're not wealthy, it's not a lot of fun.  But as long as the wealthy can keep the not-wealthy in line by distracting them with political parties and celebrity news, we can keep this system going for the wealthy.

Even if one is to support government of any sort, nobody (except the rich, but I stopped counting them as people a while ago,) actually believes what we have now is satisfactory.

Wealth is relative.
The wealthy of 100 years ago (even kings and emperors) didn't have the cool stuff we have now.
The thing is that it never gets satisfactory.
We are programmed to eat the cake and so we can't have it.

I finally understand the phrase "You can't have your cake and eat it, too."

Thank you so much   A little embarrassing I didn't get it until now, tho.

But by wealth, I'm referring to those with the visage of having the most amounts of political influence via lobbying and bribes.  From a philosophical point of view, their wealth is negligible to my wealth of another form, but when considering the powers that be in any government, those with the most Freedom-FunBux and therefor the most influence appear to be the wealthiest.

Can there never be a satisfactory government?  Is it designed to forever disappoint some and not others?  Seems better to avoid it all together, if that's going to be the case.

[1714712694]

1714712694

[1714712694]

1714712694

[mobodick]

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/capitalism-steven-pearlstein-and-morality

I've been reading this article about double standards in US economy: lower classes are subjected to competing with china workforce, while higher classes, say doctors, bankers and lawyers are protected from that same competition. The problem is you see, that higher classes tend to bribe or somehow otherwise influence the politicians.

How to make the government resilient to this? One way is to only let wealthy folks into politics. But the newly chosen politicians (industrials, bankers, doctors) will stil protect their own interests and wealth. Put Warren Buffet for a president and you'll see some bailouts!

Other way around this is, of course to disband the government...

Depends on what you want.  If you're wealthy, everything's peachy.  If you're not wealthy, it's not a lot of fun.  But as long as the wealthy can keep the not-wealthy in line by distracting them with political parties and celebrity news, we can keep this system going for the wealthy.

Even if one is to support government of any sort, nobody (except the rich, but I stopped counting them as people a while ago,) actually believes what we have now is satisfactory.

Wealth is relative.
The wealthy of 100 years ago (even kings and emperors) didn't have the cool stuff we have now.
The thing is that it never gets satisfactory.
We are programmed to eat the cake and so we can't have it.

I finally understand the phrase "You can't have your cake and eat it, too."

Thank you so much   A little embarrassing I didn't get it until now, tho.

But by wealth, I'm referring to those with the visage of having the most amounts of political influence via lobbying and bribes.  From a philosophical point of view, their wealth is negligible to my wealth of another form, but when considering the powers that be in any government, those with the most Freedom-FunBux and therefor the most influence appear to be the wealthiest.

Can there never be a satisfactory government?  Is it designed to forever disappoint some and not others?  Seems better to avoid it all together, if that's going to be the case.

Well, we people get used to luxury. So we always want more. Even better if it's more then my neighbour. So yes, any form of civilization will dissapoint in this way. Social hyrarchies are as old as human history so it's not realy about governments either. We are social animals that have many social hierarchies. Government is just a refined and scaled up form of the topmost part of social hierarchy.
And in the end there is just not enough room for everyone to be at the top of the social hierarchy. We also decided to kindof ritualize the thing so that the top of the hierarchy can be better controled by the base of the piramid (democracy). Unfortunately that process is only partially successfull as there are big scaling problems with representation (of people).

But besides governments we have these multinationals that are also hierarchies but are usually completely non-democratic and operate for the purpose of profit. These hierarchies are fastly becoming larger than governments. They play on a larger field than any single country and they can bend around laws. In fact, they are taking over our lifes by controling ever larger parts of the mechanisms around us. In larger and larger ammounts they decide how resources get divided around the world.
Not people, not governments but multinationals that would sell your baby for profit. Not theirs, of course.

[Jobe7]

I agree with your overall observations, but i feel it has become more of a forced symbiosis than being purely parasitic.
The banking system has enabled a lot of things in society and removing the parasite may kill the host.

Creation always comes from destruction. This is the reality of things, throughout the ages, it is true today as it was 2,000 years ago.

