Bill Ryan's Mission and His Lunchbox, Sociopath du Jour, and Unicorn Urine

[Mike]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
Paint a picture for me, one with no government (and not just the utopian end, but the process by which we get there).

It's about creating decentralized networks of large and small voluntary enterprises. People with common interests enter into sovereign agreements on all things related to health, safety, education, etc.—as far removed from politics as humanly possible. If anyone is in politics, the main focus must not be on wielding political power for this or that end, but on reducing political power for the sake of abolishing ritual abuse.

Every step towards freedom from politics shifts the balance of power. Therefore, each new step must be considered and executed individually. It's impossible to follow a detailed blueprint for overcoming politics or to outline in advance every single step in a fixed form and progression. Follow the principle and proceed according to the needs of the situation. Keep the goal in mind and take pragmatic steps. Use the stars for orientation, but keep your eyes on the path before you.

An essential part of getting there is realizing that politics is ritual abuse, that using politics for any end is what keeps humanity trapped in a matrix of ritual abuse. The internal realization of this and the internal rejection of ritual abuse through politics is necessary to overcome politics. It's the realization that no one must be allowed or authorized to force their system onto others. You have some idea for how this or that could be done? Great, do it. Find people who agree and do it with them. But don't force your system or your ideas on anyone. To develop this internal conviction and to base one's actions on it is key.

I'm actually in the process of writing a whole lot more about this. I already published it in German in 2019, but the English edition will be greatly expanded. Stay tuned.

I think I would define politics as the process of maneuvering in a hierarchical structure to obtain power or influence. Something like that, roughly speaking.

And since hierarchal structures are inevitable and everywhere, so are politics. Whether it's an affinity group, a sports team, a business, family, or any kind of dynamic where people are gathering in groups, something like a hierarchal governmental structure will emerge eventually.

Decentralized networks, no matter how well intended, wouldn't be immune. Among those groups some people would reveal themselves to be better at different things (farming, teaching, building etc), and some would naturally become leaders. Those leaders would have people immediately beneath them, and those people would have others beneath them, and so on. It's just inevitable. A structure of some sort would emerge, and regardless of what you called it, it would essentially be a government.

Hierarchies are prone to corruption but you can't just get rid of them, because you'd flatten competence as a result. That's something like communism, and we all know how that ends.

I don't view it as government vs no government. I see it as a delicate balance between order and chaos ..one that always has to be tended to and rebalanced when necessary. If you're against any government at all, you'll find yourself drowning in chaos; if you're too oriented towards government to the detriment of all else, you'll have tyrannical order. There's a balance to be achieved there. The U.S. Constitution, for example, seeks to achieve this thru checks and balances. It's far from perfect but it's the best attempt there is as far as I can tell.

[Mike]

Posted by 161803398 (here)

It is the rare politician that is not bought off or blackmailed into falling in line. It drives me crazy that there are still people that think a man born into money who made a real estate business and reality show career off being self-interested, crude and deceptive would have the interest of common people in mind when doing anything.

I think nothing is more disastrous for a country than wanting to make heroes out of politicians.

Sometimes politicians are heroes. 95% of the time they're not, but it shouldn't stop us from acknowledging those who are.

[SilentFeathers]

Posted by Mike (here)
The U.S. Constitution, for example, seeks to achieve this thru checks and balances. It's far from perfect but it's the best attempt there is as far as I can tell.

We are seeing first hand what happens in a constitutional republic when those with no moral compass choose to break the rules and when the "leaders" refuse to enforce the rules, the checks and balances disappear. Society decays and turns into chaos.

A spiritually broken society will almost never find a solution until it's to late. Then it just starts from scratch all over again and ends up the same way. The great circle of life and the human story.

[Raskolnikov]

Posted by onawah (here)
I think the root problem is simply that too many people incarnating on Earth currently are not evolved enough to be self-governing and law-abiding...

That's the key point in all of this. I used to put it like this: "When people learn to govern themselves, there will be no further need of government." Doesn't the etymological breakdown of "government" translate to "control of the mind" or something similar to steering the mind? Sounds like the sole purpose of most government programs today. Minimal government, the way the American forefathers intended, is a good start, but we've really strayed, didn't remain vigilant as they warned, and now we're in the same mess they were in, worse when you think of the advancement of technology for the purposes of total control.

We've got a nice framework for a true republic of, by, and for the people, but we need a populace with a stronger moral compass and personal responsibilty, people willing to root out the rats who've taken over the ship.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Mike (here)
hey Chris, I think Bill's just saying Putin is holding all the cards at the moment; I didn't read that as a statement of support.

