Topic: Stateless societies and bitcoin (Read 3086 times)
stateless society is not possible. we cannot think about a society without a state. in present time you cannot see a sing group of people who are living without a society. if we talk about the tribe living in the forest they have also their own society. similarly a time will come when we will not be able to think about a society with out bitcion.
Doug Casey Warns Of Crisis This Year:
"We're Going Back Into The Hurricane…
Brext to Start Huge Gold Bull Market
to $3,000 per Oz in 2016/2017!
- Legendary Investor Doug Casey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAobIulwA8o
Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/doug-casey-warns-of-crisis-this-year-were-going-back-into-the-hurricane-gold-will-go-higher-than-most-people-can-imagine_06262016.
"We're Going Back Into The Hurricane…
As fears of England leaving the European Union came to a head on voting day, a stunning scene emerged on the streets of London. Though it was completely ignored by the mainstream media, the fact that Brits were lining up in droves in front of gold and silver shops spoke volumes about financial assets of last resort during a real or perceived crisis.
It is within this context that legendary resource investor Doug Casey warns that the hurricane which took the world by storm in 2008 is still a significant threat. While we've spent the last several years in relative peace and calm inside the eye of the storm, we'll be entering the other side of the hurricane wall later this year, says Casey. And as we've seen in London, Greece, and Argentina in the past decade, when financial hurricanes wreak havoc across the economic landscape, the only safe haven to be had is in precious metals:
We're at the start of a really major bull market… This is going to be driven by a lot of things… It's going to take gold a lot higher than most people can imagine at this point.
…
… I think $5,000 gold will happen at some point because we're looking at a worldwide monetary crisis of historic proportions.
Casey shares his concerns, warnings and strategies in a must-hear interview with Future Money Trends:
It is within this context that legendary resource investor Doug Casey warns that the hurricane which took the world by storm in 2008 is still a significant threat. While we've spent the last several years in relative peace and calm inside the eye of the storm, we'll be entering the other side of the hurricane wall later this year, says Casey. And as we've seen in London, Greece, and Argentina in the past decade, when financial hurricanes wreak havoc across the economic landscape, the only safe haven to be had is in precious metals:
We're at the start of a really major bull market… This is going to be driven by a lot of things… It's going to take gold a lot higher than most people can imagine at this point.
…
… I think $5,000 gold will happen at some point because we're looking at a worldwide monetary crisis of historic proportions.
Casey shares his concerns, warnings and strategies in a must-hear interview with Future Money Trends:
Brext to Start Huge Gold Bull Market
to $3,000 per Oz in 2016/2017!
- Legendary Investor Doug Casey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAobIulwA8o
Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/doug-casey-warns-of-crisis-this-year-were-going-back-into-the-hurricane-gold-will-go-higher-than-most-people-can-imagine_06262016.
Well I think bitcoin is designed for everyone not just for stateless societies. Well stateless societies can use it freely though. They can use it for everyday living.
Right. Islamic countries, and countries like China, would like to see their people not have access to the Internet. But it is difficult to stop. Can't stop Bitcoin either. In countries that are not free, Bitcoin is a way to smuggle value in and out. All that the free countries have is money laundering laws.
Well I think bitcoin is designed for everyone not just for stateless societies. Well stateless societies can use it freely though. They can use it for everyday living.
Four alternatives to holding your savings in a bank
Read more at https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-alternatives-to-holding-your-savings-in-a-bank-19885/.
Quote from: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-alternatives-to-holding-your-savings-in-a-bank-19885/
“Global yields lowest in 500 years of recorded history. $10 trillion of neg. rate bonds. This is a supernova that will explode one day.”
Those were the words of famed bond fund manager Bill Gross.
(Gross was actually the first portfolio manager inducted into the Fixed Income Analyst Society's "Hall of Fame". And yes, there really is a hall of fame for that.)
Gross wrote that more than $10 trillion in government bonds actually have NEGATIVE yields, and that interest rates are at the lowest levels in financial history.
For example, the British government just issued its lowest-yielding bonds since 1694.
This has very dangerous implications.
Goldman Sachs recently calculated that a mere 1% rise in US Treasury yields would trigger over $1 trillion in losses, exceeding all the losses from the last crisis.
(Bear in mind that interest rates need to rise by at least 3x that amount just to reach their historic averages… so this is entirely plausible.)
