Topic: End of Governments - page 2. (Read 6575 times)

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.

This.

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.

Now this is starting to get interesting.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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


Maybe that's just my ego talking 

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

This is all nonsense.

Organized Government is not going to fall...

Unless Aliens come.

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

Please, do try a little harder?