Topic: End of Governments - page 9. (Read 6575 times)

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.

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.

 

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.

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

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.)

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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."

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

People love to talk about how the U.S. government oppresses them.  I would suggest spending some coins on a world history course. We live in the safest, free-est conditions the world has ever known. You can expect to get old and have many of your diseases cured. You likely won't die in a war or starve.

Give it up and only the strongest will be free. Your food, women, possessions; all will belong to whoever organizes their own government.   

End of governments? Nope, it wont happen anytime soon. Some governments are so strong ( Germany ) that they can rule entire countries without military need. Well globalisation is the key...

Their time will be up shortly.

Yeah, this need to eat and to have some place with relative warmth in northern and southern parts of planet really does have some effects how free one can be...

Actually, if we want to get technical, Bitcoin is pretty much tax avoidance rather than tax evasion, tax evasion means you're still in the country with your wealth etc. not paying taxes from what I understand, tax avoidance means you're just not wanting to pay taxes at all and stay away from it? I think that's how it works but there's two definitions but tax avoidance is where you go out of the country to stay away from paying taxes. I think Bitcoin either falls somewhere in between or something because we're all putting our wealth in our computers to avoid paying for taxes rather than just simply not pay them at all, it's a whole new currency and you could argue it's like making a country on the internet rather than just simply not pay taxes which is what tax evasion is supposed to be.

Now I understand why the governments haven't said anything much about Bitcoin yet LOL this is a headache.

Jefferson's original Declaration of Independence contained a section on the evils of slavery*. That section was edited out by members of the Continental Congress, some of whom were also involved with the slave trade, especially the South Carolina and Georgia delegations.

Remember that Jefferson was greatly responsible for stopping the slave trade into Virginia in 1778 when he was governor of the colony. It was one of the first bans of slavery on a state/nation level in history. He also expended much political capital in his failure to ban slave importation in the US when he was president in the early 19th century.

Jefferson was far more complex than  given credit for by the larger culture. Yes, he was born to the institution of slavery as a slave owner but he hated it. He also had the same problem that all people are confronted with when asked to choose between doing what might be right versus being able to keep their economic position: they usually choose the money over doing the right thing. Jefferson kept his slaves not only because they paid his bills but he'd also known them for his entire life.

By the measure of our own times, Jefferson was a less than admirable figure. But we get a two-dimensional view of people looking at them only from our vantage point. In terms of his own day, Jefferson was far ahead of the crowd. Long before most other people figured it out, he knew that slavery would eat this country alive, as it ended up doing: "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

Don't forget the leagues of people with three jobs in America