End of Governments

[myrkul]

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."

[RodeoX]

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."

True. but every petty warlord considers himself a protector of the people and their rights. Rights such as the right to worship the leader or the right to be free of decision making responsibility.
Nature hates a vacuum, power vacuums included. No one can go ungoverned for long. I am thankful to have a say in my own governance because it is so very rare in history. I could, for example, decide to live as a woman. When else in history could I do that?

Having said these things, I'm always up for expanding my rights.

[myrkul]

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."

True. but every petty warlord considers himself a protector of the people and their rights. Rights such as the right to worship the leader or the right to be free of decision making responsibility.
Nature hates a vacuum, power vacuums included. No one can go ungoverned for long. I am thankful to have a say in my own governance because it is so very rare in history. I could, for example, decide to live as a woman. When else in history could I do that?

Having said these things, I'm always up for expanding my rights.

Who said anything about leaving a vacuum? And a "petty warlord" would be a government, would he not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency

[Severian]

We live in the safest, free-est conditions the world has ever known.

Your statement is contrasted by the fact that the US has the largest prison population per capita on the planet and probably in history.

[coqui33]

Receipt of bitcoin is like receipt of gold - it must be reported as income to the tax authority in your nation.

Not true in the U.S. If you receive BTC (or gold) in return for your labor, services, or merchandise, then the difference in value between those receipts and your expenses, including what you paid your suppliers, would be taxable income. But merely buying BTC (or gold) with money on which income taxes have already been paid is not taxable.

On the other hand, if you buy BTC (or gold) and then sell them for more than what you paid, then you are liable for capital gains tax (not income tax). But that is true if you buy chickens or pine cones or anything else and then sell for a profit.

[LAMarcellus]

People getting paid in bitcoin can avoid tax if they spend/keep their bitcoin in the bitcoin world

Wrong - that's called tax evasion.  Receipt of bitcoin is like receipt of gold - it must be reported as income to the tax authority in your nation.

Wrong -  that's called barter. Gold is not reported as income, nor is an income tax assessed on gold sales. You are highly misinformed and are misinforming others.
" it must be reported as income to the tax authority in your nation."  WTF WRONG   Exactly where is "your nation" located?  I don't remember it from geography class.
Just shut up.

[RodeoX]

We live in the safest, free-est conditions the world has ever known.

Your statement is contrasted by the fact that the US has the largest prison population per capita on the planet and probably in history.

Not something to be proud of. 
Partly that's due to the modern idea of prisons.  Most systems in the past relied on punishment, such as public beatings, or banishment, or death. The idea of holding someone is very rare in history.

@myrkul  I would still worry about the pirate protection service realizing how much more profitable piracy is. Why not demand all your money instead of payment? What would stop them?

[Severian]

I could, for example, decide to live as a woman. When else in history could I do that?

Pretty much any Native American tribe before the Europeans showed up. : )

http://www.dancingtoeaglespiritsociety.org/twospirit.php

[myrkul]

I would still worry about the [private] protection service realizing how much more profitable piracy is. Why not demand all your money instead of payment? What would stop them?

This is a very common concern. It's discussed in the article. (Short version: Piracy is not as profitable as defense, going on the attack incurs some pretty serious costs that defenders simply don't have to worry about. Not to mention the other defense agencies.)

[RodeoX]

I would still worry about the [private] protection service realizing how much more profitable piracy is. Why not demand all your money instead of payment? What would stop them?

This is a very common concern. It's discussed in the article. (Short version: Piracy is not as profitable as defense, going on the attack incurs some pretty serious costs that defenders simply don't have to worry about. Not to mention the other defense agencies.)

Ok then. I want one now. Anyone want to defend me for bitcoins? 

[Mike Christ]

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

Just wanted to single this one out

There are more/as many wars happening today as there ever was.  One could argue large scale war can only occur with the help of government; it unites a large group of people to act in a certain way.  Instill patriotism, a love of one's country, and you have a nation which will defend themselves against any perceived threat--even if said nation is the cause of the war.  Peace doesn't happen, not on the large scale.  On the small scale, it still doesn't happen; no body really says they're scared to out in the city at night.  But it's in the back of everyone's mind.  Government does not bring peace, nor does it bring security.

I'd like to point out the native Americans as an example of a peaceful society without government (even though they also had to protect themselves against rival tribes--do tribes count as a governing body?)  There were native tribes without governing bodies which were peaceful, secure and free.  They used the land when they needed to, but never called it "mine".  That was a concept that didn't appear until the governance of Spain showed up to teach the 'barbaric' natives the right way to live (not to mention, disease, as they weren't very clean.)  The natives had no understanding of possession, no governing ruler, aside from a tribe leader.  Women and men were perfectly equal in every activity.  It was pretty swell.  They were absolutely, 100% free to do whatever they wanted.  There were no laws, and yet they got along, much like other animals somehow manage to get along with their own kind without having to define clearly the laws of their own ecosystems.  Of course, they'll eat other animals, but so do we, yes?

So to say that peace, security and freedom would never exist without governance isn't true.  It has happened before, and has never happened under government; there is always a sacrifice of one's peace, security and freedoms to make it work.  It's needless, I think.  If the native Americans could do it--and by our standards, they didn't know much about anything, outside of farming--why are we, so civilized and intelligent, still failing to make it work?  I propose that is doesn't work.  You can push a round peg through a square hole, but that doesn't mean it works.

[RodeoX]

There are wars on a scale almost unseen in the pre-modern past. But tribal people, including native Americans, were not at peace. Tribal cultures live in a state of perpetual war. Raiding their neighbors as a way of life. It is easy to romanticize native Americans, and think of them as living in peace and harmony. A more objective look at them reveals them to be humans.
The world we live in, where you as a male will likely not die fighting, is unusual. The tribe I visited in the Darien gap is estimated historically to have lost 70% of adult males to fighting. The number one cause of death for adult males.

 

[cbeast]

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."

Begging the question. Security means that one's basic needs of food, shelter, and protection from harm are met. It is not a service. These needs can be self-provided. They can also be offered as a service at a price by an entity like a brutal dictator or even a democratically elected government, but that is a seperate issue.

I might suggest that anyone against using a democratically elected government to provide these services can choose from the other two options by moving to Somalia.

[myrkul]

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."

Begging the question. Security means that one's basic needs of food, shelter, and protection from harm are met. It is not a service. These needs can be self-provided.

I can cook a meal for myself. That does not mean that providing me with a meal is not a service. And when I speak of the "service" of security, I am specifically referring to provision of the need of protection from harm. Though Food and Shelter are certainly services that can be provided, they lie outside the scope of most private defense agencies. (And outside the scope of Government as laid out in the Constitution, as well.)

[cbeast]

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."

Begging the question. Security means that one's basic needs of food, shelter, and protection from harm are met. It is not a service. These needs can be self-provided.

I can cook a meal for myself. That does not mean that providing me with a meal is not a service. And when I speak of the "service" of security, I am specifically referring to provision of the need of protection from harm. Though Food and Shelter are certainly services that can be provided, they lie outside the scope of most private defense agencies. (And outside the scope of Government as laid out in the Constitution, as well.)

Definition of service: The action of helping or doing work for someone.

Again, you do not need anyone else to protect you from harm. You just have to have good survival skills. It just makes life easier when we cooperate and specialize our skills for efficiency. How this is organized is irrelevant. All I am saying is that a collective organization is more efficient at providing a broad range of the necessities of life for the the most people. They theoretically maximize resources for the collective good of everyone.

[myrkul]

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."

Begging the question. Security means that one's basic needs of food, shelter, and protection from harm are met. It is not a service. These needs can be self-provided.

I can cook a meal for myself. That does not mean that providing me with a meal is not a service. And when I speak of the "service" of security, I am specifically referring to provision of the need of protection from harm. Though Food and Shelter are certainly services that can be provided, they lie outside the scope of most private defense agencies. (And outside the scope of Government as laid out in the Constitution, as well.)

Definition of service: The action of helping or doing work for someone.

Again, you do not need anyone else to protect you from harm.

You're right, you don't. You don't need anyone to mow your lawn for you, or to cook your meals for you, or to make your clothes for you, either. Providing these things for someone, however, is a service. (Or, arguably, a product, but we needn't split hairs.)

It just makes life easier when we cooperate and specialize our skills for efficiency.

Again, you're correct. Specialization and division of labor make doing these things more efficient. You could grow your own food, and make your own clothes, and be 100% self-sufficient. You'd have little time for anything else, though. Which is where service providers, such as farmers, clothiers, and the like come in.

The question is, do the service providers for Security operate under the free-market principles which have so greatly increased prosperity in other areas of life, or do they continue to operate regional monopolies and use force to extract their payment?

[cbeast]

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."

Begging the question. Security means that one's basic needs of food, shelter, and protection from harm are met. It is not a service. These needs can be self-provided.

I can cook a meal for myself. That does not mean that providing me with a meal is not a service. And when I speak of the "service" of security, I am specifically referring to provision of the need of protection from harm. Though Food and Shelter are certainly services that can be provided, they lie outside the scope of most private defense agencies. (And outside the scope of Government as laid out in the Constitution, as well.)

Definition of service: The action of helping or doing work for someone.

Again, you do not need anyone else to protect you from harm.

You're right, you don't. You don't need anyone to mow your lawn for you, or to cook your meals for you, or to make your clothes for you, either. Providing these things for someone, however, is a service. (Or, arguably, a product, but we needn't split hairs.)

It just makes life easier when we cooperate and specialize our skills for efficiency.

Again, you're correct. Specialization and division of labor make doing these things more efficient. You could grow your own food, and make your own clothes, and be 100% self-sufficient. You'd have little time for anything else, though. Which is where service providers, such as farmers, clothiers, and the like come in.

The question is, do the service providers for Security operate under the free-market principles which have so greatly increased prosperity in other areas of life, or do they continue to operate regional monopolies and use force to extract their payment?

I saw what you did there. Going back to my original argument.

They can also be offered as a service at a price by an entity like a brutal dictator or even a democratically elected government, but that is a seperate issue.

I might suggest that anyone against using a democratically elected government to provide these services can choose from the other two options by moving to Somalia.

In fact, I never profered the notion that free-market principles provide any services for the greater good of a populace or individual. In fact, I don't even believe in the free-market fairy.

[myrkul]

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."

Begging the question. Security means that one's basic needs of food, shelter, and protection from harm are met. It is not a service. These needs can be self-provided.

I can cook a meal for myself. That does not mean that providing me with a meal is not a service. And when I speak of the "service" of security, I am specifically referring to provision of the need of protection from harm. Though Food and Shelter are certainly services that can be provided, they lie outside the scope of most private defense agencies. (And outside the scope of Government as laid out in the Constitution, as well.)

Definition of service: The action of helping or doing work for someone.

Again, you do not need anyone else to protect you from harm.

You're right, you don't. You don't need anyone to mow your lawn for you, or to cook your meals for you, or to make your clothes for you, either. Providing these things for someone, however, is a service. (Or, arguably, a product, but we needn't split hairs.)

It just makes life easier when we cooperate and specialize our skills for efficiency.

Again, you're correct. Specialization and division of labor make doing these things more efficient. You could grow your own food, and make your own clothes, and be 100% self-sufficient. You'd have little time for anything else, though. Which is where service providers, such as farmers, clothiers, and the like come in.

The question is, do the service providers for Security operate under the free-market principles which have so greatly increased prosperity in other areas of life, or do they continue to operate regional monopolies and use force to extract their payment?

I saw what you did there. Going back to my original argument.

They can also be offered as a service at a price by an entity like a brutal dictator or even a democratically elected government, but that is a seperate issue.

I might suggest that anyone against using a democratically elected government to provide these services can choose from the other two options by moving to Somalia.

In fact, I never profered the notion that free-market principles provide any services for the greater good of a populace or individual. In fact, I don't even believe in the free-market fairy.

Thankfully, you don't need to believe in it. Reality doesn't need belief.

[cbeast]

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."

Begging the question. Security means that one's basic needs of food, shelter, and protection from harm are met. It is not a service. These needs can be self-provided.

I can cook a meal for myself. That does not mean that providing me with a meal is not a service. And when I speak of the "service" of security, I am specifically referring to provision of the need of protection from harm. Though Food and Shelter are certainly services that can be provided, they lie outside the scope of most private defense agencies. (And outside the scope of Government as laid out in the Constitution, as well.)

Definition of service: The action of helping or doing work for someone.

Again, you do not need anyone else to protect you from harm.

You're right, you don't. You don't need anyone to mow your lawn for you, or to cook your meals for you, or to make your clothes for you, either. Providing these things for someone, however, is a service. (Or, arguably, a product, but we needn't split hairs.)

It just makes life easier when we cooperate and specialize our skills for efficiency.

Again, you're correct. Specialization and division of labor make doing these things more efficient. You could grow your own food, and make your own clothes, and be 100% self-sufficient. You'd have little time for anything else, though. Which is where service providers, such as farmers, clothiers, and the like come in.

The question is, do the service providers for Security operate under the free-market principles which have so greatly increased prosperity in other areas of life, or do they continue to operate regional monopolies and use force to extract their payment?

I saw what you did there. Going back to my original argument.

They can also be offered as a service at a price by an entity like a brutal dictator or even a democratically elected government, but that is a seperate issue.

I might suggest that anyone against using a democratically elected government to provide these services can choose from the other two options by moving to Somalia.

In fact, I never profered the notion that free-market principles provide any services for the greater good of a populace or individual. In fact, I don't even believe in the free-market fairy.

Thankfully, you don't need to believe in it. Reality doesn't need belief.

Nope, but it does need evidence for which there is none.

[myrkul]

In fact, I don't even believe in the free-market fairy.

Thankfully, you don't need to believe in it. Reality doesn't need belief.

Nope, but it does need evidence for which there is none.

Crack a history book. Plenty of evidence.