Will the government be destroyed?

[countryfree]

No, government won't need to be destroyed, it will just crash. All by itself. You just have to consider that there are more and more things out of the government's control. In most places, the government has failed against drugs, mass poverty, preserving the environment... There has to be a balance between the people who see the government as something useful, and the others who see it as useless or as a burden. The balance is slowly moving towards the latter, so the whole thing will slowly fall apart.

[duke1839]

The government has no authority to rule over you.  It only gets away with it because of threats of force and propaganda that has been accepted as fact by most people.  I have been an ancap for about a year and only recently have I come to the realization that the government has no authority.  I came to this conclusion after reading this http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/

I didn't think anything was capable of blowing my mind when it came to reading about the government anymore but this did it.

That being said, you can't destroy the government without creating a power vacuum to be seized upon by a new government.  The solution is to just let it wither on the vine.  With each additional person that comes to the realization that the only things holding up the government are threats and propaganda, the government loses a little bit of power.  There is a network effect similar to the network effect of Bitcoin adoption.   

[BADecker]

Yes. All the governments will be destroyed except one. The Old Testament in the Bible says that the only government that will not be destroyed is the government that He sets up. This is not the ancient Israel government. It is the Kingdom of God, Himself, where He rules directly.

[My Name Was Taken]

I think the government would just create new laws to effectively ban people from using it or make it so absurdly difficult that no one would want to. Kind of like passing the new concealed carry law in IL.  Yeah it's legal now, but it's illegal to carry into a business with a no guns allowed sign properly posted. Since the state is strong-arming many businesses into putting up the signs against their will, they are effectively banning something they didn't want passed in the first place.  This may not be the best example, but I have no doubt our government isn't coming up with a scheme to make bitcoin use illegal or impractical.

I don't find credible the claim that the state is coercing people into putting up a 'no guns allowed' sign. You're talking about private property, which means your right to carry a gun there is limited to the owner's right to use his property as he sees fit. If I owned a business, I would not allow guns on it, because I don't like guns. But I absolutely support the peoples' right to have guns, just not on my property.

Your gun rights are between you and the state, not you and a private business owner.

[DavidHume]

when it goes mainstream after a few years will the government start getting weaker now that people will they start to lose control over time?

Government is the collective will of the people in the country. Hard to see how minority can destroy it.

[My Name Was Taken]

when it goes mainstream after a few years will the government start getting weaker now that people will they start to lose control over time?

Government is the collective will of the people in the country. Hard to see how minority can destroy it.

Government's always claim this, whether or not it is true. Kings ruled by the will of god, but over time this proved to be untenable, also inaccurate. It seems people now are objecting (not necessarily rightfully so, but nonetheless) that government is not reflecting the will of the people any longer, but the interests of the rich and politically connected.

Government is the will of the lawmakers, not to be confused with the will of the people/country.

[BADecker]

when it goes mainstream after a few years will the government start getting weaker now that people will they start to lose control over time?

Government is the collective will of the people in the country. Hard to see how minority can destroy it.

Government's always claim this, whether or not it is true. Kings ruled by the will of god, but over time this proved to be untenable, also inaccurate. It seems people now are objecting (not necessarily rightfully so, but nonetheless) that government is not reflecting the will of the people any longer, but the interests of the rich and politically connected.

Government is the will of the lawmakers, not to be confused with the will of the people/country.

The setting up of a government is a thing that is done by people. Almost never is the setting up of a government done by one person alone.

The American government was set up by the people, some of them directly, others by representation.

There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.

The 14th Amendment was for finding a place for freed slaves. Slavery is a thing. When you release or free a slave, what is he? There is legal question about how to handle it. This is what the 14th Amendment was for. Traditionally free people, those who were never slaves, can apply the 14th Amendment to themselves if they want; there might be benefit to do this at times. But nowhere is there a place in law that states that the people have abdicated their authority over government. And, since there are no longer any slaves, there is no real reason for the 14th Amendment any longer.

