End of Governments

[mobodick]

This is all nonsense.

Organized Government is not going to fall...

Unless Aliens come.

And what makes you so sure we haven't? Huh?

[1714747778]

1714747778

[1714747778]

1714747778

[1714747778]

1714747778

[GambitBTC]

This is all nonsense.

Organized Government is not going to fall...

Unless Aliens come.

And what makes you so sure we haven't? Huh?

Because i have yet to be deemed "King Of All Humans"


Maybe that's just my ego talking 

[Jobe7]

Ok, I gotta throw this bit in now - My actual thoughts is a combination of both,

An extremely transparent 'government' that allows 'states' to govern themselves with much more freedom. BUT, in competition with each other. In that the 'government' sets down that each state must provide the basics, human rights.

'More freedom' in that less tax goes to the government (which would need less for itself with no wars and more transparency/less corruption), and more tax stays with the 'states'.

1. No 'unified' tax, each state would be free to set tax at whatever rates it wanted.
2. Laws would be decided by each state, BUT as long as they did not go against universal basic human rights.
(This would be enforced by the 'government').
3. The government must provide at a minimum to all, the free (or extremely cheap) ability to travel to other states (assuming the states accept the person).
4. The 'government' responsibility would be only to enforce rule 2 and carry out rule 3, take an extreme minimum of tax needed to cover the costs, which would be a flat base from all the 'states', after that amount
6. Politicians would be cut down massively to reduce costs, there would be no need for a politician representing each state. The states can choose their own 'politicians' that stay in the state, and states can sort their own minimum wages, and similar.
7. The army would be cut down massively to reduce costs.
8. Competition for 'tax payers' would ensure positive growth between 'states', as more 'tax payers' = more jobs, more education, more wages for all, more everything really.

If a state treated its citizens badly, then the government would ensure that human rights were upheld, and if the citizen just wanted to move anyway, then they could.

I hear 'replies' already, saying, "ye, but you can't just go and live in a house". What if, because these states were free to set and keep their own taxes, they use it to build houses, or provide benefit/welfare to those moving in (probably under some condition, but then thats why there would be multiple states competing, trying to give the best offer).

I think this because, as people have mentioned, I also think that 'governments' won't ever fully disappear, but that they will change, and because of the continued privatisation and liberalisation movements 'states' might one day get a chance to try this. It would probably happen partially first, say 10 'states' in a country, and 5 would opt into this new scheme, etc, and see how it works.

[mobodick]

Ok, I gotta throw this bit in now - My actual thoughts is a combination of both,

An extremely transparent 'government' that allows 'states' to govern themselves with much more freedom. BUT, in competition with each other. In that the 'government' sets down that each state must provide the basics, human rights.

'More freedom' in that less tax goes to the government (which would need less for itself with no wars and more transparency/less corruption), and more tax stays with the 'states'.

1. No 'unified' tax, each state would be free to set tax at whatever rates it wanted.
2. Laws would be decided by each state, BUT as long as they did not go against universal basic human rights.
(This would be enforced by the 'government').
3. The government must provide at a minimum to all, the free (or extremely cheap) ability to travel to other states (assuming the states accept the person).
4. The 'government' responsibility would be only to enforce rule 2 and carry out rule 3, take an extreme minimum of tax needed to cover the costs, which would be a flat base from all the 'states', after that amount
6. Politicians would be cut down massively to reduce costs, there would be no need for a politician representing each state. The states can choose their own 'politicians' that stay in the state, and states can sort their own minimum wages, and similar.
7. The army would be cut down massively to reduce costs.
8. Competition for 'tax payers' would ensure positive growth between 'states', as more 'tax payers' = more jobs, more education, more wages for all, more everything really.

If a state treated its citizens badly, then the government would ensure that human rights were upheld, and if the citizen just wanted to move anyway, then they could.

I hear 'replies' already, saying, "ye, but you can't just go and live in a house". What if, because these states were free to set and keep their own taxes, they use it to build houses, or provide benefit/welfare to those moving in (probably under some condition, but then thats why there would be multiple states competing, trying to give the best offer).

I think this because, as people have mentioned, I also think that 'governments' won't ever fully disappear, but that they will change, and because of the continued privatisation and liberalisation movements 'states' might one day get a chance to try this. It would probably happen partially first, say 10 'states' in a country, and 5 would opt into this new scheme, etc, and see how it works.

