Topic: Will the government be destroyed? (Read 3581 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."   

You're taking your unwillingness to grant explicit consent to a government you don't approve of and saying it's proof there can be no consent. I'm not talking about you granting explicit consent, I'm not sure there even is such a thing. I'm talking about the justification of the government in claiming it has consent, which because it does so, creates implicit consent if you stay here. The Founder's claimed consent of the governed in the DoI, and therefore anyone who decided to live under their rule was automatically granting implicit consent because that was stated to be how the government was founded. (In fact, they claimed all governments derive their power from consent of the governed, and the DoI was their notification that they withdrew it from the king. The revolution was them enforcing it).

With how angry the public is at Washington today, there are still enough people who agree that the government has consent of the governed that it makes the government and American society stable. Whether you agree with everything the government does or nothing it does, you grant it consent and recognize it's authority by living in its jurisdiction because you're not forced to stay here. The agreement is implicit. This is how it works; as long as you're here, there are penalties for breaking the laws even when you don't agree with them. If the government doesn't have your individual consent, that's not of much consequence, you can withdraw it by leaving. But if you don't, you can't claim it doesn't have your consent because it does. And if you choose to stay, you're bound by the laws created by the majority. When there are enough people who choose to withdraw their consent, a revolution happens, either violent or not.

I'm not justifying the argument, I'm just explaining the philosophy and logic it's based on. I'm a libertarian and I hate most of the stuff the government does and the way it spends my taxes. But I'm implicitly giving consent because I'm still here. Of course I only pay the taxes out of threat of prison, but the taxes are still "voluntary" because I don't have to live here; I could move and renounce my citizenship and the government no longer has a claim on my income for tax purposes. Because I'm free to do that and choose not to, I give consent to the government and "voluntarily" pay taxes.

You staying is giving implicit consent; that's the bargain. Once you choose to accept the bargain, you don't have absolute freedom to decide which rules to follow and which not.  Government has overstepped its role. I believe the only legitimate function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. But it's not gotten to the point where I would leave. The government can, and does, claim my consent.

That which we call government is a mere manifestation of the dark desires of men; nothing in the external can do anything about our willingness to force others to do our bidding via violence, including bitcoin, as the state stems from the internal: ergo, to destroy the government, we must decide to stop supporting it, which occurs when we decide to solve our problems instead through negotiation.

Can bitcoin help people resort to negotiation instead of violence?  Perhaps, but it likely won't be a major cause.  An individual learns how to negotiate primarily in their childhoods, and learns to prefer negotiation over violence through a parent which opts to negotiate instead of, say, spanking, or putting in time-out.  Most people you talk to think negotiating with a child is ridiculous, mainly because their own parents would not negotiate with them.  It's no coincidence that the relationship your average child has with their parents is the same relationship your average citizen has with their government: it's a relationship of authority and obedience.  That's what people understand: you are either obedient, or you are the authority, and those who don't wish to be obedient get into politics.  This is commonly referred to as "human nature" due to its prevalence, but it's not, it's just how most people are raised.

The vesting of authority was in the government to do exactly the things that were expressed in the vesting. Inside those things there is way out for people not of the government, to get out of the authority of the government any time they want. It is not implied. It is stated. You can find it if you almost literally look up the meanings of every word in the constitution, within the context of their meaning at the time they were written. If you don't want to do that, take the shorter route of perusing the website I provided where it will be shown to you - http://1215.org/.

There is no authority from the past that is binding on anyone of the present in any way. Dead people don't jump up and do anything. The authority of the present is according to what people of the present accept as authority. And they accept it voluntarily, or by force when someone stronger than they forces it on them. Otherwise, they don't accept it. Constitutional history that applies to us only applies in the context of how the people of the present use it. Government people take an oath that essentially states, among other things, that they will use the application of the past. That application doesn't apply to any of us who haven't taken the oath. That's why government is so adamant that the schools make everyone from childhood pledge their allegiance.

