Allow me to respond and continue with a few things.
1. I like the thoughts on the Ron Paul scenario. It's an interesting point.
2. Let's talk about the swap government for various mobs idea. You basically said they are really no different, which I agree with, by the way. So how would one be better than the other?
3. Don't you think that small government and freedom are relative? One person's idea of limited government is another person's idea of tyranny and oppression. So let me ask you, Vinnie Goomba, what specifically would you have the government actually oversee or do in your limited government scenario? Military, roads, etc. and how does the stuff you want to do get paid for? Voluntary donations, taxes?
1. Thanks!
2. The mobs - I believe this to be the fear of people who are against a no-government scenario, but I also believe it to be the worst possible case in this scenario. It may not turn out this way-- especially in a society that IS trying to progress (although I believe we're going about progress the wrong way by focusing mostly on legislation, and even worse, creation of agencies that write rules on a whim which are comprised of former industry professionals who are expected to "police" their buddies still in business). The "various forms of mob" would not have any absolute power, where currently government has claimed absolute power. If they did continue to exist, they might even keep each other in check a whole lot more than "our mob" (the government) does. At this point in the United States, it has granted itself the power to do anything really, although it hasn't necessarily always acted on it, the power is there in legal black in white. This includes the power to assassinate of US citizens, the ability to steal the wealth of the people without permission through counterfeitting, spy on them, force entry into their houses, etc... With the wrong people in power, all of these things can be carried out and can be done "legally." History has shown that really bad people do come to power, even through elections and the illusion of "choice." People should take great issue to a system that does everything it can to eliminate choice. I mean, this is America. We love competition-- think about our insatiable apetite for sports. How boring would the MLB/NBA/NFL/NHL be if they were only comprised of 2 teams? Even worse, 2 teams from the same city? That is essentially what the political party system has become. Shit, we even love to vote and vote often when we feel their is actual CHOICE involved: American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, All-Star voting in sports, Vote my baby the cutest baby on Flickr, etc... So in summary, I do not believe no government and having government to be the exact same thing, but at worst, I believe they could end up being similar in some ways if this grand experiment in voluntarism were to fail. This is what makes it worth a shot, being that this society which wants progress (unlike some others) will have to achieve it without universally-accepted coercion, and without recognition that there should is a class of people that are subject to a completely different set of rules than the rest of us. Government should not be able to do what the rest of us cannot. THAT'S equal protection under the law in full practice. I think volunatarism can be done here, with similar ideas taking root elsewhere once it takes off. Humanity is still in its infancy, really. We're just getting over slavery and ROYALTY, and still acknowledge that stuff to some extent, so I see the hesitation with this idea. But as He Still Stands said, the end goal should be self-governance.
3. Yes, government and freedom are relative. I've seen members on this forum say that freedom is having government protect us from all of the scary things out there. I think differently, since I think government tends to breed some of the "scary" things out there. I think total freedom means no government at all, but there can be a division when it comes to property rights: freedom might mean the right to own things to some, and freedom might mean that no one owns anything but themselves, really. I believe in property ownership personally. But since we have government, and will have it until we progress out of it, or it completely collapses in on itself, here's what I personally think it should be responsible for if it is going to stick around: National level - National Defense. And that's DEFENSE, not offense. It can also serve as a moderator between the states for inter-state issues. Maybe it has a place in roadwork at state borders? If not let that fall onto the states. The states responsibilities should be to let counties, cities, and municipalities govern as locally as possible with full respect for the Bill of Rights like the Federal Government. However, if people want to live in a town that is more "socialist" than another, and everyone there pretty much agrees to this, let them do it. This idea just gets much messier when it's done at a federal level. I've seen it breakdown at the dinner table in a restaurant when paying the bill: one guy gets 5 beers with his filet mignon and expects the bill to be divided up evenly among everyone there even though everyone else had burgers and soda. I'm definitely against this implementation on a national or world level-- it will have better results the more locally it is applied, and this way it doesn't force anyone to partake in this system who doesn't want to be a part of it. That's my biggest beef with people who love government: the bigger, the better. At least my system allows you to be highly governed on a local level, while I don't have to be. Their system drags ME into something that I do not wish to be a part of while they live in their version of utopia. As far as collecting taxes go, yes, they should be voluntary. If the government is somehow doing a greater job at something than the private sector, then people should feel the need to throw their money that way. The private sector that is NOT connected to obscene bailouts and safety nets lives and dies by its ability to provide quality to its customers. Government should do the same. Otherwise taxation should appear in the form of user fees and tolls for roads. If you use it, you pay for it. If you don't, you don't. If the government needs to borrow money for something, or needs a cash advance, it needs to repay these debts to the people who invested in it in anything but paper money-- namely, whatever the market has chosen as currency. However, I would much rather advocate a system where the government didn't need to borrow, and didn't undertake any projects until the funds were 100% raised before the project started.
I pretty much have no problem with many of these ideas (not all, but many). I actually think the vast majority of Americans wouldn't either.
Many of your ideas sound like commune living. It's too bad that we as a people could not handle "voluntarism". I doubt we ever will.
I don't think government in and of itself is the problem in most of these scenarios, though. The problem is that we as citizens let this stuff happen. We will always have as much freedom from government and corporate/media influence as we are capable of having, dependent upon our civility and levels of intelligence and care. Flipping a switch to "less government" would just be treating a symptom, and not a cure.
And it ain't going to get better until it gets a hell of a lot worse. We still have so much to lose as Americans.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Comments
I pretty much have no problem with many of these ideas (not all, but many). I actually think the vast majority of Americans wouldn't either.
Many of your ideas sound like commune living. It's too bad that we as a people could not handle "voluntarism". I doubt we ever will.
I don't think government in and of itself is the problem in most of these scenarios, though. The problem is that we as citizens let this stuff happen. We will always have as much freedom from government and corporate/media influence as we are capable of having, dependent upon our civility and levels of intelligence and care. Flipping a switch to "less government" would just be treating a symptom, and not a cure.
And it ain't going to get better until it gets a hell of a lot worse. We still have so much to lose as Americans.
"With our thoughts we make the world"