Most of those losses would be suffered by Western banks, the majority of which have insufficient capital to withstand such a major hit.
Those were the words of famed bond fund manager Bill Gross.
(Gross was actually the first portfolio manager inducted into the Fixed Income Analyst Society's "Hall of Fame". And yes, there really is a hall of fame for that.)
Gross wrote that more than $10 trillion in government bonds actually have NEGATIVE yields, and that interest rates are at the lowest levels in financial history.
For example, the British government just issued its lowest-yielding bonds since 1694.
This has very dangerous implications.
Goldman Sachs recently calculated that a mere 1% rise in US Treasury yields would trigger over $1 trillion in losses, exceeding all the losses from the last crisis.
(Bear in mind that interest rates need to rise by at least 3x that amount just to reach their historic averages… so this is entirely plausible.)
Most of those losses would be suffered by Western banks, the majority of which have insufficient capital to withstand such a major hit.
Read more at https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-alternatives-to-holding-your-savings-in-a-bank-19885/.
Nothing new here.
He should have talked about BTC. And I don't think that storing a lot of cash in your home is a safe thing to do (you may be robbed). Same thing for gold.
Yeah. Walk around biting your fingernails in fear. After all, a meteorite might fall out of the sky on your head any time.
The one major problem with Bitcoin is, if the system goes down, Bitcoin probably will too. Gold and silver in hand will still be there. And so will cash in hand, cash... something everyone understands.
Four alternatives to holding your savings in a bank
Read more at https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-alternatives-to-holding-your-savings-in-a-bank-19885/.
Quote from: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-alternatives-to-holding-your-savings-in-a-bank-19885/
“Global yields lowest in 500 years of recorded history. $10 trillion of neg. rate bonds. This is a supernova that will explode one day.”
Those were the words of famed bond fund manager Bill Gross.
(Gross was actually the first portfolio manager inducted into the Fixed Income Analyst Society's "Hall of Fame". And yes, there really is a hall of fame for that.)
Gross wrote that more than $10 trillion in government bonds actually have NEGATIVE yields, and that interest rates are at the lowest levels in financial history.
For example, the British government just issued its lowest-yielding bonds since 1694.
This has very dangerous implications.
Goldman Sachs recently calculated that a mere 1% rise in US Treasury yields would trigger over $1 trillion in losses, exceeding all the losses from the last crisis.
(Bear in mind that interest rates need to rise by at least 3x that amount just to reach their historic averages… so this is entirely plausible.)
Most of those losses would be suffered by Western banks, the majority of which have insufficient capital to withstand such a major hit.
Those were the words of famed bond fund manager Bill Gross.
(Gross was actually the first portfolio manager inducted into the Fixed Income Analyst Society's "Hall of Fame". And yes, there really is a hall of fame for that.)
Gross wrote that more than $10 trillion in government bonds actually have NEGATIVE yields, and that interest rates are at the lowest levels in financial history.
For example, the British government just issued its lowest-yielding bonds since 1694.
This has very dangerous implications.
Goldman Sachs recently calculated that a mere 1% rise in US Treasury yields would trigger over $1 trillion in losses, exceeding all the losses from the last crisis.
(Bear in mind that interest rates need to rise by at least 3x that amount just to reach their historic averages… so this is entirely plausible.)
Most of those losses would be suffered by Western banks, the majority of which have insufficient capital to withstand such a major hit.
Read more at https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-alternatives-to-holding-your-savings-in-a-bank-19885/.
Nothing new here.
He should have talked about BTC. And I don't think that storing a lot of cash in your home is a safe thing to do (you may be robbed). Same thing for gold.
Four alternatives to holding your savings in a bank
Read more at https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-alternatives-to-holding-your-savings-in-a-bank-19885/.
Quote from: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-alternatives-to-holding-your-savings-in-a-bank-19885/
“Global yields lowest in 500 years of recorded history. $10 trillion of neg. rate bonds. This is a supernova that will explode one day.”
Those were the words of famed bond fund manager Bill Gross.
(Gross was actually the first portfolio manager inducted into the Fixed Income Analyst Society's "Hall of Fame". And yes, there really is a hall of fame for that.)
Gross wrote that more than $10 trillion in government bonds actually have NEGATIVE yields, and that interest rates are at the lowest levels in financial history.
For example, the British government just issued its lowest-yielding bonds since 1694.
This has very dangerous implications.