[My Name Was Taken]

There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.

I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair.

[duke1839]

There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.

I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair.

Nope.  The Declaration of Independence is about declaring independence which is a great thing.  It doesn't grant anyone authority over anyone else.  Consent of the governed is impossible.  It is like saying agreed to be raped.  If you agreed to it, it wasn't rape.  And if you are consenting to it, it is voluntary.  Voluntary means not governed.  This is why some anarchists call themselves voluntaryists.   

[BADecker]

There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.

I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair.

No place in any of the documentation does it say that the people gave authority to the government to force them to fall under it in any way.

Even if they had, none of them are living today, and they don't have the right or ability to force any of their government on us in any way.

Some people (did you catch that word people) in government are seeing to it that people don't know about their freedom. The fact that the people of government use force doesn't mean the government has authority. The moment any other government, or XYZ corporation for that matter, becomes stronger than the government, they just might shut it down by force.

People can use certain basic concepts placed into the writing of the Preamble and the Constitution to show and force Government people to stay inside their places. Peruse http://1215.org/ to see how it works.

[My Name Was Taken]

There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.

I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair.

Nope.  The Declaration of Independence is about declaring independence which is a great thing.  It doesn't grant anyone authority over anyone else.  Consent of the governed is impossible.  It is like saying agreed to be raped.  If you agreed to it, it wasn't rape.  And if you are consenting to it, it is voluntary.  Voluntary means not governed.  This is why some anarchists call themselves voluntaryists.   

Your analogy doesn't hold at all. In no way is consent of the governed impossible or analogous to agreeing to be raped, either semantically or logically. Maybe you skipped history lessons, but the whole point of the DoI was to outline the acceptable methods of government to the colonists and to justify the reasons they were declaring independence. The DoI doesn't grant any authority, you misunderstood what I said. The DoI explains the rationale by which the government later granted itself authority by claiming it was acting with the consent of the governed. By living here, you are consenting to the jurisdiction and authority of the government, because you're free to leave. However, you're not free to ignore the edicts of the government, that is "the Will of the People." (Said semi-sarcastically)

Don't misread me. I'm sympathetic to voluntaryists. I'm merely explaining the rationale behind the system of government, not defending it. I think democracy is a rather dreadful thing, as the majority forces its will on the minority with impunity. However, I've never become convinced a completely voluntary society would work, for many reasons which are not the point of this thread.

The short of it is that the DoI does not do the vesting of authority. It explains how and why the vesting of authority is legitimate. The actual vesting of the authority comes from the Constitution.

[duke1839]

Your analogy doesn't hold at all. In no way is consent of the governed impossible or analogous to agreeing to be raped, either semantically or logically. Maybe you skipped history lessons, but the whole point of the DoI was to outline the acceptable methods of government to the colonists and to justify the reasons they were declaring independence. The DoI doesn't grant any authority, you misunderstood what I said. The DoI explains the rationale by which the government later granted itself authority by claiming it was acting with the consent of the governed. By living here, you are consenting to the jurisdiction and authority of the government, because you're free to leave. However, you're not free to ignore the edicts of the government, that is "the Will of the People." (Said semi-sarcastically)

Don't misread me. I'm sympathetic to voluntaryists. I'm merely explaining the rationale behind the system of government, not defending it. I think democracy is a rather dreadful thing, as the majority forces its will on the minority with impunity. However, I've never become convinced a completely voluntary society would work, for many reasons which are not the point of this thread.

The short of it is that the DoI does not do the vesting of authority. It explains how and why the vesting of authority is legitimate. The actual vesting of the authority comes from the Constitution.

Consent is impossible because there is no way for me to grant consent even if I wanted to.  I don't grant consent by paying taxes because I get threatened with jail or worse if I don't pay.  And I don't grant consent by voting because I am not granted an exemption from the laws if I choose not to vote.  Nor am I only subject to the laws of the candidate I voted for.  And even if I did vote for the winning candidate, the voting was done in secret so there is no way for me to show that I consented.