No, it's a statement of full support.

[christian]

Posted by Mike (here)
I think I would define politics as the process of maneuvering in a hierarchical structure to obtain power or influence. Something like that, roughly speaking.

And since hierarchal structures are inevitable and everywhere, so are politics.

Not every hierarchical structure is that of a government. The key feature of government is that it claims authority over everyone. Officially, every person on planet Earth is subject to this or that government authority. But there are many other hierarchies that people are not forced to be a part of. There's a hierarchy on this forum, but membership is voluntary. Therefore, I would define politics as the art or science of gaining, guiding, and executing government power.

Hierarchies are indeed natural and helpful. It's a universal moral motive of human civilization. According to Tage Rai and Alan Fiske, "Hierarchy is the motive to respect rank in social groups where superiors are entitled to deference and respect but must also lead, guide, direct, and protect subordinates."

To become part of a hierarchy can happen through voluntary consent or coercion. I'm not against hierarchies, I'm against forcing anyone into a hierarchy without consent. I prefer that people have the right to be left alone and not be made the means for some other person's or group's end.

I think this was perfectly articulated by Michail Bakunin in God and the State (1882):

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge, I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow—to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary—their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one […]. Otherwise I would repel them with horror and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men, because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give—such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.

I don't want chaos either. I want order. I just don't want it to be legal for anyone to impose their order by force, or to initiate coercive force against anyone in any way.

[Mike]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
hey Chris, I think Bill's just saying Putin is holding all the cards at the moment; I didn't read that as a statement of support.

No, it's a statement of full support.

Gotcha. (Note to self: never speak for anyone else on the forum)

[Mike]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
I think I would define politics as the process of maneuvering in a hierarchical structure to obtain power or influence. Something like that, roughly speaking.

And since hierarchal structures are inevitable and everywhere, so are politics.

Not every hierarchical structure is that of a government. The key feature of government is that it claims authority over everyone. Officially, every person on planet Earth is subject to this or that government authority. But there are many other hierarchies that people are not forced to be a part of. There's a hierarchy on this forum, but membership is voluntary. Therefore, I would define politics as the art or science of gaining, guiding, and executing government power.

Hierarchies are indeed natural and helpful. It's a universal moral motive of human civilization. According to Tage Rai and Alan Fiske, "Hierarchy is the motive to respect rank in social groups where superiors are entitled to deference and respect but must also lead, guide, direct, and protect subordinates."

To become part of a hierarchy can happen through voluntary consent or coercion. I'm not against hierarchies, I'm against forcing anyone into a hierarchy without consent. I prefer that people have the right to be left alone and not be made the means for some other person's or group's end.

I think this was perfectly articulated by Michail Bakunin in God and the State (1882):

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge, I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow—to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary—their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one […]. Otherwise I would repel them with horror and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men, because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give—such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.

I don't want chaos either. I want order. I just don't want it to be legal for anyone to impose their order by force, or to initiate coercive force against anyone in any way.

So I think we both agree that heirarchies (I hope this dialogue ends soon, because I'm getting sick of struggling to spell the word "hierarchies") are necessary and useful but can tilt towards corruption. But the issue for you is forced participation/subordination. I get it.

Some part of me is very sympathetic to what you're saying here. It appeals to the side of me that desires complete and total freedom. But even as I write this, another voice is reminding me that complete and total freedom (on planet earth I mean...not some utopian spiritual dream) means chaos.

On the one hand I love the idea of a world where no person or government can impose order by force. I really do. I'm tempted to raise a fist in the air and salute this type of statement! It has that kind of positive emotional valence to it. If you declared it from a podium, in front of a large crowd, it would draw raucous applause. But it's just not realistic. I mean, I could offer a million reasons why, but here in America now we have violent rioting in California; do you think riots should be allowed to thrive unimpeded? Are you against a legal authority (government) imposing order there by force? That's just one example among dozens why we need some version of a fixed, constant authority.

I think we are born into forced participation/subordination, and there's no avoiding it. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. Life is inherently a game of trade-offs and lesser of the evil scenarios. Government also provides free healthcare in some places, education, military and local law enforcement protection, regulation and protection in industry, social benefits for those in need, not to mention all the infrastructure around you. Would you be prepared to forfeit all that if a deal was offered to you, allowing you total sovereignty? You might say yes, and you might be that rare individual who could live in the woods and sustain on squirrel meat and sleep in lean to's, but most people aren't. Most people prefer civilized society, and a civilized society cannot exist without law and order, and law and order cannot exist without some kind of fixed authority. I wish I was wrong! If I am, show me the societies that thrive under your model and I'll happily update my thinking.

[christian]

Posted by Mike (here)
[H]ere in America now we have violent rioting in California; do you think riots should be allowed to thrive unimpeded? Are you against a legal authority (government) imposing order there by force? That's just one example among dozens why we need some version of a fixed, constant authority.

As soon as someone violates the property rights of others, I would volunteer to pay for someone to go and stop this. See how this can be stopped? By a police force that's financed by voluntary contributions instead of forced taxation. No problem at all.

Posted by Mike (here)
I think we are born into forced participation/subordination, and there's no avoiding it. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. Life is inherently a game of trade-offs and lesser of the evil scenarios..

It's all in the mind. I can step out of it in my mind and align my actions to what I have in my mind. Then it's up to me how many battles I wanna fight. During the lockdown era, I did avoid participation and subordination to some degree. How far you're willing to go is an individual decision you make in every moment, considering, of course, the potential consequences.

Posted by Mike (here)
Government also provides free healthcare in some places, education, military and local law enforcement protection, regulation and protection in industry, social benefits for those in need, not to mention all the infrastructure around you. Would you be prepared to forfeit all that if a deal was offered to you, allowing you total sovereignty?

Taxpayer-funded doesn't equal free. I would gladly forfeit taxpayer-funded services, so that people could instead choose for themselves what they want to pay for in terms of healthcare, education, military, etc. I think overall people would invest their money much more wisely than government does.

Posted by Mike (here)
Most people prefer civilized society, and a civilized society cannot exist without law and order, and law and order cannot exist without some kind of fixed authority.

Fixed doesn't have to mean coercive. I'd happily finance non-governmental police, courts, etc. I think almost everyone would, cause everyone wants these things. I just don't want them monopolized, taking my money by force and suppressing or not allowing competition.

Posted by Mike (here)
I wish I was wrong! If I am, show me the societies that thrive under your model and I'll happily update my thinking.

As you know, every person on Earth lives under the authority of some government. Governments don't allow competition. The model doesn't exist. The best we have are decentralized networks outside the reach of government control.

In any case, think of how a child is born into a ritual abuse network. The network tells the child that it couldn't survive without the network. The child cannot imagine life outside the network. Until it can. Some escape. For all who escape, it begins with believing that they can. Humanity is at that point with governments. We're born into this matrix of ritual abuse. But it's entirely possible to live without this matrix. In fact, it would greatly increase peace, law, and order. It begins in the mind.

[onawah]

Interviewer: Mr. Gandhi, what do you think about Western civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
—Quoted by Luigi Barzini

[Mike]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
[H]ere in America now we have violent rioting in California; do you think riots should be allowed to thrive unimpeded? Are you against a legal authority (government) imposing order there by force? That's just one example among dozens why we need some version of a fixed, constant authority.

As soon as someone violates the property rights of others, I would volunteer to pay for someone to go and stop this. See how this can be stopped? By a police force that's financed by voluntary contributions instead of forced taxation. No problem at all.

Posted by Mike (here)
I think we are born into forced participation/subordination, and there's no avoiding it. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. Life is inherently a game of trade-offs and lesser of the evil scenarios..

It's all in the mind. I can step out of it in my mind and align my actions to what I have in my mind. Then it's up to me how many battles I wanna fight. During the lockdown era, I did avoid participation and subordination to some degree. How far you're willing to go is an individual decision you make in every moment, considering, of course, the potential consequences.

Posted by Mike (here)
Government also provides free healthcare in some places, education, military and local law enforcement protection, regulation and protection in industry, social benefits for those in need, not to mention all the infrastructure around you. Would you be prepared to forfeit all that if a deal was offered to you, allowing you total sovereignty?

Taxpayer-funded doesn't equal free. I would gladly forfeit taxpayer-funded services, so that people could instead choose for themselves what they want to pay for in terms of healthcare, education, military, etc. I think overall people would invest their money much more wisely than government does.

Posted by Mike (here)
Most people prefer civilized society, and a civilized society cannot exist without law and order, and law and order cannot exist without some kind of fixed authority.

Fixed doesn't have to mean coercive. I'd happily finance non-governmental police, courts, etc. I think almost everyone would, cause everyone wants these things. I just don't want them monopolized, taking my money by force and suppressing or not allowing competition.

Posted by Mike (here)
I wish I was wrong! If I am, show me the societies that thrive under your model and I'll happily update my thinking.

As you know, every person on Earth lives under the authority of some government. Governments don't allow competition. The model doesn't exist. The best we have are decentralized networks outside the reach of government control.

In any case, think of how a child is born into a ritual abuse network. The network tells the child that it couldn't survive without the network. The child cannot imagine life outside the network. Until it can. Some escape. For all who escape, it begins with believing that they can. Humanity is at that point with governments. We're born into this matrix of ritual abuse. But it's entirely possible to live without this matrix. In fact, it would greatly increase peace, law, and order. It begins in the mind.

Yes, every person on earth lives under the authority of some form of government, but that's because over time we've learned that - while certainly not perfect - governments work. And by work I mean they adequately provide order and protection for citizens that otherwise wouldn't have it. Surely someone will arrive here and list all the past and current corrupt governments, but it won't change the fact that some form of government is required for a cohesive, ordered society. To swear off government because some bad ones have existed is like swearing off food because you've had a bad meal. I fully support the idea of a more decentralized government; that's almost always a good thing! But it's still a government.

If everyone were like you and the world were full of Chris clones, your model might work. And I mean that; you sound very sincere. But here's the thing: I have great doubts that anyone not named Chris would be lining up to volunteer for this hypothetical police force that the citizens of your hypothetical utopia would be hypothetically volunteering to pay. Ditto a military and fire department. And who would regulate industry? Who would maintain infrastructure? Who would you call when natural disasters struck? An all volunteer crew, assembling willy-nilly, operating out of the goodness of their hearts for a salary that may or may not be adequate depending upon who decided to donate that day?

The issue I have with all this, aside from it's eerie resemblance to communism, is it's all rooted in the belief that everyone is going to act nobly and honorably at all times. That's not the world we live in brother.. whether we exist in big, bloated countries or smaller decentralized networks.

[SilentFeathers]

I would bet even thousands of years ago even a small clan or tribe of hairy hunter gatherers had some form of group structure with a leader who made the final decisions or that the others looked up to and trusted. Probably the dude with the biggest club!

Even back then one of the clan occasionally broke the rules and were punished, some may of even been banished from the group and left for the saber tooth tiger to eat.

It's in our nature from the beginning of time for us to have some form of structured communities/societies with rules and punishments.

[christian]

Posted by Mike (here)
[O]ver time we've learned that - while certainly not perfect - governments work. And by work I mean they adequately provide order and protection for citizens that otherwise wouldn't have it. […] [S]ome form of government is required for a cohesive, ordered society.

History teaches me that societies without government were more prosperous and peaceful. We can see this up to medieval times. Cospaia in present-day Italy is one example. You could say it was a small community, which certainly simplified a lot of things, but it also worked well in Iceland and Ireland until some people wanted more control over the people and, for this purpose, reintroduced government.

Posted by Mike (here)
The issue I have with all this, aside from it's eerie resemblance to communism, is it's all rooted in the belief that everyone is going to act nobly and honorably at all times.

I don't believe this for a second. I believe people act on their own impulses. And even though they may to some degree be influenced by others, I think that's still way better than having a government, which is always acting in someone else's interests and forcing people to act in someone else's interests, always in favor of some privileged minority.

Communism says everyone works according to their ability and takes according to their needs. I say, people work according to their ability, their interests, and their needs, and everyone takes only what is exchanged in a consensual transaction.

Posted by Mike (here)
I have great doubts that anyone not named Chris would be lining up to volunteer for this hypothetical police force that the citizens of your hypothetical utopia would be hypothetically volunteering to pay. Ditto a military and fire department. And who would regulate industry? Who would maintain infrastructure? Who would you call when natural disasters struck? An all volunteer crew, assembling willy-nilly, operating out of the goodness of their hearts for a salary that may or may not be adequate depending upon who decided to donate that day?

The first thing everyone is concerned about when someone says "no government" is security. At the same time, everyone seems to think that no one would be willing to pay for security. I find this funny. People spend money on their priorities. Personal safety is a high priority for virtually everyone. I have no doubt people will always be willing to spend money on that.

Don't think of voluntary payments as willy-nilly donations when someone shows up with cookies at your doorstep, but regular agreed-upon payments in exchange for a written contract with a professional security service provider. I have no doubt that people want to invest in efficient security, i.e., the protection of their person, property, and (greater) community. They would not, however, invest in security agencies that harass or attack people, whether at home or abroad, not least because it would make them the target of everyone else who simply wants to live safely and not be attacked and is willing to pay for that. Therefore, security providers would become almost infinitely cheaper and more efficient without government.

Without government, all sectors of the economy are regulated directly or indirectly by the people, by the organic interplay of all of their individual and common decisions and agreements. They decide who to finance, and what types of certifications or regulations they demand or prefer in any sector of the economy. Instead of having one monopolistic government agency to regulate and certify industries, people would have to compete to offer regulations, oversight, and control that actually make sense for the people, whereas now we're forced by the government to pay for regulators that work for special interests. Special interests always use monopolistic government force to regulate industries on their behalf, because the government gives them leverage to enforce decisions for other people's lives and property. This wouldn't be the case without government. No one could force anyone to spend their money on something they don't want.

[Raskolnikov]

Thanks guys. You both make excellent arguments. Listening to you both reminds me of the great dialogues between the eminent philosophers of ancient Greece. And it’s on one of the same topics, the state. In the relentless pursuit of truth, I fall more into Christian’s camp and abhor all but the faintest whiff of a government and believe we all derive our rights from the Creator and that the sole reason for even the most limited form is only to protect these rights. George Washington, himself, said in a speech on January 7, 1790: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

I agree with you Mike when you said, “If everyone were like you and the world were full of Chris clones, your model might work.” Reminds me of a great quote from Diderot:

“There are no laws for a wise man . . . Every law has its exceptions, and it takes wisdom to decide which cases come under the rule and which are to be dealt with as exceptions.
Reply: I wouldn’t be too sorry if there were one or two fellows like you in town; but if everybody thought as you do, I’d move somewhere else!”

I’d like to think that someday these rare exceptions will be the rule and we’ll reach that critical mass. I tend to think, even though not substantiated in the records we’re allowed to see currently, that previous civilizations achieved this and lived in harmony. The magnificent “Roman” structures found all over the world allude to such a society, a society where people had the time and freedom to build even massive structures both following sacred geometry and employing the most inspiring attention to detail throughout. Something tells me these people weren't a 9 to 5, heavily taxed society that could barely make ends meet but maintained their freedom somehow and had ample time to create.

But getting off topic. Enjoying the thoughtful dialogue on the serious topic. I won’t go into all my complaints about the current government here in America as this is more of a hypothetical, theoretical, philosophical discussion about government in gereral, but I do see a striking similarity between a government which enforces a poison shot and one that forces Socrates to drink Hemlock. Interesting that the written record for the western world begins about that time. But enough of my random thoughts, back to the discussion...

[Mike]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
[O]ver time we've learned that - while certainly not perfect - governments work. And by work I mean they adequately provide order and protection for citizens that otherwise wouldn't have it. […] [S]ome form of government is required for a cohesive, ordered society.

History teaches me that societies without government were more prosperous and peaceful. We can see this up to medieval times. Cospaia in present-day Italy is one example. You could say it was a small community, which certainly simplified a lot of things, but it also worked well in Iceland and Ireland until some people wanted more control over the people and, for this purpose, reintroduced government.

Posted by Mike (here)
The issue I have with all this, aside from it's eerie resemblance to communism, is it's all rooted in the belief that everyone is going to act nobly and honorably at all times.

I don't believe this for a second. I believe people act on their own impulses. And even though they may to some degree be influenced by others, I think that's still way better than having a government, which is always acting in someone else's interests and forcing people to act in someone else's interests, always in favor of some privileged minority.

Communism says everyone works according to their ability and takes according to their needs. I say, people work according to their ability, their interests, and their needs, and everyone takes only what is exchanged in a consensual transaction.

Posted by Mike (here)
I have great doubts that anyone not named Chris would be lining up to volunteer for this hypothetical police force that the citizens of your hypothetical utopia would be hypothetically volunteering to pay. Ditto a military and fire department. And who would regulate industry? Who would maintain infrastructure? Who would you call when natural disasters struck? An all volunteer crew, assembling willy-nilly, operating out of the goodness of their hearts for a salary that may or may not be adequate depending upon who decided to donate that day?

The first thing everyone is concerned about when someone says "no government" is security. At the same time, everyone seems to think that no one would be willing to pay for security. I find this funny. People spend money on their priorities. Personal safety is a high priority for virtually everyone. I have no doubt people will always be willing to spend money on that.

Don't think of voluntary payments as willy-nilly donations when someone shows up with cookies at your doorstep, but regular agreed-upon payments in exchange for a written contract with a professional security service provider. I have no doubt that people want to invest in efficient security, i.e., the protection of their person, property, and (greater) community. They would not, however, invest in security agencies that harass or attack people, whether at home or abroad, not least because it would make them the target of everyone else who simply wants to live safely and not be attacked and is willing to pay for that. Therefore, security providers would become almost infinitely cheaper and more efficient without government.

Without government, all sectors of the economy are regulated directly or indirectly by the people, by the organic interplay of all of their individual and common decisions and agreements. They decide who to finance, and what types of certifications or regulations they demand or prefer in any sector of the economy. Instead of having one monopolistic government agency to regulate and certify industries, people would have to compete to offer regulations, oversight, and control that actually make sense for the people, whereas now we're forced by the government to pay for regulators that work for special interests. Special interests always use monopolistic government force to regulate industries on their behalf, because the government gives them leverage to enforce decisions for other people's lives and property. This wouldn't be the case without government. No one could force anyone to spend their money on something they don't want.

I think what you're describing could possibly work in very, very small communities (maybe, for a time). And if that's the whole idea, fair enough. I can envision something like this, kinda rustic and rural, centered around some very basic agriculture, among a group of earthy spartan types perhaps.

How big are these communities you're imagining, roughly? I suppose I should have asked you this first, because maybe I actually agree with you (sort of).

But the bigger something becomes, the more necessary it becomes to implement an organizing structure (government). I think what you're describing, were it applied to something even like a small American town, would still require some kind of centralized hub, otherwise there'd be no coordination between various groups and entities that require coordination to be effective and useful. That's kind of what government is really - the web connecting necessary services.

You described a system where people volunteer to finance these things (police, fire department, military, emergency services etc), but what happens when some people stop volunteering their $? Because they will, ya know. Will you force them to pay? And if not, how will you proceed? I think you began this dialogue by saying the goal was to create a community where no person or government can impose order by force. All that happens when you exchange government for private contractors is you switch up the group of people who will eventually have to impose order by force. The 'professional security provider' you speak of is there for that very reason, no?

Will there be one security provider for the entire community? Several? What happens if they clash? What will you do? Hire another security provider to clean up the mess? Without the appropriate hierarchal structures in place you will be confronted with this type of chaos. If everyone has their own special security force, you're gonna wind up with a bunch of mini militias running around, competing for power eventually. If you only have one security provider, you're gonna have something like, well, government.

What if your community is attacked by an outside force? Will you have a private military too? Without any kind of unifying hierarchy (government) who will organize such a massive endeavor? And without any authority compelling its citizens to pay taxes, how can you be sure there'll be adequate funds to train and motivate soldiers? Paying a private security entity is one thing, but a military is another matter altogether. Everyone would have to pitch in, and you would have no choice but to force order upon the uncooperative citizens who refused.

The only way to stop agents of chaos is to impose order..and there will be agents of chaos in any community, no matter how big or small; they've existed since the beginning of time and aren't going anywhere. And it's not just agents of chaos or bad people per se, it's everyday people who engage in mild to moderate law breaking like speeding, stealing, harassment, and so forth. Will you have any laws in your community? If so, how will you arrive at them? Who will decide what they are exactly? How will you deal with chronic law breakers, both petty and serious? Will you impose order or just hope things get better?

The problem with "organic interplay" is that it can all organically go to sh!t too without any kind of unifying structure (order). And those corruptible regulators and special interests you mention will exist in your model too, just a little more passive-aggressively perhaps. How will you deal with them if they keep insisting on non-cooperation?

[Michel Leclerc]

Christian, I understand and accept more or less what you are saying.

The “more or less” is related to the fact that I think we must read the creation of Brics as a line of defense against the scorched earth policy of the dying Empire and its rule-based order; scorched earth policy which I myself (and but a few others in my country of birth) understood as from the onset of the 90s when Japan and its superior industry were ruined.

Alas, alas: near the end of the 90s I was too concentrated on saving my soul to have the time to understand what was happening in Yugoslavia: the local “US proxy” role of Germany (Genscher!), the financial/economic reasons behind it, and most of all: how my and others’ love for Sufism was being misused to suspect Milosevic (who had to to die in prison before he was finally cleared of all accusations) and dismiss Serbia’s stance (and be sceptical about the stance taken by Peter Handke, whom I, as a poet and writer, should have listened to).

But the early 90s’ insight was strong enough to immediately fathom what was happening in September 2001, to be informed of the Project for the New American Century and understand how Iraq was being destroyed, and to be behind the BRussells Tribunal (how falsely the Wikipedia article narrows its scope and the role it played!). (And it was only thanks to the friendship with a Serbian trainee/coachee of mine that I finally understood the Yugoslavian tragedy – and the common sin upon every European’s shoulders for it – when she confronted me with the depleted uranium victims among the Serbian newborns.. disfigured children which I was at the same time seeing the photographs of from the Iraqi “battlefields” or rather “nature park wide concentration camps” (as Gaza is now).

(It is of no use “spinning” our sins. Fleeing to look the other way while busy “saving our souls” (as I wrote above), however primary may be its importance. Our duty to understand, as an intellectual, truth – coincides with our pledge to feel the other’s anguish and sorrow – and with our need to caress the beauty of the body. It is one thing – and that is why an artist’s, a musician’s, a dancer’s, a poet’s creativity can only be sane when they come together.)

Allow me, Christian, to reciprocate with a tentative line of criticism – which I guess you will accept. When you write “I know people from Syria and Venezuela who hate Putin for supporting tyrannical governments in these countries”, you are implying that my maybe grandiloquent referring to people from various continents looking up to the Russian president is basically anecdotal. You are right in that.

But then, can we do otherwise? Would you agree with my poor provisional conclusion – that we only have two sources that irrigate our humanity: the first: the “evidence of writ” – SCRIPTA MANET – the Project for the New American Century can not be unwritten, it is there and it has been endorsed by other texts, and the second but not the least: the words that people we know and believe have confided to us in their full humanity, that chimes with ours... anecdote for anecdote..

?

[Merkaba360]

We lived for many a millenia in igloos, teepees, huts, etc eating squirrel meat and everything else that moved., not philosophizing next to the camp fire telling tall tales and legends. I'm pretty sure we had enough of that and crave something new that actually changes more rapidly. Welcome to the aquarian age that rules tech yay !

I could have a decent life living a few decades as survivor, but the problem is that all the lovely ladies want convenience and the easy life. So they are running toward big city lights. Not to mention the older i get i dont really want to not have health insurance and state of the art hospitals. Two major reasons I've not run for the hills.

The squirrel meat never changes, but here in the big city we get another 27 flavors of potato chips and beer every few years. We crave that diversity and faster change much like life in the astral realm.

The greek philosophy debates on politics can be interesting, but I see the real potential for upgrades and stepping closer toward freedom and utopia coming from a consciousness upgrade and rapid tech advancement. Both are changing faster than ever and will plow right over these stupid government officials desires in many ways.

We desperately need a perception upgrade. I dont care if it comes suddenly to 100s of millions from reaching critical mass, or AI decoding the brain and peeling back some filters. Even if its the usual slow evolution, that has accelerated so much, i imagine 20 years from now will change our perception as much as the last 50-100 years.

Being able to better feels each others energy and intentions and lies would be huge. Wouldnt that create a separation into light and dark camps. If we can't rid this planet of dark forces, we could at least see who they are and force them to herd together in their corner of the world.

Hopefully there is a curveball coming that nobody sees and causes a big problem for the dark side decreasing their stranglehold.

Heirarchies really annoy me. Especially because all the bad actors are driven to be on top. People with insecurities that want to cover them up with power. We dont get rid of heirarchies as someone mentioned, but somehow we must evolved them more into holoarchies. And I see tech or expansion of consciousness as being the solution. Either we start perceiving our interconnectedness more as more evolve to the yellow stage of integration in spiral dynamics or the internet empowers the little people so that the bottom of the pyramid has more weight overall.

I really value privacy, but i feel that is an illusion in the end. High evolved loving beings are aware of all the ridiculous things ive done in private lol. Perhaps it will be uncomfortable but our privacy might have to dissolve more to bring more to the light and improve this mess. If the deep state (bad guys) have access to all of our data already then would it be so bad for AI to have access as well and bring more to light. Like being able to read every text message and email and watch every cctv camera. It could easily identify millions with mental illness, dark intentions, psychos, abusers, etc so we could keep them in check more. I get some of this is worrisome for the technocracy. But i feel some of what we fear in this regard will happen anyway and could turn out better then expected. And some will need to be stopped. Like billions of military drones everywhere. ugh.

[christian]

Mike, I think you're good at asking questions. You demonstrate creative thinking when brainstorming challenges that could arise without government. I believe you could greatly surprise yourself if you applied your creative thinking to think more of solutions.

Posted by Mike (here)
How big are these communities you're imagining, roughly?

Everything is possible. Communities start from two people and can be as big as the whole of humanity. It all depends on what people want to be a part of. If the whole world wants to use Bitcoin, you have a global community. You can be part of different communities at the same time. Some of them may be huge, others may be small, depending on what issue the community is concerned with and how many people want to be part of it.

Posted by Mike (here)
But the bigger something becomes, the more necessary it becomes to implement an organizing structure (government). I think what you're describing, were it applied to something even like a small American town, would still require some kind of centralized hub, otherwise there'd be no coordination between various groups and entities that require coordination to be effective and useful. That's kind of what government is really - the web connecting necessary services.

I don't understand why an organizing structure would automatically imply government. Not every organizing structure is a government. There is coordination and connection of services outside of monopolized coercion. You can also have centralization without government. Uber is centralized, but it's not forcing anyone to participate.

