There is a lot to like in this video but let me posit this to you:
Firstly,
Identifying a problem is one step of the multi step process required to improve any situation.
Yes , you have pointed legitimate misuse of authority ( mostly in USA) context in your video.
Secondly , the fact still remains :
There are good governments and bad governments ( it's all relative) , there are governments that are better at certain things but flawed on others ( just take healthcare for example).
Thirdly,
Stating objection that we have to pay taxes doesn't come close to solving the issues , unfortunately any improvement requires years of protest and public awareness.
Atleast a democracy provides (albeit flawed) such an avenue.
Lastly,
Calling for voluntarism and abolishing of state is highly impractical , IMHO.
Humans have always arranged themselves in tribes and tribes ( call it state/religion/whatever) are not going to go away even if their existence comes with it's own set of issues.
On a concluding note:
It is quite possible that if/when crypto takes over and US dollar hegemony is broken we end up with a bunch of imperialist tribal leaders ( aka BTC whales) , as we have experienced all through out the human history.
With an added bonus of not having any rights ( voting ??) to influence the behavior of the so called liberators - you must observe behavior of STEEM Whales to get a taste of the same.
TLDR :
Since the current govt system has its legit issues the next logical step shouldn't be looking to abolish the govt rather it should be to participate and improve the system.
IMHO
It isn't broken. It's doing exactly what it was designed to do.
And what alternative , in the history of mankind, has been more productive ?
If productivity is your metric for human happiness and progress, then I'm guessing its all been downhill since they freed the slaves.
Productivity , one amongst many is certainly a criteria.
Technically speaking, slavery wasn't the most productive either.
The broader point is laid out in the initial detailed response.
I agree and disagree lol so let’s begin I love in a socialist government I’ve lived under a government where we literally had no rights so I know first hand how shit it can get, it’s still pretty shit now with greed and corruption literally leaving us with no water and electricity but we have “freedom” which is great but I pay for that freedom opted in at birth
I agree that just because you can point out something is wrong doesn’t mean much, cool you provide information and points for people to consider but if we don’t offer alternatives what’s the point?
The issue here is too much power corrupts but how do we limit the scope of power and how would we enforce it? People have so Long outsourced their thinking and livelyhood to governments here’s my vote and my tax money give me a better life, most people suckling at the teet it’s a marketing marvel I have to say since you have a few people keeping everyone in check it’s actually insanely brilliant that they keep it going
I agree we will always be tribal and just abolishing government and shutting it down would be worse than what we have now, humans need these power structures to feel they are being looked after, well most are! We’ve been made to believe that there’s no other way
I kind of thought that if we just had local government where representatives are selected by the people of a certain area and they just work autonomously it may still be a viable option! Scaling this thing to look after millions or billions with a few at the wheel doesn’t seem like it’s feasible
Posted using Partiko iOS
Mostly agree...
Nah, all government is fundamentally wrong. On a practical level, the best you can say, is it's a necessary evil.
Overall I disagree, we don't need them to survive or live happy. There are places with no government where this exists. Not many, of course.
There are? I'd be super curious to learn more about government-free locations...
Michoacan.
Not the video I was looking for. I think Luke Rudkowski has more a documentary-style one where he goes around the town and talks to locals.
There are others that are like communes in the US, but this is more of a traditional town.
It is a necessary evil ...
Yes? What do you need the evil for?
OK, at least we agree somewhat fundamentally. Saying that it is necessary or unnecessary on a pragmatic level is tough because that requires reading the future. I don't trust academia-sponsored history. And even if you argue that there is plenty of truth to go on, technology, culture, and civilizations change by problem solving.
I think it's pessimistic, in the end, about humans, that we need to be controlled and coerced by violence in order to live peaceful happy lives.
The problem, in most cases I've witnessed is not that "we don't know how to manage ourselves without a government authority" but that the government becomes the opponent, interferes, coerces, causes violence, and does generally anything they can when people renounce government rule and do without.
In my understanding a state is sovereign that forms at some point and then evolves /devolves into what it becomes.
or we have had kings/queens as supreme leaders.
Sure, there is plenty of evidence that it's just the beginning of a new government.
But if people understand that they might just be building another government, and want to avoid it, why can't solutions be developed an applied? Blockchain is far from perfect, but it's an attempt. The problem being the Byzantine General problem. What happens if we completely solve that, for all practical intents and purposes?
I see government, here, as a problem just needing to be solved. We should at least attempt to work toward it because I think everyone is, in their purest form, an anarchist(meaning rules but no ruler in this context)
Why would you want someone else in charge of you? No one does unless they think it's a necessary evil.
I narrow the world down to those who want to control others and those who do not. I do not. It is very frustrating to me too that so many seemingly intelligent people cannot understand even the basic principles being discussed.
A good example is the difference between rules and rulers as you pointed out, and another is how government is not the same as governance. Our objective is not chaos either. It is individual liberty. Sadly though, the vast majority of people around us don't want the individual responsibility that is required to have individual liberty.
Government implies a ruling class, so again, as you wrote, there's no such thing as good government. It isn't a necessary evil either. It's just evil. Controlling people against their wishes and subjecting them to a double standard under the law will always be evil.
It doesn't matter what reasons people have for doing it too. It's still evil. Either you want to control other people or you do not. That's really how simple it is. I don't need to control other people and don't want other people controlling other people either.
They say it is impossible, but look at any crowded place like an amusement park. All of those people are interacting peacefully and voluntarily naturally. It is the natural state of 99% of humanity. Then you have a small minority of predators.
Those predators love governments, for it gives them the perfect place to work.
I agree with the sentiments. I am also someone who doesn't want to control others. There's moral problems with it, obviously.
I see a pragmatic problem too though. Liberty requires a sort of leap of faith or understanding. It takes courage to embrace. You have to essentially believe that it works.
I think this is where most people stop.
"If there's no government then who will take care of us!"
They think all their neighbors are going to turn into rabid thugs.
I think it's more likely that those neighbors share the same fear and band together to help each other out.
If noone is in charge of anyone , how are we doing conflict resolution ? are we going back to mexican standoffs and the sharpest shooter is always correct.
To conclude , once such an alternative solution emerges , I am open to giving a fair ( and skeptical) look but as of now , my understanding is that some form of rules need to be in place for modern society to exist.
With difficult moral situations, I tend to separate survival from morality. They aren't always separable, but it helps me to make sense of my own compulsions.
The sharpest sharp shooter wins the argument for survival, because it's pretty black and white, no philosophy needed. The survivor survives.
Morally speaking, was the sharpest sharp shooter defending his family from violent self-serving thugs? Then he's right on both accounts. I think it's a better solution than abiding by thugs who declared themselves the presiding authority.
I don't think society improves by designating better quality authorities. I think society improves by each individual improving himself.