I feel at this point I should point this part out;

We, as humans, have evolved, our physical attribute evolution stopped a while back, our intellectual evolution (depending on your research and beliefs, but lets not go there) is continuing to evolve.

Side by side with our intellectual evolution comes Societal Evolution.

There have been various forms of ruling parties through the millenniums, either through Monarchy, Despotism, Anarchy, Tribalism .. the list is actually very extensive (http://phrontistery.info/govern.html). Though obviously only certain types relevant for this discussion.

We as a society, have evolved into a global society as various nations have intermingled, and this global society has evolved with its types of governance (e.g. when many monarchy's were overthrown they were done within a relatively small time period). As such we have slowly evolved to the current form we are in now.

The majority of the populace of the world do not feel it is working, similar to how a majority of nations didn't feel monarchy was working hundreds of years ago. The paramount questions are (as is being discussed very interestingly),

All the ingredients are there,

What remains is for what has been baked for quite some time to be finished cooking and released. (Translation: People over the world are getting more and more fed up, and when the key to release, (escape from fiat) is looming, it may very well present the key for society to evolve alongside the monetary system).

What will evolve? Multiple contractors seeking 'customers' with short or long term plans, what would attract them? (btw, on this note, I'd never sign into a 10 year contract, and anyone who did would be very foolish and advised against strongly. A 10 year contract would be shunned in favour of a 1 year, already making that 10 year contractor fail).

New government style parties that will allow existence of multiple 'private' contractors (aka, Councils) to develop more independently? Allowing contractors (councils) to attract new residents with their "my product is better than theirs, and we'll even pay for you to move here, if you sign a 1 year contract"?

Governments come and go, institutional change is a MUST for human societal evolution for evolution can NOT come without growth, and growth can NOT happen without change.

Will some governments resist? Of course they will. And they will stay stale, with a distressed populace desperate to escape their monoplized society.

Whilst a competitive country with a dozen competing contractors constantly strengthening themselves to provide a better service than their neighbour to attract you. And such a country as an 'overall' would grow, economically, scientifically and sociologically.
-----------------------

100 Years ago we reached the end of the usefulness of the current governmental style, the 1st World War was an extremely clear sign of that, and the blocking of science and scientists, the strangling of technologies and monies to the people. These are the signs that its times to change.

However, we did not know how, or what to ....

Do we now? Is what we dream better? Is change better? or is it better to keep our governments as they are until the end of time? And what powers would be needed to enact such a change? Will a new monetary system escaped from the fiat prison enable those with the will and the 'wealth' to finance and enact these changes with wisdom?

[mobodick]

I agree with your overall observations, but i feel it has become more of a forced symbiosis than being purely parasitic.
The banking system has enabled a lot of things in society and removing the parasite may kill the host.

Creation always comes from destruction. This is the reality of things, throughout the ages, it is true today as it was 2,000 years ago.

I feel at this point I should point this part out;

We, as humans, have evolved, our physical attribute evolution stopped a while back, our intellectual evolution (depending on your research and beliefs, but lets not go there) is continuing to evolve.

Side by side with our intellectual evolution comes Societal Evolution.

Yeah, it's called culture.
But you have to be carefull in comparing the evolution of things. The actual driving forces behind the changes can and do shape the path.
We, unlike nature, can think far into the future.

There have been various forms of ruling parties through the millenniums, either through Monarchy, Despotism, Anarchy, Tribalism .. the list is actually very extensive (http://phrontistery.info/govern.html). Though obviously only certain types relevant for this discussion.

We as a society, have evolved into a global society as various nations have intermingled, and this global society has evolved with its types of governance (e.g. when many monarchy's were overthrown they were done within a relatively small time period). As such we have slowly evolved to the current form we are in now.

It's not pure evolution tho, it took libraries full of planning and adjusting.

The majority of the populace of the world do not feel it is working, similar to how a majority of nations didn't feel monarchy was working hundreds of years ago. The paramount questions are (as is being discussed very interestingly),

That's nonsense. Ask them if it works like they hoped and you get your answer. But it is not always easy or indeed possible to turn hopes into reality. A lot of coutries are open source tho, so if the people have a better idea to make it all work (and make it work well and make the change without breaking everything) they can step up and other people will hear them. It is just not an easy task to run a country, never mnid doing so on a global stage.
I hope you realize the people suffering under those monarchies you talk of just didnt have enough food and clean water?
In reality most people these days are glad we got this far.