Consent is impossible because there is no way for me to grant consent even if I wanted to.  I don't grant consent by paying taxes because I get threatened with jail or worse if I don't pay.  And I don't grant consent by voting because I am not granted an exemption from the laws if I choose not to vote.  Nor am I only subject to the laws of the candidate I voted for.  And even if I did vote for the winning candidate, the voting was done in secret so there is no way for me to show that I consented.

Just research what the government's own definition of citizen is.  It is someone that consents to the authority of government in exchange for protection.  Well, using that very definition, none of us are citizens.  Newborns are not capable of granting consent and the government has repeatedly said that they are not under any obligation to protect you. 

Your analogy doesn't hold at all. In no way is consent of the governed impossible or analogous to agreeing to be raped, either semantically or logically. Maybe you skipped history lessons, but the whole point of the DoI was to outline the acceptable methods of government to the colonists and to justify the reasons they were declaring independence. The DoI doesn't grant any authority, you misunderstood what I said. The DoI explains the rationale by which the government later granted itself authority by claiming it was acting with the consent of the governed. By living here, you are consenting to the jurisdiction and authority of the government, because you're free to leave. However, you're not free to ignore the edicts of the government, that is "the Will of the People." (Said semi-sarcastically)

Don't misread me. I'm sympathetic to voluntaryists. I'm merely explaining the rationale behind the system of government, not defending it. I think democracy is a rather dreadful thing, as the majority forces its will on the minority with impunity. However, I've never become convinced a completely voluntary society would work, for many reasons which are not the point of this thread.

The short of it is that the DoI does not do the vesting of authority. It explains how and why the vesting of authority is legitimate. The actual vesting of the authority comes from the Constitution.

No place in any of the documentation does it say that the people gave authority to the government to force them to fall under it in any way.

Even if they had, none of them are living today, and they don't have the right or ability to force any of their government on us in any way.

Some people (did you catch that word people) in government are seeing to it that people don't know about their freedom. The fact that the people of government use force doesn't mean the government has authority. The moment any other government, or XYZ corporation for that matter, becomes stronger than the government, they just might shut it down by force.

People can use certain basic concepts placed into the writing of the Preamble and the Constitution to show and force Government people to stay inside their places. Peruse http://1215.org/ to see how it works.

Nope.  The Declaration of Independence is about declaring independence which is a great thing.  It doesn't grant anyone authority over anyone else.  Consent of the governed is impossible.  It is like saying agreed to be raped.  If you agreed to it, it wasn't rape.  And if you are consenting to it, it is voluntary.  Voluntary means not governed.  This is why some anarchists call themselves voluntaryists.   

I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence:


Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair.

The setting up of a government is a thing that is done by people. Almost never is the setting up of a government done by one person alone.

The American government was set up by the people, some of them directly, others by representation.

There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.

The 14th Amendment was for finding a place for freed slaves. Slavery is a thing. When you release or free a slave, what is he? There is legal question about how to handle it. This is what the 14th Amendment was for. Traditionally free people, those who were never slaves, can apply the 14th Amendment to themselves if they want; there might be benefit to do this at times. But nowhere is there a place in law that states that the people have abdicated their authority over government. And, since there are no longer any slaves, there is no real reason for the 14th Amendment any longer.

Government's always claim this, whether or not it is true. Kings ruled by the will of god, but over time this proved to be untenable, also inaccurate. It seems people now are objecting (not necessarily rightfully so, but nonetheless) that government is not reflecting the will of the people any longer, but the interests of the rich and politically connected.

Government is the will of the lawmakers, not to be confused with the will of the people/country.

Government is the collective will of the people in the country. Hard to see how minority can destroy it.

I don't find credible the claim that the state is coercing people into putting up a 'no guns allowed' sign. You're talking about private property, which means your right to carry a gun there is limited to the owner's right to use his property as he sees fit. If I owned a business, I would not allow guns on it, because I don't like guns. But I absolutely support the peoples' right to have guns, just not on my property.

Your gun rights are between you and the state, not you and a private business owner.

Yes. All the governments will be destroyed except one. The Old Testament in the Bible says that the only government that will not be destroyed is the government that He sets up. This is not the ancient Israel government. It is the Kingdom of God, Himself, where He rules directly.