This will lead to social stratification and 'states' that specialize in certain social classes.
You'll get massive differences between these kinds of states and these differences will lead to instability.
If anything we need more social cohesion.

[Jobe7]

This will lead to social stratification and 'states' that specialize in certain social classes.
You'll get massive differences between these kinds of states and these differences will lead to instability.
If anything we need more social cohesion.

This will lead to social stratification and 'states' that specialize in certain social classes.
You'll get massive differences between these kinds of states and these differences will lead to instability.

I could'nt agree more Sir, but I must ask, how is this different from today? Apart from the fact that the divide is vaster that can not truly be conceived unless you've lived on the streets feeding from dustbins, and lived a life of luxury where money did not matter anymore?

Today, the stratification is mixed right on top of us, however if 1 state does better than the 2nd, then the 2nd would be wise to adopt and improve upon whatever strategy state 1 is doing to do so well, wouldn't they?

In the world I envision, the 'states' would not be governed by corporate entities, but by 'local politicians' (for want of a better word), who would get voted into power every xxx years, decided by the 'states' themselves. This way, when I state starts to collapse due to bad management it is in everyones interest in that state to vote in people who will not collapse. For the freedom and availability to relocate of their citizens (would be enshrined in their basic human rights) would be bad for all (no taxes, lower pay, best, less teachers, etc, it's just not in ones best interest if your own wages (as a 'voted in statesman') is directly reliant upon your states laws (which should be tied into how much tax/populace you have, as any other competitive growing 'business' is). You screw up your own state, your own and administration wages drop, people will leave, you'd get voted out.

Fear of profit & wages loss is a great motivator in this day and age, one day, perhaps it won't be, but I can't see that happening in our lifetimes.

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

I have a feeling you've never lived on the streets, nor lived the life of a criminal who never wanted to be one?

Yes, there will be some differences. Some very well 'classy states', may require more from you as an individual to move into their state. So? Work for it then? Whilst at the same time other states will be trying to get their states up to 'numero 1' quality, so they don't lose their citizens, constantly improving. Those that truly fall behind would lose their citizens to the other states that are providing jobs, different taxes (that appeal specifically to those person), industrial states, hi-tech states, vegetarian states, agricultural, etc, etc, all will form, being able to provide to each other, yet at the same time trying to provide the best quality of living for fear of losing citizens.

And I think instead of 'government' as I was using before, it would sound better to use 'administrative government', as through transparency and decentralization to this extent, such a large 'ruling body' simply won't be needed.

'government', 'government administration', 'state', etc - I'm crap with names, feel free to substitute the names with something of your choice.

[mobodick]

This will lead to social stratification and 'states' that specialize in certain social classes.
You'll get massive differences between these kinds of states and these differences will lead to instability.
If anything we need more social cohesion.

This will lead to social stratification and 'states' that specialize in certain social classes.
You'll get massive differences between these kinds of states and these differences will lead to instability.

I could'nt agree more Sir, but I must ask, how is this different from today? Apart from the fact that the divide is vaster that can not truly be conceived unless you've lived on the streets feeding from dustbins, and lived a life of luxury where money did not matter anymore?

The difference will be that there will be walls between classes/states.

Today, the stratification is mixed right on top of us, however if 1 state does better than the 2nd, then the 2nd would be wise to adopt and improve upon whatever strategy state 1 is doing to do so well, wouldn't they?

Different classes have different needs in society so switching strategy would be strange when these states will start to split in function. And they will split because it makes them more efficient and thus cheaper.

In the world I envision, the 'states' would not be governed by corporate entities, but by 'local politicians' (for want of a better word), who would get voted into power every xxx years, decided by the 'states' themselves.

Yeah, its always nice to envision stuff. But in the real world you need to take a hard look at human dynamics. Then you find that visions are usually utopias and that humans in general do not think in the same way you/me/us do.

This way, when I state starts to collapse due to bad management it is in everyones interest in that state to vote in people who will not collapse.

In the real world you would be too late. When a state collapses the reasons why it collapses are usually some time in the past and propably obscure.

 For the freedom and availability to relocate of their citizens (would be enshrined in their basic human rights) would be bad for all (no taxes, lower pay, best, less teachers, etc, it's just not in ones best interest if your own wages (as a 'voted in statesman') is directly reliant upon your states laws (which should be tied into how much tax/populace you have, as any other competitive growing 'business' is). You screw up your own state, your own and administration wages drop, people will leave, you'd get voted out.

I don't care, i grow my own clone army of slaves. I mean, who is going to teach me ethics if i can engineer my own workers?

Fear of profit & wages loss is a great motivator in this day and age, one day, perhaps it won't be, but I can't see that happening in our lifetimes.

You would need some other species of animals to achieve this. Humans thrive on fear and profit.
One of the reasons the western world is collapsing is that we have too little fears and too much profit. Most people in our society are not very motivated to get more than they have now . Most of the rest is just overly ambicious and finds ever weirder things to become proud of themselfs for.

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

I have a feeling you've never lived on the streets, nor lived the life of a criminal who never wanted to be one?

Yes, there will be some differences. Some very well 'classy states', may require more from you as an individual to move into their state. So? Work for it then? Whilst at the same time other states will be trying to get their states up to 'numero 1' quality, so they don't lose their citizens, constantly improving. Those that truly fall behind would lose their citizens to the other states that are providing jobs, different taxes (that appeal specifically to those person), industrial states, hi-tech states, vegetarian states, agricultural, etc, etc, all will form, being able to provide to each other, yet at the same time trying to provide the best quality of living for fear of losing citizens.

I don't get it. If there is a number 1 state and people are free to move, why would not everyone instantly move to the number one state? What would prevent a single state from completely outcompeting all the other states within a year or so?

And I think instead of 'government' as I was using before, it would sound better to use 'administrative government', as through transparency and decentralization to this extent, such a large 'ruling body' simply won't be needed.

If you ever get into a situation with multiple states per country the transparrent government you talk of will become one huge ball of legal snakes. All states will have slightly different laws and so you will need a different set of exceptions between these states and it needs to be resolved by a 3rd party to even have a chance to prevent conflict.

I think you are being waaaay too naive about how the real world works.
The situation we have now could only become stable after many many gruesome wars because of conflict of interest. A lightweight transparent government would have no teeth to force the involved parties into peace.
Say state A is run pretty well but it happens to be that all its citizens live in parts of land where there is no oil.
So state A has a big problem because they have no energy to run their society.
State B is run pretty flakey, but who cares they have oil. Their citizens get a bonus from the overpriced oil being sold to state A.
In effect, the badly run state B can outcompete state A just because they happened to control some resource and are unwilling to share. The lightweight government hasn't got enough military to cope with the private overpayed security force of state B.

These are the kinds of scenarios you need to walk through to see the problems.
Your proposal is whishfull thinking because people and the dynamics of their interactions have absolutely nothing to do with how you imagine things will work out.
You idea is only possible if absolutely everyone agrees with you in exactly the same way.
In reality there are too many things that divide us. I may like state B more than state A but since a certain person i hate happens to work for state B i will chose state A.

People, most of the time, do not behave in a rational way but that is exactly what your idea requires to work.

[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.

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!

Laws are used to exploit if you haven't already figured that out.  eg, the government locks us into their currency so that their crony banks can exploit us to the max.

Multinationals breeding people?  Why?  Which ones are we talking about?  What is their incentive to do so?   Where would they get the capital for such a scheme?  Have you been reading  science fiction lately?  Because I'm struggling to understand what you are saying here.

Some government replacing organisation?  Why would that happen?  The only reason people accept government is because the idea has been indoctrinated into them through public education over generations.  It's just a label in reality.  The people in government are the same as you and me.  You and I don't have these powers, nor does anyone else.

[FirstAscent]

The only reason people accept government is because the idea has been indoctrinated into them through public education over generations. 

Governments are a natural consequence of society and no existing government. They form because people want structure, uniformity, and protection, and there are those who are motivated to fill the roles in the presence of a vacuum.

[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!

Laws are used to exploit if you haven't already figured that out.  eg, the government locks us into their currency so that their crony banks can exploit us to the max.

Multinationals breeding people?  Why?  Which ones are we talking about?  What is their incentive to do so?   Where would they get the capital for such a scheme?  Have you been reading  science fiction lately?  Because I'm struggling to understand what you are saying here.

People have been able to clone life for about two decades and recently scientists have announced that they can clone cells indefinitely without degradation. The tech is there and is commercialized.
Incentinve? For a corporate state it can be a cheap labor force.
If we didn't have laws prohibiting human cloning there would already be engineerd human derivatives on the market competing for your job.

[GambitBTC]

Now this is starting to get interesting.

[hawkeye]

The only reason people accept government is because the idea has been indoctrinated into them through public education over generations. 

Governments are a natural consequence of society and no existing government. They form because people want structure, uniformity, and protection, and there are those who are motivated to fill the roles in the presence of a vacuum.

Why do we need to be lied to all the time?  Why does government need the best liars in society to sustain itself?

Yes, people want structure and protection, (I don't think uniformity is either wanted or desirable), but there's no reason why a government is required for that.  As has been said many times government is just a monopoly protection service.  There's no reason why we can't have competition in that field.

[myrkul]

Yes, people want structure and protection, (I don't think uniformity is either wanted or desirable), but there's no reason why a government is required for that.  As has been said many times government is just a monopoly protection service.  There's no reason why we can't have competition in that field.

This.

[mobodick]

The only reason people accept government is because the idea has been indoctrinated into them through public education over generations. 

Governments are a natural consequence of society and no existing government. They form because people want structure, uniformity, and protection, and there are those who are motivated to fill the roles in the presence of a vacuum.

Why do we need to be lied to all the time?  Why does government need the best liars in society to sustain itself?

Yes, people want structure and protection, (I don't think uniformity is either wanted or desirable), but there's no reason why a government is required for that.  As has been said many times government is just a monopoly protection service.  There's no reason why we can't have competition in that field.

Well, there is.
The reason is that it works because it's a monopoly.
Competition on that scale equals war.
World economy is built on treaties, not on absolute competition.
In the end we need each other so competition has only a limited use. It can only be done within a bigger context or it will become an arms race.

[myrkul]

The only reason people accept government is because the idea has been indoctrinated into them through public education over generations. 

Governments are a natural consequence of society and no existing government. They form because people want structure, uniformity, and protection, and there are those who are motivated to fill the roles in the presence of a vacuum.

Why do we need to be lied to all the time?  Why does government need the best liars in society to sustain itself?

Yes, people want structure and protection, (I don't think uniformity is either wanted or desirable), but there's no reason why a government is required for that.  As has been said many times government is just a monopoly protection service.  There's no reason why we can't have competition in that field.

Well, there is.
The reason is that it works because it's a monopoly.
Competition on that scale equals war.
World economy is built on treaties, not on absolute competition.
In the end we need each other so competition has only a limited use. It can only be done within a bigger context or it will become an arms race.

He means market competition, not military. Ford and Nissan, not Israel and Palestine.

[mobodick]

The only reason people accept government is because the idea has been indoctrinated into them through public education over generations. 

Governments are a natural consequence of society and no existing government. They form because people want structure, uniformity, and protection, and there are those who are motivated to fill the roles in the presence of a vacuum.

Why do we need to be lied to all the time?  Why does government need the best liars in society to sustain itself?

Yes, people want structure and protection, (I don't think uniformity is either wanted or desirable), but there's no reason why a government is required for that.  As has been said many times government is just a monopoly protection service.  There's no reason why we can't have competition in that field.

Well, there is.
The reason is that it works because it's a monopoly.
Competition on that scale equals war.
World economy is built on treaties, not on absolute competition.
In the end we need each other so competition has only a limited use. It can only be done within a bigger context or it will become an arms race.

He means market competition, not military. Ford and Nissan, not Israel and Palestine.

But if Ford has to keep its people safe and Nissan has all the oil the effect is the same.
Or maybe christians like Nike better and muslims like Puma better or something.
The problems we have is not because of governments, it is because of people.
What we need are tools to make peole in charge take responsibility and do their job instead of filling their pockets.
We need long term thinkers that assure and stabilize the future.
No ammount of market competition will assure that because direct competition will drive short term thinking (you can already see this in cities that compete with each other).
Short term egoistical thinking in the economy is already an enourmous problem. Why do you think the corporate world will not eat itself up the moment they get the chance.
You? You mean nothing to them. You are a profit machine. And now you want to give them tools to completely control your life.

[myrkul]

The only reason people accept government is because the idea has been indoctrinated into them through public education over generations. 

Governments are a natural consequence of society and no existing government. They form because people want structure, uniformity, and protection, and there are those who are motivated to fill the roles in the presence of a vacuum.

Why do we need to be lied to all the time?  Why does government need the best liars in society to sustain itself?

Yes, people want structure and protection, (I don't think uniformity is either wanted or desirable), but there's no reason why a government is required for that.  As has been said many times government is just a monopoly protection service.  There's no reason why we can't have competition in that field.

Well, there is.
The reason is that it works because it's a monopoly.
Competition on that scale equals war.
World economy is built on treaties, not on absolute competition.
In the end we need each other so competition has only a limited use. It can only be done within a bigger context or it will become an arms race.

He means market competition, not military. Ford and Nissan, not Israel and Palestine.

But if Ford has to keep its people safe and Nissan has all the oil the effect is the same.
Or maybe christians like Nike better and muslims like Puma better or something.
The problems we have is not because of governments, it is because of people.
What we need are tools to make peole in charge take responsibility and do their job instead of filling their pockets.
We need long term thinkers that assure and stabilize the future.
No ammount of market competition will assure that because direct competition will drive short term thinking (you can already see this in cities that compete with each other).
Short term egoistical thinking in the economy is already an enourmous problem. Why do you think the corporate world will not eat itself up the moment they get the chance.
You? You mean nothing to them. You are a profit machine. And now you want to give them tools to completely control your life.

This may be a surprise to you:

They already have those tools. It's called "government." I propose taking them away.

[mobodick]

The only reason people accept government is because the idea has been indoctrinated into them through public education over generations.

Governments are a natural consequence of society and no existing government. They form because people want structure, uniformity, and protection, and there are those who are motivated to fill the roles in the presence of a vacuum.

Why do we need to be lied to all the time?  Why does government need the best liars in society to sustain itself?

Yes, people want structure and protection, (I don't think uniformity is either wanted or desirable), but there's no reason why a government is required for that.  As has been said many times government is just a monopoly protection service.  There's no reason why we can't have competition in that field.

Well, there is.
The reason is that it works because it's a monopoly.
Competition on that scale equals war.
World economy is built on treaties, not on absolute competition.
In the end we need each other so competition has only a limited use. It can only be done within a bigger context or it will become an arms race.

He means market competition, not military. Ford and Nissan, not Israel and Palestine.

But if Ford has to keep its people safe and Nissan has all the oil the effect is the same.
Or maybe christians like Nike better and muslims like Puma better or something.
The problems we have is not because of governments, it is because of people.
What we need are tools to make peole in charge take responsibility and do their job instead of filling their pockets.
We need long term thinkers that assure and stabilize the future.
No ammount of market competition will assure that because direct competition will drive short term thinking (you can already see this in cities that compete with each other).
Short term egoistical thinking in the economy is already an enourmous problem. Why do you think the corporate world will not eat itself up the moment they get the chance.
You? You mean nothing to them. You are a profit machine. And now you want to give them tools to completely control your life.

This may be a surprise to you:

They already have those tools. It's called "government." I propose taking them away.

But that is not possible. Due to the structures of our brains all successfull civilizations have been based on one form of gorvernence or another.
You would need some other lifeform besides humans to make a society without governance work.

[myrkul]

But that is not possible. Due to the structures of our brains all successfull civilizations have been based on one form of gorvernence or another.
You would need some other lifeform besides humans to make a society without governance work.

I refer you... here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.0
and, here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129895.0
and.... here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html

It's been done. Quite successfully.

[mobodick]

But that is not possible. Due to the structures of our brains all successfull civilizations have been based on one form of gorvernence or another.
You would need some other lifeform besides humans to make a society without governance work.

I refer you... here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155570.0
and, here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=129895.0
and.... here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html

It's been done. Quite successfully.

1st one: They talk about stateless, not government less.
All nordic tribes had forms of governance. The chieftain was the leader of the village and the chieftains were then representatives in talks on a higher level. Disputes were often resolved with violence (pillaging, tribal wars, etc, etc, etc).
Pretty barbaric stuff by modern standards.

2nd one: Same thing, ancient celtic societies had governance but mostly local and less strictly organized at the top.

You need to realize that these ancient tribes were constantly at war with each other and there was no real peace.
These civilizations never grew out of their tribal forms. It was the romans that taught them how to settle in cities properly.

3rd one: Well, what can i say, religion is just another form of governance.


So there you have it. All these three examples show that humans organize their societies in a way that there is a leader that does all the big stuff and there are the workers who care about the details.
We call it governance and even monkeys do it.

[myrkul]

So there you have it. All these three examples show that humans organize their societies in a way that there is a leader that does all the big stuff and there are the workers who care about the details.
We call it governance and even monkeys do it.

Tell you what, you just slide those goalposts wherever you feel makes you most comfortable, m'kay?