All the ingredients are there,

What remains is for what has been baked for quite some time to be finished cooking and released. (Translation: People over the world are getting more and more fed up, and when the key to release, (escape from fiat) is looming, it may very well present the key for society to evolve alongside the monetary system).

By the time people will be escaping from fiat there will be chaos all over because our complete world economy runs on fiat money.
What you propose is a destruction of modern life. It's not just a litte part of europe or asia that will suffer, it will be almost every nation in the world.

What will evolve? Multiple contractors seeking 'customers' with short or long term plans, what would attract them? (btw, on this note, I'd never sign into a 10 year contract, and anyone who did would be very foolish and advised against strongly. A 10 year contract would be shunned in favour of a 1 year, already making that 10 year contractor fail).

Lol, no. What will evolve for the first years is what you see in Mad Max. People brutally surviving and scaveging for energy.
There will be nothing and all production will stop.
If fiat collapses so does our world. It would be the equivalent of ripping out your veins. See society jerking on the ground? That's what you propose.

New government style parties that will allow existence of multiple 'private' contractors (aka, Councils) to develop more independently? Allowing contractors (councils) to attract new residents with their "my product is better than theirs, and we'll even pay for you to move here, if you sign a 1 year contract"?

You mean that the companies that settle in saudi arabia and russia will be the big winners of the energy wars that are sure to follow?
Sounds like no change at all.
What you propose is just another form of governance and these councils you mention will start behaving like governments over time.
I mean, i can live in another country if i like their 'product' better right now! You don't need private corporations to have that.
The product of these councils will be shaped mostly exactly like that of governments because their task will be the same and the forces that play at those levels give it that shape. How would the USA look now if there was no Bell, IBM or Ford?
But then these councils will not be democratically corrected. So if you live in Bayer City and Bayer will have invented a chemical that makes you just love Bayer then there will be no one to stop them. Happy times, i'm sure.

Governments come and go, institutional change is a MUST for human societal evolution for evolution can NOT come without growth, and growth can NOT happen without change.

If you think about it nothing can happen without change, wether its growth, shrinkage or frogs getting run over. You're arguing dynamics.

Will some governments resist? Of course they will. And they will stay stale, with a distressed populace desperate to escape their monoplized society.

These councils will also be governments. They will just not be run by you but by people wanting to sell you something.

Whilst a competitive country with a dozen competing contractors constantly strengthening themselves to provide a better service than their neighbour to attract you. And such a country as an 'overall' would grow, economically, scientifically and sociologically.

What is a country if not governed? What is a country if not united by one law?

-----------------------

100 Years ago we reached the end of the usefulness of the current governmental style, the 1st World War was an extremely clear sign of that, and the blocking of science and scientists, the strangling of technologies and monies to the people. These are the signs that its times to change.

Now it's getting bizarre.
You mean that governments have been useless for the past 100 years? Did you even look how things were 100 years ago and how the change from that was facilitated through government?
That's a fantasy dude. Governments were incredibly usefull during the past centuries.
And get your history right. WWI was started over a monarchy.
There was no current style government in those days.
The whole idea of governance changed in the past 100 years. Incredible dramatic changes. The lower classes got social and economic freedoms that were never ever possible before in known history and on that scale. That's what the last 100 years of governance did for you.
So i have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

However, we did not know how, or what to ....

Do we now? Is what we dream better? Is change better? or is it better to keep our governments as they are until the end of time? And what powers would be needed to enact such a change? Will a new monetary system escaped from the fiat prison enable those with the will and the 'wealth' to finance and enact these changes with wisdom?

No, and i think you don't realy get how the world works and why.

[hawkeye]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

Wrong.
Once microsoft IS your country you will have just as much or even less choice than you had before.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  I am talking about an absence of countries.

[hawkeye]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses.

You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to.  You are forced to choose a government.

When you are born you are automatically locked into a government.   You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer.   And most countries lock you out anyway.

Try again.

[FirstAscent]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses.

You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to.  You are forced to choose a government.

When you are born you are automatically locked into a government.   You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer.   And most countries lock you out anyway.

Try again.