The government has no authority to rule over you.  It only gets away with it because of threats of force and propaganda that has been accepted as fact by most people.  I have been an ancap for about a year and only recently have I come to the realization that the government has no authority.  I came to this conclusion after reading this http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/

I didn't think anything was capable of blowing my mind when it came to reading about the government anymore but this did it.

That being said, you can't destroy the government without creating a power vacuum to be seized upon by a new government.  The solution is to just let it wither on the vine.  With each additional person that comes to the realization that the only things holding up the government are threats and propaganda, the government loses a little bit of power.  There is a network effect similar to the network effect of Bitcoin adoption.   

No, government won't need to be destroyed, it will just crash. All by itself. You just have to consider that there are more and more things out of the government's control. In most places, the government has failed against drugs, mass poverty, preserving the environment... There has to be a balance between the people who see the government as something useful, and the others who see it as useless or as a burden. The balance is slowly moving towards the latter, so the whole thing will slowly fall apart.

Yeah right now business control gov. 

Gov of the future will be donation based imo, same with all other public services.  It makes sense for all of us to keep some kind of infrastructure. 

Where's your proof? Most of what you describe is handled by private companies and citizens.

Society cannot run without goverment. If there is no goverment then there is a chaos, no civilization, no electricity, no economy, no internet, no bitcoin, etc =)

So you need one anyway. It's just will change together with this world.

Government cannot be destroyed.  Government is made up of a collection of individuals with their own desires and ambitions.  The people who run the taxation wing of the government often have little to do with the banking wing.

It just means if crypto currencies become mainstream then governments would continue collecting taxes, except it would be in digital currencies and not $Fiat.

well i want the speed limits raised from:

30mph to 40mph

50mph to 60mph

70mph to 80mph

fedup of looking over my shoulder for those pigs of the nanny state.

peraps in the future bitcoin will force the pigs to act as police and protect the innocoent from the evil.

in addition a bitcoin QR code on traffic lights so when there is a train of cars and you hath to sit there and wait, you can quickly pay a fee for the lights to go green vs the train of cars but the fee will increase depending how many cars you hold up so eth the highest bidder goes free to see his gran on time.

In time of chaos and turmoil, a dictator will emerge and pick a race as scapegoat.
 

Yes sir, you can bet your left nut on it.

Greed and ego will be long gone when I'm through with this planet.

I hope it does, but as long as it controls education, it will be very difficulty, as people is indoctrinated to ask for more and more government intervention.

People now have control over goverment =)
People who control FRS =)

what kind of government is destroyed? I think the government must be destroyed is permerintah are not partial to the little people, only concerned with personal interests, monopolized the economy and can not seek economy, if indeed there is such a rule, then it ought to be destroyed like this rule, the people must be the demo down pemeritahan to the streets and demanding a more decent, hopefully ... 

Those who have control of money dont need laws.

If Ponzicoin - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-ponzi-ponzicoin-825091 - is implemented, government will change hands to the people... all around the world.

The gov needs to be reduced by 95%... income tax should not exist.

I think the government would just create new laws to effectively ban people from using it or make it so absurdly difficult that no one would want to. Kind of like passing the new concealed carry law in IL.  Yeah it's legal now, but it's illegal to carry into a business with a no guns allowed sign properly posted. Since the state is strong-arming many businesses into putting up the signs against their will, they are effectively banning something they didn't want passed in the first place.  This may not be the best example, but I have no doubt our government isn't coming up with a scheme to make bitcoin use illegal or impractical.

Unfortunately I think the best we can hope for now is to dismantle it and limit it, there are too many people who still think that a government is needed.

Right, it would be a difficult task of including voters for policies vs business dominance... still has to be pursued.

dose this mean the govermont will serve the people from the old days and create reasonable taxes??

but i can choose not to pay because of freedom of speacj

quoted for future reference.

No.

Gov. change to the people request.


not like now ... gov. react to the business request (and not to the people).
It's calling : lobbying.

when it goes mainstream after a few years will the government start getting weaker now that people will they start to lose control over time?