Posted by Mike (here)
You described a system where people volunteer to finance these things (police, fire department, military, emergency services etc), but what happens when some people stop volunteering their $? Because they will, ya know.

Why would people stop paying for a service they need and appreciate? It's like saying people have a gym membership they love, but someday they will just quit. Why? They love their Netflix subscription, but someday they will just cancel it. Why? They have an insurance that works great for them, but someday they will just terminate the contract. Why? I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. I think people will only cancel a service if they find something better or if they have no need or interest anymore.

I don't think people's need for safety will just disappear. Therefore, police, fire departments, military, emergency services, etc, will always be in demand. And even if it should happen that everything is so great and peaceful that people say we don't need emergency service providers anymore, first of all, this level of peace and harmony would be amazing. Secondly, if then problems would arise because of people's disinterest in having security providers, people would again feel a need for these services, they would demand them again. This is how all of this is regulated organically in a decentralized way without coercion.

Posted by Mike (here)
All that happens when you exchange government for private contractors is you switch up the group of people who will eventually have to impose order by force. The 'professional security provider' you speak of is there for that very reason, no?

I don't want to exchange government for anything; I want to abolish it. Governments initiate coercion. Security providers without the government's monopoly on the use of force may not do that. Without government, order is imposed by defending people against those who initiate coercion or violate the agreed-upon rules of a community.

Posted by Mike (here)
Will there be one security provider for the entire community? Several? What happens if they clash? What will you do? Hire another security provider to clean up the mess? Without the appropriate hierarchal structures in place you will be confronted with this type of chaos. If everyone has their own special security force, you're gonna wind up with a bunch of mini militias running around, competing for power eventually.

I find this funny. You're describing a problem that exists right now. We have several security providers for the human community, and they clash all the time. It's a mess. It's a bunch of militias competing for power. And people are forced to finance this madness. What you describe as a potential danger for a world without governments is the present reality for a world ruled by governments.

Without government, the precise landscape of the security industry depends on what people are willing to pay for. I would definitely want the security provider(s) of my choice not to attack other security providers, but rather cooperate with other security providers if helpful and necessary.

Posted by Mike (here)
What if your community is attacked by an outside force? Will you have a private military too? Without any kind of unifying hierarchy (government) who will organize such a massive endeavor? And without any authority compelling its citizens to pay taxes, how can you be sure there'll be adequate funds to train and motivate soldiers?

I'm willing to pay for a military to protect myself and my community against outside military threats. The size of militaries in a world without government depends on people's prioritization of their need for military protection; that's how the size of military forces would be regulated.

Posted by Mike (here)
Will you have any laws in your community? If so, how will you arrive at them? Who will decide what they are exactly? How will you deal with chronic law breakers, both petty and serious? Will you impose order or just hope things get better?

The fundamental law without government is that no one may initiate coercive force against anyone or their property. Everything else is up to the people, what they want for themselves and what communities they want to join.

Of course, from here you can ask a lot more questions about how to deal with all kinds of particular issues, but I would like to end this conversation at this point. Not because it's not interesting, quite the opposite, but because I'm working on a book in which I discuss these and other questions. In that regard, I appreciate the dialogue with you because it helps me refine my work.

Meanwhile, I would encourage you to spend more time thinking of solutions. Because only thinking of problems and resorting to government force as the solution won't cut it, I believe.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
I think we must read the creation of Brics as a line of defense against the scorched earth policy of the dying Empire and its rule-based order […].

I understand you see it that way, and many others do too. In my eyes, they're all evil empires competing for power. I wouldn't embrace Stalin as a defense against Hitler. I want to defend myself and others against all flavors of totalitarianism, whether it's the Western bloc or BRICS.

[Mike]

Chris, just to summarize...

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that whether you have government or not, whether you have one unified community or 1000 decentralized ones, someone somewhere (an authority of some sort, whether private or public) is always going to have to impose order by force in some situations..whether the agents of chaos come from within the community or outside of it. It's unavoidable.

And that's because human beings are often impulsive, unpredictable, anarchic, irrational, bitter, resentful, and jealous.. even in what appears to be a sort of utopian situation. Even in your model, people will still be scheming and cheating and seeking power over others. Maybe there would be less of these things, but it would still exist.

Good luck with the book! Let me know when it's available.. I'll be first in line to buy it

[David Trd1]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
[*]I think what does characterize the Avalon community is its profound awareness and care for the serious problems

This is the most profound element of this forum and makes it entirely unique.

The quality of discourse and members here is second to none and its been carefully built in this manner. Love it.