Just research what the government's own definition of citizen is.  It is someone that consents to the authority of government in exchange for protection.  Well, using that very definition, none of us are citizens.  Newborns are not capable of granting consent and the government has repeatedly said that they are not under any obligation to protect you. 

[BADecker]

There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.

I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair.

Nope.  The Declaration of Independence is about declaring independence which is a great thing.  It doesn't grant anyone authority over anyone else.  Consent of the governed is impossible.  It is like saying agreed to be raped.  If you agreed to it, it wasn't rape.  And if you are consenting to it, it is voluntary.  Voluntary means not governed.  This is why some anarchists call themselves voluntaryists.  

Your analogy doesn't hold at all. In no way is consent of the governed impossible or analogous to agreeing to be raped, either semantically or logically. Maybe you skipped history lessons, but the whole point of the DoI was to outline the acceptable methods of government to the colonists and to justify the reasons they were declaring independence. The DoI doesn't grant any authority, you misunderstood what I said. The DoI explains the rationale by which the government later granted itself authority by claiming it was acting with the consent of the governed. By living here, you are consenting to the jurisdiction and authority of the government, because you're free to leave. However, you're not free to ignore the edicts of the government, that is "the Will of the People." (Said semi-sarcastically)

Don't misread me. I'm sympathetic to voluntaryists. I'm merely explaining the rationale behind the system of government, not defending it. I think democracy is a rather dreadful thing, as the majority forces its will on the minority with impunity. However, I've never become convinced a completely voluntary society would work, for many reasons which are not the point of this thread.

The short of it is that the DoI does not do the vesting of authority. It explains how and why the vesting of authority is legitimate. The actual vesting of the authority comes from the Constitution.

The vesting of authority was in the government to do exactly the things that were expressed in the vesting. Inside those things there is way out for people not of the government, to get out of the authority of the government any time they want. It is not implied. It is stated. You can find it if you almost literally look up the meanings of every word in the constitution, within the context of their meaning at the time they were written. If you don't want to do that, take the shorter route of perusing the website I provided where it will be shown to you - http://1215.org/.

There is no authority from the past that is binding on anyone of the present in any way. Dead people don't jump up and do anything. The authority of the present is according to what people of the present accept as authority. And they accept it voluntarily, or by force when someone stronger than they forces it on them. Otherwise, they don't accept it. Constitutional history that applies to us only applies in the context of how the people of the present use it. Government people take an oath that essentially states, among other things, that they will use the application of the past. That application doesn't apply to any of us who haven't taken the oath. That's why government is so adamant that the schools make everyone from childhood pledge their allegiance.

[Mike Christ]

That which we call government is a mere manifestation of the dark desires of men; nothing in the external can do anything about our willingness to force others to do our bidding via violence, including bitcoin, as the state stems from the internal: ergo, to destroy the government, we must decide to stop supporting it, which occurs when we decide to solve our problems instead through negotiation.

Can bitcoin help people resort to negotiation instead of violence?  Perhaps, but it likely won't be a major cause.  An individual learns how to negotiate primarily in their childhoods, and learns to prefer negotiation over violence through a parent which opts to negotiate instead of, say, spanking, or putting in time-out.  Most people you talk to think negotiating with a child is ridiculous, mainly because their own parents would not negotiate with them.  It's no coincidence that the relationship your average child has with their parents is the same relationship your average citizen has with their government: it's a relationship of authority and obedience.  That's what people understand: you are either obedient, or you are the authority, and those who don't wish to be obedient get into politics.  This is commonly referred to as "human nature" due to its prevalence, but it's not, it's just how most people are raised.

[My Name Was Taken]

Your analogy doesn't hold at all. In no way is consent of the governed impossible or analogous to agreeing to be raped, either semantically or logically. Maybe you skipped history lessons, but the whole point of the DoI was to outline the acceptable methods of government to the colonists and to justify the reasons they were declaring independence. The DoI doesn't grant any authority, you misunderstood what I said. The DoI explains the rationale by which the government later granted itself authority by claiming it was acting with the consent of the governed. By living here, you are consenting to the jurisdiction and authority of the government, because you're free to leave. However, you're not free to ignore the edicts of the government, that is "the Will of the People." (Said semi-sarcastically)

Don't misread me. I'm sympathetic to voluntaryists. I'm merely explaining the rationale behind the system of government, not defending it. I think democracy is a rather dreadful thing, as the majority forces its will on the minority with impunity. However, I've never become convinced a completely voluntary society would work, for many reasons which are not the point of this thread.

The short of it is that the DoI does not do the vesting of authority. It explains how and why the vesting of authority is legitimate. The actual vesting of the authority comes from the Constitution.

Consent is impossible because there is no way for me to grant consent even if I wanted to.  I don't grant consent by paying taxes because I get threatened with jail or worse if I don't pay.  And I don't grant consent by voting because I am not granted an exemption from the laws if I choose not to vote.  Nor am I only subject to the laws of the candidate I voted for.  And even if I did vote for the winning candidate, the voting was done in secret so there is no way for me to show that I consented.

Just research what the government's own definition of citizen is.  It is someone that consents to the authority of government in exchange for protection.  Well, using that very definition, none of us are citizens.  Newborns are not capable of granting consent and the government has repeatedly said that they are not under any obligation to protect you. 

You're taking your unwillingness to grant explicit consent to a government you don't approve of and saying it's proof there can be no consent. I'm not talking about you granting explicit consent, I'm not sure there even is such a thing. I'm talking about the justification of the government in claiming it has consent, which because it does so, creates implicit consent if you stay here. The Founder's claimed consent of the governed in the DoI, and therefore anyone who decided to live under their rule was automatically granting implicit consent because that was stated to be how the government was founded. (In fact, they claimed all governments derive their power from consent of the governed, and the DoI was their notification that they withdrew it from the king. The revolution was them enforcing it).

With how angry the public is at Washington today, there are still enough people who agree that the government has consent of the governed that it makes the government and American society stable. Whether you agree with everything the government does or nothing it does, you grant it consent and recognize it's authority by living in its jurisdiction because you're not forced to stay here. The agreement is implicit. This is how it works; as long as you're here, there are penalties for breaking the laws even when you don't agree with them. If the government doesn't have your individual consent, that's not of much consequence, you can withdraw it by leaving. But if you don't, you can't claim it doesn't have your consent because it does. And if you choose to stay, you're bound by the laws created by the majority. When there are enough people who choose to withdraw their consent, a revolution happens, either violent or not.

I'm not justifying the argument, I'm just explaining the philosophy and logic it's based on. I'm a libertarian and I hate most of the stuff the government does and the way it spends my taxes. But I'm implicitly giving consent because I'm still here. Of course I only pay the taxes out of threat of prison, but the taxes are still "voluntary" because I don't have to live here; I could move and renounce my citizenship and the government no longer has a claim on my income for tax purposes. Because I'm free to do that and choose not to, I give consent to the government and "voluntarily" pay taxes.

You staying is giving implicit consent; that's the bargain. Once you choose to accept the bargain, you don't have absolute freedom to decide which rules to follow and which not.  Government has overstepped its role. I believe the only legitimate function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. But it's not gotten to the point where I would leave. The government can, and does, claim my consent.

[duke1839]

Well look, if you're a libertarian you are already 99% of the way there.  I didn't get it right away either but here's how I was able to see it.  If I tell you that I have the power and legitimate authority to tax you, the burden of proof is on me to show that I have that authority.  I can't just give you circular logic by saying "I say I do but you have the option of leaving if you don't want to pay".  I can't say "you grant consent by staying" because that ignores the question of how I got the authority in the first place.  If I say that people voted to give me the authority, you can legitimately ask "what people?"  You have the right to know specifically who it was that granted me the authority.  I say "people voted in secret" and you can say "other people voted in secret that I am exempt from your laws and taxes."   

[My Name Was Taken]

Well look, if you're a libertarian you are already 99% of the way there.  I didn't get it right away either but here's how I was able to see it.  If I tell you that I have the power and legitimate authority to tax you, the burden of proof is on me to show that I have that authority.  I can't just give you circular logic by saying "I say I do but you have the option of leaving if you don't want to pay".  I can't say "you grant consent by staying" because that ignores the question of how I got the authority in the first place.  If I say that people voted to give me the authority, you can legitimately ask "what people?"  You have the right to know specifically who it was that granted me the authority.  I say "people voted in secret" and you can say "other people voted in secret that I am exempt from your laws and taxes."   

You could claim that authority. The only difference between you and the government though is no one believes or agrees with you. The government has a critical mass behind it. Ultimately what it comes down to is they control a majority of the force, so they can back the claim up with people who agree the government has the authority and will use force to enforce the notion. If the government 1) didn't control the majority of the force (which would involve a large portion of the population not agreeing to carry out the government's edicts), and 2) people did not agree they had the consent of the governed, the government would be overthrown.

As for your example of the origination of legitimate authority, having it and claiming it aren't necessarily the same thing. The government claims it, and there are not enough people who care to challenge that, so the government has it by default because the vast, VAST majority of the population agrees with that, either on face value or because they don't know enough about political philosophy to question where authority to govern comes from in the first place. Ask the average citizen who John Locke is and I doubt you'd get an accurate answer more than a couple times out of 100.

[Mrbutter]

I think the government would just create new laws to effectively ban people from using it or make it so absurdly difficult that no one would want to. Kind of like passing the new concealed carry law in IL.  Yeah it's legal now, but it's illegal to carry into a business with a no guns allowed sign properly posted. Since the state is strong-arming many businesses into putting up the signs against their will, they are effectively banning something they didn't want passed in the first place.  This may not be the best example, but I have no doubt our government isn't coming up with a scheme to make bitcoin use illegal or impractical.

What if the business owner has a gun stashed behind the counter?  Is it legal for him to forbid others to conceal carry but allow him to have a shotgun behind the cash register?

[duke1839]

Well look, if you're a libertarian you are already 99% of the way there.  I didn't get it right away either but here's how I was able to see it.  If I tell you that I have the power and legitimate authority to tax you, the burden of proof is on me to show that I have that authority.  I can't just give you circular logic by saying "I say I do but you have the option of leaving if you don't want to pay".  I can't say "you grant consent by staying" because that ignores the question of how I got the authority in the first place.  If I say that people voted to give me the authority, you can legitimately ask "what people?"  You have the right to know specifically who it was that granted me the authority.  I say "people voted in secret" and you can say "other people voted in secret that I am exempt from your laws and taxes."   

You could claim that authority. The only difference between you and the government though is no one believes or agrees with you. The government has a critical mass behind it. Ultimately what it comes down to is they control a majority of the force, so they can back the claim up with people who agree the government has the authority and will use force to enforce the notion. If the government 1) didn't control the majority of the force (which would involve a large portion of the population not agreeing to carry out the government's edicts), and 2) people did not agree they had the consent of the governed, the government would be overthrown.

As for your example of the origination of legitimate authority, having it and claiming it aren't necessarily the same thing. The government claims it, and there are not enough people who care to challenge that, so the government has it by default because the vast, VAST majority of the population agrees with that, either on face value or because they don't know enough about political philosophy to question where authority to govern comes from in the first place. Ask the average citizen who John Locke is and I doubt you'd get an accurate answer more than a couple times out of 100.

I can disagree with couple of things.  If the government is overthrown, it won't be because people stop believing in its authority.  It will be because they believe in its authority but they don't like it for whatever reason. 

I like the model that government is malware.  I heard Larken Rose say this and it fits.  Malware is software on your computer that makes your computer serve someone else other than its rightful owner.  Government is malware in your brain that makes you think it is legitimate that someone else other than you owns you or a piece of you.