That is not the fault of any government, and therein lies the fault of your argument. It is not any government's fault that no land is left for you to go play rebellious anti-government dreamer.

It's like you complaining that all the homes in a neighborhood are already owned by someone else and you can't move into a home in that neighborhood yourself without playing by the house rules.

You are wrong. Try harder. Find a government you like, and get on with life.

[gapthemind]

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

Cyprus is in proble for decades due to 1 part being Turkish and 2nd part Greece. So nope not a valid example. Goevrmentas dont fall just like that, those things dont happen. Just take a look at Cuba, SSSR was comunist for decades. So try better.

[Jobe7]

I agree with your overall observations, but i feel it has become more of a forced symbiosis than being purely parasitic.
The banking system has enabled a lot of things in society and removing the parasite may kill the host.

Creation always comes from destruction. This is the reality of things, throughout the ages, it is true today as it was 2,000 years ago.

I feel at this point I should point this part out;

We, as humans, have evolved, our physical attribute evolution stopped a while back, our intellectual evolution (depending on your research and beliefs, but lets not go there) is continuing to evolve.

Side by side with our intellectual evolution comes Societal Evolution.

Yeah, it's called culture.
But you have to be carefull in comparing the evolution of things. The actual driving forces behind the changes can and do shape the path.
We, unlike nature, can think far into the future.

There have been various forms of ruling parties through the millenniums, either through Monarchy, Despotism, Anarchy, Tribalism .. the list is actually very extensive (http://phrontistery.info/govern.html). Though obviously only certain types relevant for this discussion.

We as a society, have evolved into a global society as various nations have intermingled, and this global society has evolved with its types of governance (e.g. when many monarchy's were overthrown they were done within a relatively small time period). As such we have slowly evolved to the current form we are in now.

It's not pure evolution tho, it took libraries full of planning and adjusting.

The majority of the populace of the world do not feel it is working, similar to how a majority of nations didn't feel monarchy was working hundreds of years ago. The paramount questions are (as is being discussed very interestingly),

That's nonsense. Ask them if it works like they hoped and you get your answer. But it is not always easy or indeed possible to turn hopes into reality. A lot of coutries are open source tho, so if the people have a better idea to make it all work (and make it work well and make the change without breaking everything) they can step up and other people will hear them. It is just not an easy task to run a country, never mnid doing so on a global stage.
I hope you realize the people suffering under those monarchies you talk of just didnt have enough food and clean water?
In reality most people these days are glad we got this far.

All the ingredients are there,

What remains is for what has been baked for quite some time to be finished cooking and released. (Translation: People over the world are getting more and more fed up, and when the key to release, (escape from fiat) is looming, it may very well present the key for society to evolve alongside the monetary system).

By the time people will be escaping from fiat there will be chaos all over because our complete world economy runs on fiat money.
What you propose is a destruction of modern life. It's not just a litte part of europe or asia that will suffer, it will be almost every nation in the world.

What will evolve? Multiple contractors seeking 'customers' with short or long term plans, what would attract them? (btw, on this note, I'd never sign into a 10 year contract, and anyone who did would be very foolish and advised against strongly. A 10 year contract would be shunned in favour of a 1 year, already making that 10 year contractor fail).

Lol, no. What will evolve for the first years is what you see in Mad Max. People brutally surviving and scaveging for energy.
There will be nothing and all production will stop.
If fiat collapses so does our world. It would be the equivalent of ripping out your veins. See society jerking on the ground? That's what you propose.

New government style parties that will allow existence of multiple 'private' contractors (aka, Councils) to develop more independently? Allowing contractors (councils) to attract new residents with their "my product is better than theirs, and we'll even pay for you to move here, if you sign a 1 year contract"?

You mean that the companies that settle in saudi arabia and russia will be the big winners of the energy wars that are sure to follow?
Sounds like no change at all.
What you propose is just another form of governance and these councils you mention will start behaving like governments over time.
I mean, i can live in another country if i like their 'product' better right now! You don't need private corporations to have that.
The product of these councils will be shaped mostly exactly like that of governments because their task will be the same and the forces that play at those levels give it that shape. How would the USA look now if there was no Bell, IBM or Ford?
But then these councils will not be democratically corrected. So if you live in Bayer City and Bayer will have invented a chemical that makes you just love Bayer then there will be no one to stop them. Happy times, i'm sure.