Goldman Sachs recently calculated that a mere 1% rise in US Treasury yields would trigger over $1 trillion in losses, exceeding all the losses from the last crisis.
(Bear in mind that interest rates need to rise by at least 3x that amount just to reach their historic averages… so this is entirely plausible.)
Most of those losses would be suffered by Western banks, the majority of which have insufficient capital to withstand such a major hit.
Those were the words of famed bond fund manager Bill Gross.
(Gross was actually the first portfolio manager inducted into the Fixed Income Analyst Society's "Hall of Fame". And yes, there really is a hall of fame for that.)
Gross wrote that more than $10 trillion in government bonds actually have NEGATIVE yields, and that interest rates are at the lowest levels in financial history.
For example, the British government just issued its lowest-yielding bonds since 1694.
This has very dangerous implications.
Goldman Sachs recently calculated that a mere 1% rise in US Treasury yields would trigger over $1 trillion in losses, exceeding all the losses from the last crisis.
(Bear in mind that interest rates need to rise by at least 3x that amount just to reach their historic averages… so this is entirely plausible.)
Most of those losses would be suffered by Western banks, the majority of which have insufficient capital to withstand such a major hit.
Read more at https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/four-alternatives-to-holding-your-savings-in-a-bank-19885/.
There can never be a stateless society. The smallest state might be the family. But if there was no state, there would be no society.
For 99.8% of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. What were they?They were states, societies, families, friends, and religious activists.
I guess we have to define state and society. I believe there could be a society without a state, I may even believe that I believe in one. I hate the state in the sense that I hate bureaucracy, being told what to do and how to do it, or the fact that if I pick a phone, my conservation may be listened to by the CIA. But society is OK because it's informal. I have friends, we're going out for dinner, and that's it. I talked to the cashier at the grocery store earlier today, the state wasn't there.
I have escaped all kind of government control, and there are thousands others like me. I hope our number will keep on growing.
What you don't seem to realize is that it's precisely the things you hate that make the things you love about modern society possible. All of the perks of the modern world are only possible with the current configuration. You can't separate the things you love from the things you hate, they go hand in hand. If you're being honest and really feel strongly about how the world is evolving then the impeccable thing for you to do would be to detach from it and make your own way, for better or worse. It's just pure hypocrisy if you take all of the things you enjoy but shun the burden that go hand in hand with them and blame it all on "the man" or "them". You are "the man", everyone is "the man" for as long as you accept the benefits of the modern world.
I find it amazing that someone I've never met is able to tell what I like and what I dislike. You have a lot of imagination ObscureBean. I'll tell you something I like. I like starvation. I say people dying from hunger is good. There should be more of them, especially in Europe. If you've never experienced starvation, I wish you'll experience it soon.
The example of people dying from hunger is good for others, and suffering from starvation is helpful to make good life's decisions. to many people, I guess it's also needed. All over Europe, I see people making mistakes because the state, the country, governments and all that, prevent them from starving. The world would be better with the risk of starvation above anyone's head.
I thought you mentioned that you hated the State
In any case I don't need to know the specifics of what you like or dislike, my comment is somewhat more fundamental than that with hate/like/dislike itself being the simplest common denominator. It doesn't matter what you actually like or dislike. What I've been trying to say is that a counterpart is automatically created when you like something. Whether you want to or are aware of it or not it automatically causes you to dislike something else.
You start with neutrality (or perfect balance). From there any use of force or will automatically causes neutrality to break up into positive negative, love hate, etc.
Humans are conceited, they deny the counterpart created by their use/abuse of power/force/will. Their much lauded "human love" has got a nasty side to it that everyone is happy to brush under the rug. And when it gets too big to be contained, the only recourse is to find a scapegoat imbue it with the malignance and then it stone to death to purge the tension
The more you love the more you hate. The more you chase happiness the harder it is to avoid unhappiness.
Hey, we're not talking about electricity! I like ice-cream, what do I dislike?
I didn't like the state, I didn't like my country, so there was only thing to do, and I did it: I broke up.
I don't fill monthly tax forms anymore (yes, for business). No more grumbling about it, more free time and more money.
I'm happy now. It was when I was a good participating sheep citizen that I was not.
That's what I wish to everyone here, but to many people, the state has become some kind of a religion, and they praise it for enslaving them, even with many not happy about the situation, but they're too afraid to change it.