This idea that the country = the government is a relatively new idea.  Back when the serfs were at the mercy of their king the serfs didn't view the king's soldiers as their soldiers.  The serfs accepted the king's rule for two reasons. 1) They didn't have a choice as weapons were too expensive for serfs to own before gunpowder was common.  2) There was a legitimate need for protection which the King did provide against invaders and marauders.

Now, where anyone who wants a gun can own a gun and there are no threats from savages or marauders the government needs to control the population's thinking to maintain power.  It was successful because the government controls the schools and the media.  That control is just beginning to slip now because of the advent of the internet.  The church lost its power with the advent of the printing press and the internet will do the same for government. 

[My Name Was Taken]

Well look, if you're a libertarian you are already 99% of the way there.  I didn't get it right away either but here's how I was able to see it.  If I tell you that I have the power and legitimate authority to tax you, the burden of proof is on me to show that I have that authority.  I can't just give you circular logic by saying "I say I do but you have the option of leaving if you don't want to pay".  I can't say "you grant consent by staying" because that ignores the question of how I got the authority in the first place.  If I say that people voted to give me the authority, you can legitimately ask "what people?"  You have the right to know specifically who it was that granted me the authority.  I say "people voted in secret" and you can say "other people voted in secret that I am exempt from your laws and taxes."   

You could claim that authority. The only difference between you and the government though is no one believes or agrees with you. The government has a critical mass behind it. Ultimately what it comes down to is they control a majority of the force, so they can back the claim up with people who agree the government has the authority and will use force to enforce the notion. If the government 1) didn't control the majority of the force (which would involve a large portion of the population not agreeing to carry out the government's edicts), and 2) people did not agree they had the consent of the governed, the government would be overthrown.

As for your example of the origination of legitimate authority, having it and claiming it aren't necessarily the same thing. The government claims it, and there are not enough people who care to challenge that, so the government has it by default because the vast, VAST majority of the population agrees with that, either on face value or because they don't know enough about political philosophy to question where authority to govern comes from in the first place. Ask the average citizen who John Locke is and I doubt you'd get an accurate answer more than a couple times out of 100.

I can disagree with couple of things.  If the government is overthrown, it won't be because people stop believing in its authority.  It will be because they believe in its authority but they don't like it for whatever reason. 

I like the model that government is malware.  I heard Larken Rose say this and it fits.  Malware is software on your computer that makes your computer serve someone else other than its rightful owner.  Government is malware in your brain that makes you think it is legitimate that someone else other than you owns you or a piece of you.

This idea that the country = the government is a relatively new idea.  Back when the serfs were at the mercy of their king the serfs didn't view the king's soldiers as their soldiers.  The serfs accepted the king's rule for two reasons. 1) They didn't have a choice as weapons were too expensive for serfs to own before gunpowder was common.  2) There was a legitimate need for protection which the King did provide against invaders and marauders.

Now, where anyone who wants a gun can own a gun and there are no threats from savages or marauders the government needs to control the population's thinking to maintain power.  It was successful because the government controls the schools and the media.  That control is just beginning to slip now because of the advent of the internet.  The church lost its power with the advent of the printing press and the internet will do the same for government. 

We're pretty close in thinking on the broad ideas with variations in the specifics. Where you see a lack savages or marauders as evidence the state is not necessary, I see a lack of savages or marauders as evidence the state is effective at creating a society where there aren't any, and is therefore necessary. In fact, go over to the "investments" or "gambling" section of this forum and you'll see all the savages and marauders that exist when there is no state to prosecute them or hold them accountable for their thefts. They're running all kinds of scams or setting up legitimate looking 'gambling businesses' and then running off with the funds because there's no repercussions. There will always be savages and marauders.

I'll never be anti-state, I've explored that option at length with ancaps on reddit and it doesn't hold up for me. Minarchism is as far as I go.