Governments come and go, institutional change is a MUST for human societal evolution for evolution can NOT come without growth, and growth can NOT happen without change.

If you think about it nothing can happen without change, wether its growth, shrinkage or frogs getting run over. You're arguing dynamics.

Will some governments resist? Of course they will. And they will stay stale, with a distressed populace desperate to escape their monoplized society.

These councils will also be governments. They will just not be run by you but by people wanting to sell you something.

Whilst a competitive country with a dozen competing contractors constantly strengthening themselves to provide a better service than their neighbour to attract you. And such a country as an 'overall' would grow, economically, scientifically and sociologically.

What is a country if not governed? What is a country if not united by one law?

-----------------------

100 Years ago we reached the end of the usefulness of the current governmental style, the 1st World War was an extremely clear sign of that, and the blocking of science and scientists, the strangling of technologies and monies to the people. These are the signs that its times to change.

Now it's getting bizarre.
You mean that governments have been useless for the past 100 years? Did you even look how things were 100 years ago and how the change from that was facilitated through government?
That's a fantasy dude. Governments were incredibly usefull during the past centuries.
And get your history right. WWI was started over a monarchy.
There was no current style government in those days.
The whole idea of governance changed in the past 100 years. Incredible dramatic changes. The lower classes got social and economic freedoms that were never ever possible before in known history and on that scale. That's what the last 100 years of governance did for you.
So i have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

However, we did not know how, or what to ....

Do we now? Is what we dream better? Is change better? or is it better to keep our governments as they are until the end of time? And what powers would be needed to enact such a change? Will a new monetary system escaped from the fiat prison enable those with the will and the 'wealth' to finance and enact these changes with wisdom?

No, and i think you don't realy get how the world works and why.

I'm not comparing anything .. Social Evolution is a THING, read up on it.

Civil wars and theocracies and monarchies did NOT in fact take libraries, full of planning and adjusting to start .. Don't you know any history?

I've talked to PLENTY of people, I'm a politician its what I DO. And they are not happy! They do NOT like these continued taxes, nor bailouts for bankers, not corrupt politicians abusing their tax money, nor wars started with lies and more wars!!

I gave up reading after that ...

What planet are you from? For you Sir are a troll.

[myrkul]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses.

You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to.  You are forced to choose a government.

When you are born you are automatically locked into a government.   You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer.   And most countries lock you out anyway.

Try again.

That is not the fault of any government, and therein lies the fault of your argument. It is not any government's fault that no land is left for you to go play rebellious anti-government dreamer.

It's like you complaining that all the homes in a neighborhood are already owned by someone else and you can't move into a home in that neighborhood yourself without playing by the house rules.

You are wrong. Try harder. Find a government you like, and get on with life.

I can simply buy a house from someone in that neighborhood.

Even when you buy land, governments take a dim view of trying to set up your own rules on it. Even when you buy land from the government, they still think it's theirs.

[FirstAscent]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses.

You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to.  You are forced to choose a government.

When you are born you are automatically locked into a government.   You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer.   And most countries lock you out anyway.

Try again.

That is not the fault of any government, and therein lies the fault of your argument. It is not any government's fault that no land is left for you to go play rebellious anti-government dreamer.

It's like you complaining that all the homes in a neighborhood are already owned by someone else and you can't move into a home in that neighborhood yourself without playing by the house rules.

You are wrong. Try harder. Find a government you like, and get on with life.

I can simply buy a house from someone in that neighborhood.

Even when you buy land, governments take a dim view of trying to set up your own rules on it. Even when you buy land from the government, they still think it's theirs.

You can simply buy a house in that neighborhood? Really?

And conflation of analogies does not work. Let's assume that we're talking about a neighborhood in your fabled AnCap world. Now try again.

[myrkul]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses.

You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to.  You are forced to choose a government.

When you are born you are automatically locked into a government.   You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer.   And most countries lock you out anyway.

Try again.

That is not the fault of any government, and therein lies the fault of your argument. It is not any government's fault that no land is left for you to go play rebellious anti-government dreamer.

It's like you complaining that all the homes in a neighborhood are already owned by someone else and you can't move into a home in that neighborhood yourself without playing by the house rules.

You are wrong. Try harder. Find a government you like, and get on with life.

I can simply buy a house from someone in that neighborhood.

Even when you buy land, governments take a dim view of trying to set up your own rules on it. Even when you buy land from the government, they still think it's theirs.

You can simply buy a house in that neighborhood? Really?

Yes, really. Somebody will sell, if I offer enough money. It all depends on how much I want to live in that neighborhood.

Perhaps you should try harder.

[FirstAscent]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses.

You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to.  You are forced to choose a government.

When you are born you are automatically locked into a government.   You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer.   And most countries lock you out anyway.

Try again.

That is not the fault of any government, and therein lies the fault of your argument. It is not any government's fault that no land is left for you to go play rebellious anti-government dreamer.

It's like you complaining that all the homes in a neighborhood are already owned by someone else and you can't move into a home in that neighborhood yourself without playing by the house rules.

You are wrong. Try harder. Find a government you like, and get on with life.

I can simply buy a house from someone in that neighborhood.

Even when you buy land, governments take a dim view of trying to set up your own rules on it. Even when you buy land from the government, they still think it's theirs.

You can simply buy a house in that neighborhood? Really?

Yes, really. Somebody will sell, if I offer enough money. It all depends on how much I want to live in that neighborhood.

Perhaps you should try harder.

We can't assume that you have enough money.

[myrkul]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses.

You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to.  You are forced to choose a government.

When you are born you are automatically locked into a government.   You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer.   And most countries lock you out anyway.

Try again.

That is not the fault of any government, and therein lies the fault of your argument. It is not any government's fault that no land is left for you to go play rebellious anti-government dreamer.

It's like you complaining that all the homes in a neighborhood are already owned by someone else and you can't move into a home in that neighborhood yourself without playing by the house rules.

You are wrong. Try harder. Find a government you like, and get on with life.

I can simply buy a house from someone in that neighborhood.

Even when you buy land, governments take a dim view of trying to set up your own rules on it. Even when you buy land from the government, they still think it's theirs.

You can simply buy a house in that neighborhood? Really?

Yes, really. Somebody will sell, if I offer enough money. It all depends on how much I want to live in that neighborhood.

Perhaps you should try harder.

We can't assume that you have enough money.

Then I'll just have to save until I do, won't I?

Again, it's all bout how much I want to live there.  And no matter how much I save, I can't give any government enough money for them to leave me the hell alone. They keep coming back for more.

Please, do try a little harder?

[mobodick]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

Wrong.
Once microsoft IS your country you will have just as much or even less choice than you had before.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  I am talking about an absence of countries.

I'm talking about the fact that these kind of services must be somehow largely geographically bound.
If you want to opt out of your local bit of civilization, you will have to move. Just like now. So effectively microsoft would be your new country.
But what if there is no more growth potential? What will such a company do then to keep it's precious civilicustomerslaves?
How do you assure such a big world power will act ethical if you cannot control these entities? Choice is nice, but you need to have information to make a good choice. But big corporations are the ideal tools for information manipulation. It just cannot work without a bigger structure that keeps these companies in check.

[mobodick]

I agree with your overall observations, but i feel it has become more of a forced symbiosis than being purely parasitic.
The banking system has enabled a lot of things in society and removing the parasite may kill the host.

Creation always comes from destruction. This is the reality of things, throughout the ages, it is true today as it was 2,000 years ago.

I feel at this point I should point this part out;

We, as humans, have evolved, our physical attribute evolution stopped a while back, our intellectual evolution (depending on your research and beliefs, but lets not go there) is continuing to evolve.

Side by side with our intellectual evolution comes Societal Evolution.

Yeah, it's called culture.
But you have to be carefull in comparing the evolution of things. The actual driving forces behind the changes can and do shape the path.
We, unlike nature, can think far into the future.

There have been various forms of ruling parties through the millenniums, either through Monarchy, Despotism, Anarchy, Tribalism .. the list is actually very extensive (http://phrontistery.info/govern.html). Though obviously only certain types relevant for this discussion.

We as a society, have evolved into a global society as various nations have intermingled, and this global society has evolved with its types of governance (e.g. when many monarchy's were overthrown they were done within a relatively small time period). As such we have slowly evolved to the current form we are in now.

It's not pure evolution tho, it took libraries full of planning and adjusting.

The majority of the populace of the world do not feel it is working, similar to how a majority of nations didn't feel monarchy was working hundreds of years ago. The paramount questions are (as is being discussed very interestingly),

That's nonsense. Ask them if it works like they hoped and you get your answer. But it is not always easy or indeed possible to turn hopes into reality. A lot of coutries are open source tho, so if the people have a better idea to make it all work (and make it work well and make the change without breaking everything) they can step up and other people will hear them. It is just not an easy task to run a country, never mnid doing so on a global stage.
I hope you realize the people suffering under those monarchies you talk of just didnt have enough food and clean water?
In reality most people these days are glad we got this far.

All the ingredients are there,

What remains is for what has been baked for quite some time to be finished cooking and released. (Translation: People over the world are getting more and more fed up, and when the key to release, (escape from fiat) is looming, it may very well present the key for society to evolve alongside the monetary system).

By the time people will be escaping from fiat there will be chaos all over because our complete world economy runs on fiat money.
What you propose is a destruction of modern life. It's not just a litte part of europe or asia that will suffer, it will be almost every nation in the world.

What will evolve? Multiple contractors seeking 'customers' with short or long term plans, what would attract them? (btw, on this note, I'd never sign into a 10 year contract, and anyone who did would be very foolish and advised against strongly. A 10 year contract would be shunned in favour of a 1 year, already making that 10 year contractor fail).

Lol, no. What will evolve for the first years is what you see in Mad Max. People brutally surviving and scaveging for energy.
There will be nothing and all production will stop.
If fiat collapses so does our world. It would be the equivalent of ripping out your veins. See society jerking on the ground? That's what you propose.

New government style parties that will allow existence of multiple 'private' contractors (aka, Councils) to develop more independently? Allowing contractors (councils) to attract new residents with their "my product is better than theirs, and we'll even pay for you to move here, if you sign a 1 year contract"?

You mean that the companies that settle in saudi arabia and russia will be the big winners of the energy wars that are sure to follow?
Sounds like no change at all.
What you propose is just another form of governance and these councils you mention will start behaving like governments over time.
I mean, i can live in another country if i like their 'product' better right now! You don't need private corporations to have that.
The product of these councils will be shaped mostly exactly like that of governments because their task will be the same and the forces that play at those levels give it that shape. How would the USA look now if there was no Bell, IBM or Ford?
But then these councils will not be democratically corrected. So if you live in Bayer City and Bayer will have invented a chemical that makes you just love Bayer then there will be no one to stop them. Happy times, i'm sure.

Governments come and go, institutional change is a MUST for human societal evolution for evolution can NOT come without growth, and growth can NOT happen without change.

If you think about it nothing can happen without change, wether its growth, shrinkage or frogs getting run over. You're arguing dynamics.

Will some governments resist? Of course they will. And they will stay stale, with a distressed populace desperate to escape their monoplized society.

These councils will also be governments. They will just not be run by you but by people wanting to sell you something.

Whilst a competitive country with a dozen competing contractors constantly strengthening themselves to provide a better service than their neighbour to attract you. And such a country as an 'overall' would grow, economically, scientifically and sociologically.

What is a country if not governed? What is a country if not united by one law?

-----------------------

100 Years ago we reached the end of the usefulness of the current governmental style, the 1st World War was an extremely clear sign of that, and the blocking of science and scientists, the strangling of technologies and monies to the people. These are the signs that its times to change.

Now it's getting bizarre.
You mean that governments have been useless for the past 100 years? Did you even look how things were 100 years ago and how the change from that was facilitated through government?
That's a fantasy dude. Governments were incredibly usefull during the past centuries.
And get your history right. WWI was started over a monarchy.
There was no current style government in those days.
The whole idea of governance changed in the past 100 years. Incredible dramatic changes. The lower classes got social and economic freedoms that were never ever possible before in known history and on that scale. That's what the last 100 years of governance did for you.
So i have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

However, we did not know how, or what to ....

Do we now? Is what we dream better? Is change better? or is it better to keep our governments as they are until the end of time? And what powers would be needed to enact such a change? Will a new monetary system escaped from the fiat prison enable those with the will and the 'wealth' to finance and enact these changes with wisdom?

No, and i think you don't realy get how the world works and why.

I'm not comparing anything .. Social Evolution is a THING, read up on it.

Well, it's a thing in the same way your conciousness is a thing. It is an information structure that cannot be pinpointed to anything specific and which is constantly in a feedback loop with itself.

Civil wars and theocracies and monarchies did NOT in fact take libraries, full of planning and adjusting to start .. Don't you know any history?

Not sure what libraries you have seen, but governance is a pretty big topic throughout history. Just as an example, have you ever heared of the Lithuanian Commonwealth? Lots of planning and adjusting went into that one. How do you think the romans managed their water supplies? You think one day someone got up and thought "Let's build Aquaducts!". Of course not, they need to be engineerd for the specific implementation. It requires lots and lots of planning and structure and institutions and bureaucracy . All large social structures require planning and management and upkeep. You cannot have a civilization without planning. Even the egyptian farao's had to plan for bad years where the nyle didn't overflow. So they 'taxed' their people in grain and that grain went to silo's and were stored so he could give the grain back when they had a bad year and his people didn't die off from hunger. It  was a massive operation as everyone must be levied in a fair way. They invented a system of numarals and mathemtics to account this.

History is full of planned societies. In fact, the most important fact we learn from history is that planning ahead is the best survival strategy. All civilisations that wrote history both had governments and were in the business of making multi-year plans. It is essential for the survival of a civilization.

So again, what libraries have you seen from the inside?
Or even the USA, it's built on pretty well thought through ideas. Without the insights of its founders it would have been something else completely. It would propably still be a ritisch colony.

I've talked to PLENTY of people, I'm a politician its what I DO. And they are not happy! They do NOT like these continued taxes, nor bailouts for bankers, not corrupt politicians abusing their tax money, nor wars started with lies and more wars!!

I gave up reading after that ...

What planet are you from? For you Sir are a troll.

What? You're a politician? And you are seriously considering the need of governments? Seriously? Because people don't like tax? And you claim to have read history books?
LOL., i fear for the future of the people you claim to represent.

OF COURSE people are not happy. But killing society over tax unhappiness is a bit suicidal, don't you think?
IF you're a politician and IF people are not happy (and by people i mean some majority) then you would have no problem representing this majority because you're a politician, yes sir, that's what you are.
Good luck explaining to the people that YES they can have NO TAX AT ALL but that they have to make their own food from now on because society just ceased to exist. And water will be in bottles in the shop once you get a job to pay for it.

[mobodick]

If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them.  If not I can go with a competitor.

With the government, I have no choice.

Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer.  They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out.  Not so with the government.

The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer.  It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?

In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses.

You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to.  You are forced to choose a government.

When you are born you are automatically locked into a government.   You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer.   And most countries lock you out anyway.

Try again.

Ow, and you have the magical idea that some government replacing organisation will not have this same incentive?
Think again.
They will have the incentve AND no laws or control to stop them from exploiting this to the max.
If i was a multinational and was alowed to have my own population i would just breed them and dispose of them when no needed any more.
Of course they would be genetically modified to somehow bind them to my company.
Screw al those free people, i'd just make my own slave race that i can manage to do all my work. Hey, capitalism to the max! HI HO!

[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.

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.

In any modern governmental crisis, Internet access is the FIRST THING TO GO.
How many Middle East/North African governments cut off the net in the last year alone?
Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Tunisia, etc...

In these types of scenarios, even if you have net access, is it SAFE TO USE IT?
Rounding up dissidents is a lot easier if they're dumb enough to broadcast their location...

[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.

In any modern governmental crisis, Internet access is the FIRST THING TO GO.
How many Middle East/North African governments cut off the net in the last year alone?
Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Tunisia, etc...

In these types of scenarios, even if you have net access, is it SAFE TO USE IT?
Rounding up dissidents is a lot easier if they're dumb enough to broadcast their location...

Yeah, that's an even even better thing to mention.
All countries have internet kill-switches these days.

[GambitBTC]

This is all nonsense.

Organized Government is not going to fall...

Unless Aliens come.