Topic: Will the government be destroyed? (Read 3511 times)

If you had infinite energy, you could profit off it. But you don't, so...

how about war torn Sudan or Libya, both had and still have corrupt governments.
don't even have to look only in Africa, how about North Korea, the socialist heaven where the government takes care of everyone.

Yeah that infinite energy stuff, totally worthless since you can't profit off it.

Do you not see that the reason you have no money is because you offer nothing of value to society?

What countries? Give an axample.

that's such nonsense.
the government is nothing but a group of people, you have been indoctrinated since childhood that only that special group of people can be trusted to provide security services and all the other services they currently provide as an inefficient monopoly.

Somalia didn't have a central government only between the early 90's and early 2000's, in which time their economy actually started to recover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Somalia


the reason Somalia is such a mess is not due to lack of government, Africa is full of countries with governments that are far worse than Somalia.

Do you not see the money induced mind of greed kills many many people?

Remove the tool that gives them power and all you have to do is not fear them.  Death is nothing to fear.  When you realize this you can live freely.  Peace.

Stand for a purpose for the higher good of humanity and the universe will look after you.

The revolution will be a spiritual revolution.

What about police? Army? Many other public services? You NEED someone in control, you need taxes to run things. C'mon men, society without goverment is a Somalia. Go there, you will see what complete freedom means.

Dank, money is just a representation of the value of the things people create. If you don't have any, it's because you're not making anything people value.

Your first paragraph is clearly building strawmen so you can tear them down since you're ascribing sentiments to me I do not agree with. Not to mention you're pretty lofty notion of how bitcoin is going to solve all the wars and improve the wealth of the world. Your simplistic view of international politics and economics has made evident how fruitful trying to have a conversation with you would be, which is why this will be the only response you get from me.

Your example of a bounty system is based on arbitrary law, the reason Constitutional law became essential. To say that because I have arrived at the conclusion that predictable law is better than an arbitrary system is "irrational" is to be so full of your own bullshit that you can't fathom that people have a legitimate justification for their beliefs. I've heard the ancap arguments already. They have failed to convince me, that's why I'm a minarchist and not an ancap. There are no magic new arguments out there that will change the way I see human nature and how people will act in an ancap society. That's why I can conclude that I will never be anti-state.

Of course, I'll change my mind if that ever were to happen. But my belief I'll never be completely anti-state is based on much more sound reasoning than your belief that bitcoin is going to solve all the wars and make everyone wealthy.   

I guess someone wasn't taught how to share as a kid.

Sharing benefits every party involved with the transaction.  You feel good for helping someone, they feel food for being helped, everyone wins.

People create things, not money.  Money only retards the progress.

States have existed since before recorded history.  To credit the state with our advanced society is to ignore the real causes.  These advances happen in spite of the state not because of it.  When Bitcoin is mainstream and commonplace 100 years from now and it has improved the wealth of the whole world and ended all wars there will still be people like you around that say "Thank God the government finally decided to end wars and lift everyone out of poverty! I don't know why it waited 10,000 years to do it but they finally got around to it!"

I would trust a bounty system to go after scammers, like Roger Ver has proposed, far more than a government entity.  Criminals thrive under government because the government needs criminals to justify its existence.  In a market based bounty system, you only get paid if you catch the scammer.  Cops get paid either way.  By saying you will never be anti-state is to acknowledge that you didn't reach your conclusions because of logic and reason.  If you were rational, you would say that you still see a need for a state but you are open to change your mind with good reasoned arguments.    

Stop using money. Steal stuff instead. -Dank

Someone should publish a book of your best quotes.

So long as you believe in their power, they'll hold that power.

Stop fearing them and stop using money, and they have absolutely no power.  Their power is illusory.

Yes, it's his property, he can do with it as he pleases while telling you what you can do as long as you're on it. There is no hypocrisy here if that was your implication.

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.

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. 

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?

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.

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."