snip
None of your points lead to me believing you understand why alternatives would look appealing. Are you implying the system we have now is as good as it has ever been?
The only alternatives that exist are ones that I can actually go to and try out. Everything else is just imagination and theory.
And no, the US system sounds terrible. All that indoctrination! The last time I suggested that freedom and slavery are basically the same concept, just opposite sides of the same coin, I got laughed at. Yet Americans and many others strongly desire this 'freedom'. It must be a very scarce commodity. From the outside it seems clear that the US government is just a side-effect of its people and their attitudes.
Until you find a way to explain how the state is not the focal point of systematic violence, I don't want to hear it. Nothing else matters if this point is not touched.
In the US' case it's probably way past the point of no return, and there might be some kind of economic collapse, war, civil war, states breaking away etc. It could be sudden, or maybe the country will continue to get ransacked for a few more years (everyone gradually bails; last one turn out the lights plz). But in general, I'd say governments are a reflection of society, and if society is able to look in the mirror, it should be possible to keep the admin side reasonably honest and sane. I suspect there are also game theory arguments as to why large country-sized crowds would tend to evolve in ways that always result in some kind of government-like structure, but that only explains why governments seem unavoidable.
That's the problem I have with government. For fun, find a map, or a globe, and stop your finger anywhere that isn't water. Chances are, the spot you've picked is under some form of government. We can then determine if that government is benign, or completely bonkers, but one thing we can know for certain, no matter what, is that there's likely someone who sits on the very top of that spot of land, someone who calls the shots, and may or may not attempt to take his fellow citizen's thoughts into running that place. No matter what government we could list, however, there is always this problem: you have one person, or a small group of people, who make more decision than any other individual within that nation. Even if that one person made 1% of the decisions of his nation, he would still be making more choices than Joe, who only makes, say, .01% decision, based on his voting, or however he participates. Because this one individual has more power than anyone else, he always, always, always, uses that power to his own advantage, either consciously, or subconsciously. There is no benevolent government. There is always a government who stays afloat through the force of taxation and likely writes laws for its citizens to adhere to. If these laws are not followed, the government will use violence to ensure the citizen does adhere to law. Law and taxation are inseparable, for even if a government had only one law, it would be, "You have to pay your taxes."
A while back I introduced an idea that another member labeled as "Direct Democracy." It seemed to work better than America's current system, because instead of having a figure head way up top, each citizen would have equal access to creating and passing laws through, say, the Internet, or something to that effect. However, even if each citizen had an equal say, without anyone on top, you would still have people band together and pass law and someone would have to run the state security and someone or a group of people would still have the power to say "I don't like the mary-jay, so I don't think anyone should be allowed to smoke it," even if the person they were using this force against was a complete and total stranger. No matter how government acts, it is still violent. Some governments are less violent than others, but they're all violent. As I do not feel the need to say you, for example, shouldn't have the right to do whatever it is you like to do, I would expect that you could respect my right, too. If I happened to think, I dunno, gay marriage was okay, and gays should be allowed to marry, I don't think it's anyone's business but that gay couple whether or not they get married. Since I'm neither gay or feel the need to marry, I don't understand why I need to voice whether or not it should be allowed. And even if I felt it was horrendously wrong, because it's against whatever belief system that tells me it is, I don't want to tell those people how to live, because I don't want anyone telling me how to live.
I don't feel this is unnatural. When I'm at school, I don't attempt to force black people out, just 'cos I don't want them around me. Heck, posh schools do this anyway, with a screening process. But the government has done exactly that in the past. I don't believe it's right to tell Joe in California he can't be Joe because Jill in New York has an issue with it. Fuck Jill, Joe hasn't done a thing to her, and what Joe's doing does not affect Jill.