Chart Of The Day: Lowest Interest Rates In 5000 Years
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/chart-of-the-day-lowest-interest-rates-in-5000-years/
There can never be a stateless society. The smallest state might be the family. But if there was no state, there would be no society.
For 99.8% of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. What were they?They were states, societies, families, friends, and religious activists.
I guess we have to define state and society. I believe there could be a society without a state, I may even believe that I believe in one. I hate the state in the sense that I hate bureaucracy, being told what to do and how to do it, or the fact that if I pick a phone, my conservation may be listened to by the CIA. But society is OK because it's informal. I have friends, we're going out for dinner, and that's it. I talked to the cashier at the grocery store earlier today, the state wasn't there.
I have escaped all kind of government control, and there are thousands others like me. I hope our number will keep on growing.
What you don't seem to realize is that it's precisely the things you hate that make the things you love about modern society possible. All of the perks of the modern world are only possible with the current configuration. You can't separate the things you love from the things you hate, they go hand in hand. If you're being honest and really feel strongly about how the world is evolving then the impeccable thing for you to do would be to detach from it and make your own way, for better or worse. It's just pure hypocrisy if you take all of the things you enjoy but shun the burden that go hand in hand with them and blame it all on "the man" or "them". You are "the man", everyone is "the man" for as long as you accept the benefits of the modern world.
I find it amazing that someone I've never met is able to tell what I like and what I dislike. You have a lot of imagination ObscureBean. I'll tell you something I like. I like starvation. I say people dying from hunger is good. There should be more of them, especially in Europe. If you've never experienced starvation, I wish you'll experience it soon.
The example of people dying from hunger is good for others, and suffering from starvation is helpful to make good life's decisions. to many people, I guess it's also needed. All over Europe, I see people making mistakes because the state, the country, governments and all that, prevent them from starving. The world would be better with the risk of starvation above anyone's head.
I thought you mentioned that you hated the State
In any case I don't need to know the specifics of what you like or dislike, my comment is somewhat more fundamental than that with hate/like/dislike itself being the simplest common denominator. It doesn't matter what you actually like or dislike. What I've been trying to say is that a counterpart is automatically created when you like something. Whether you want to or are aware of it or not it automatically causes you to dislike something else.
You start with neutrality (or perfect balance). From there any use of force or will automatically causes neutrality to break up into positive negative, love hate, etc.
Humans are conceited, they deny the counterpart created by their use/abuse of power/force/will. Their much lauded "human love" has got a nasty side to it that everyone is happy to brush under the rug. And when it gets too big to be contained, the only recourse is to find a scapegoat imbue it with the malignance and then it stone to death to purge the tension
The more you love the more you hate. The more you chase happiness the harder it is to avoid unhappiness.
Hey, we're not talking about electricity! I like ice-cream, what do I dislike?
I didn't like the state, I didn't like my country, so there was only thing to do, and I did it: I broke up.
I don't fill monthly tax forms anymore (yes, for business). No more grumbling about it, more free time and more money.
I'm happy now. It was when I was a good participating sheep citizen that I was not.
That's what I wish to everyone here, but to many people, the state has become some kind of a religion, and they praise it for enslaving them, even with many not happy about the situation, but they're too afraid to change it.
I thought you mentioned that you hated the State
In any case I don't need to know the specifics of what you like or dislike, my comment is somewhat more fundamental than that with hate/like/dislike itself being the simplest common denominator. It doesn't matter what you actually like or dislike. What I've been trying to say is that a counterpart is automatically created when you like something. Whether you want to or are aware of it or not it automatically causes you to dislike something else.
You start with neutrality (or perfect balance). From there any use of force or will automatically causes neutrality to break up into positive negative, love hate, etc.
Humans are conceited, they deny the counterpart created by their use/abuse of power/force/will. Their much lauded "human love" has got a nasty side to it that everyone is happy to brush under the rug. And when it gets too big to be contained, the only recourse is to find a scapegoat imbue it with the malignance and then it stone to death to purge the tension
The more you love the more you hate. The more you chase happiness the harder it is to avoid unhappiness.
There can never be a stateless society. The smallest state might be the family. But if there was no state, there would be no society.
For 99.8% of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. What were they?They were states, societies, families, friends, and religious activists.
I guess we have to define state and society. I believe there could be a society without a state, I may even believe that I believe in one. I hate the state in the sense that I hate bureaucracy, being told what to do and how to do it, or the fact that if I pick a phone, my conservation may be listened to by the CIA. But society is OK because it's informal. I have friends, we're going out for dinner, and that's it. I talked to the cashier at the grocery store earlier today, the state wasn't there.
I have escaped all kind of government control, and there are thousands others like me. I hope our number will keep on growing.
What you don't seem to realize is that it's precisely the things you hate that make the things you love about modern society possible. All of the perks of the modern world are only possible with the current configuration. You can't separate the things you love from the things you hate, they go hand in hand. If you're being honest and really feel strongly about how the world is evolving then the impeccable thing for you to do would be to detach from it and make your own way, for better or worse. It's just pure hypocrisy if you take all of the things you enjoy but shun the burden that go hand in hand with them and blame it all on "the man" or "them". You are "the man", everyone is "the man" for as long as you accept the benefits of the modern world.
I find it amazing that someone I've never met is able to tell what I like and what I dislike. You have a lot of imagination ObscureBean. I'll tell you something I like. I like starvation. I say people dying from hunger is good. There should be more of them, especially in Europe. If you've never experienced starvation, I wish you'll experience it soon.
The example of people dying from hunger is good for others, and suffering from starvation is helpful to make good life's decisions. to many people, I guess it's also needed. All over Europe, I see people making mistakes because the state, the country, governments and all that, prevent them from starving. The world would be better with the risk of starvation above anyone's head.
I thought you mentioned that you hated the State
In any case I don't need to know the specifics of what you like or dislike, my comment is somewhat more fundamental than that with hate/like/dislike itself being the simplest common denominator. It doesn't matter what you actually like or dislike. What I've been trying to say is that a counterpart is automatically created when you like something. Whether you want to or are aware of it or not it automatically causes you to dislike something else.
You start with neutrality (or perfect balance). From there any use of force or will automatically causes neutrality to break up into positive negative, love hate, etc.
Humans are conceited, they deny the counterpart created by their use/abuse of power/force/will. Their much lauded "human love" has got a nasty side to it that everyone is happy to brush under the rug. And when it gets too big to be contained, the only recourse is to find a scapegoat imbue it with the malignance and then stone it to death to purge the tension
The more you love the more you hate. The more you chase happiness the harder it is to avoid unhappiness.
There can never be a stateless society. The smallest state might be the family. But if there was no state, there would be no society.
For 99.8% of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. What were they?They were states, societies, families, friends, and religious activists.
I guess we have to define state and society. I believe there could be a society without a state, I may even believe that I believe in one. I hate the state in the sense that I hate bureaucracy, being told what to do and how to do it, or the fact that if I pick a phone, my conservation may be listened to by the CIA. But society is OK because it's informal. I have friends, we're going out for dinner, and that's it. I talked to the cashier at the grocery store earlier today, the state wasn't there.
I have escaped all kind of government control, and there are thousands others like me. I hope our number will keep on growing.
What you don't seem to realize is that it's precisely the things you hate that make the things you love about modern society possible. All of the perks of the modern world are only possible with the current configuration. You can't separate the things you love from the things you hate, they go hand in hand. If you're being honest and really feel strongly about how the world is evolving then the impeccable thing for you to do would be to detach from it and make your own way, for better or worse. It's just pure hypocrisy if you take all of the things you enjoy but shun the burden that go hand in hand with them and blame it all on "the man" or "them". You are "the man", everyone is "the man" for as long as you accept the benefits of the modern world.
I find it amazing that someone I've never met is able to tell what I like and what I dislike. You have a lot of imagination ObscureBean. I'll tell you something I like. I like starvation. I say people dying from hunger is good. There should be more of them, especially in Europe. If you've never experienced starvation, I wish you'll experience it soon.
The example of people dying from hunger is good for others, and suffering from starvation is helpful to make good life's decisions. to many people, I guess it's also needed. All over Europe, I see people making mistakes because the state, the country, governments and all that, prevent them from starving. The world would be better with the risk of starvation above anyone's head.
There can never be a stateless society. The smallest state might be the family. But if there was no state, there would be no society.
For 99.8% of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. What were they?They were states, societies, families, friends, and religious activists.
I guess we have to define state and society. I believe there could be a society without a state, I may even believe that I believe in one. I hate the state in the sense that I hate bureaucracy, being told what to do and how to do it, or the fact that if I pick a phone, my conservation may be listened to by the CIA. But society is OK because it's informal. I have friends, we're going out for dinner, and that's it. I talked to the cashier at the grocery store earlier today, the state wasn't there.
I have escaped all kind of government control, and there are thousands others like me. I hope our number will keep on growing.
What you don't seem to realize is that it's precisely the things you hate that make the things you love about modern society possible. All of the perks of the modern world are only possible with the current configuration. You can't separate the things you love from the things you hate, they go hand in hand. If you're being honest and really feel strongly about how the world is evolving then the impeccable thing for you to do would be to detach from it and make your own way, for better or worse. It's just pure hypocrisy if you take all of the things you enjoy but shun the burden that go hand in hand with them and blame it all on "the man" or "them". You are "the man", everyone is "the man" for as long as you accept the benefits of the modern world.
There can never be a stateless society. The smallest state might be the family. But if there was no state, there would be no society.
For 99.8% of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. What were they?They were states, societies, families, friends, and religious activists.
I guess we have to define state and society. I believe there could be a society without a state, I may even believe that I believe in one. I hate the state in the sense that I hate bureaucracy, being told what to do and how to do it, or the fact that if I pick a phone, my conservation may be listened to by the CIA. But society is OK because it's informal. I have friends, we're going out for dinner, and that's it. I talked to the cashier at the grocery store earlier today, the state wasn't there.
I have escaped all kind of government control, and there are thousands others like me. I hope our number will keep on growing.
If you really want a definition of "state," go here http://www.dictionary.com/browse/state?s=t.
If you want to consider that a "state" is a government, think about this. Every person in a particular government understands the things of that government at least a little differently. That's why they write the stuff down... so they can maintain a little bit of order in the face of different thinking... and forgetting.
There always is government. If people exist, they each have their own government/state = state of mind. And, there is natural government... like a pecking order among chickens.
Society is simply an informal grouping of multitudes of governments/states. However, there may be formal states that society "bows" to... often many, right inside the same society.
There can never be a stateless society. The smallest state might be the family. But if there was no state, there would be no society.
For 99.8% of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. What were they?They were states, societies, families, friends, and religious activists.
I guess we have to define state and society. I believe there could be a society without a state, I may even believe that I believe in one. I hate the state in the sense that I hate bureaucracy, being told what to do and how to do it, or the fact that if I pick a phone, my conservation may be listened to by the CIA. But society is OK because it's informal. I have friends, we're going out for dinner, and that's it. I talked to the cashier at the grocery store earlier today, the state wasn't there.
I have escaped all kind of government control, and there are thousands others like me. I hope our number will keep on growing.
Some bitcointalkers like ObscureBean venerate the State as the apotheosis of society
You are reading me wrong
I do not venerate the State (although I can totally see why you would think that). But I'm not against it either. If you read my comments carefully you'll find that they all perfectly balanced, I do not take sides. I apologize if they are not always immediately clear.I've said this before, in any dispute both sides are always wrong. You can't use control to fight the system because it uses control. Control begets control, win or lose you're still at square one and nothing's really changed. Real change can only truly occur within oneself.
The world you experience is only a reflection of who you are. And who you are is forged by the way you live.
The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some bitcointalkers like ObscureBean venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources.
With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
It amazes me how obtuse (naive?) humans are. To think they can escape "government control" and live happily ever after But I guess this is still in line with the way they live, accuse/blame everything other than themselves. The control you seek to escape/defeat is not outside of you. It's always been within each and everyone of you. Defeating/changing the current system won't change anything.
But perhaps you don't really seek to escape control itself, perhaps your quest for decentralization is nothing but the perpetuation of the existing dog eat dog world and all you want is to replace government control with your own. If that's the case then I sincerely apologize for the comment above.
But I guess this is still in line with the way they live, accuse/blame everything other than themselves. The control you seek to escape/defeat is not outside of you. It's always been within each and everyone of you. Defeating/changing the current system won't change anything.But perhaps you don't really seek to escape control itself, perhaps your quest for decentralization is nothing but the perpetuation of the existing dog eat dog world and all you want is to replace government control with your own. If that's the case then I sincerely apologize for the comment above.
There can never be a stateless society. The smallest state might be the family. But if there was no state, there would be no society.
For 99.8% of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. What were they?They were states, societies, families, friends, and religious activists.
There can never be a stateless society. The smallest state might be the family. But if there was no state, there would be no society.
For 99.8% of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. What were they? Jump to: