Who should lead? Who should vote?

[Jerrylynnb]

Who should lead? Who should vote?

My fundamental tenant is that democracy (where every person above a certain age can vote) is probably the worst form of government of all, or, at least, amongst the worst.

Setting the requirements for voting is actually much more complicated than taking the simple approach and letting all but the obvious irresponsibles enjoy the right to vote. That will guarantee the emergence, growth, and final take-over of silver-tongued charlatans and con-artists who will beguile the general (and unsophisticated) public into voting for their captive politicians who will serve the interests of these greedy players and not the nation as a whole.

Much better would be for there to be an "elect" cadre of elites who are charged with the responsibility of seeking out, and appointing, leaders who will truly lead in the best interest of the nation, disregarding private greed and special interests. I don't know how to set that up, nor do I have any historical studies as to how that has actually been accomplished for more than one generation. But letting the easily-fooled public watch TV, then go vote according to something they saw on TV, is obviously not the answer.

That got us the slew of politicians that have gotten us into the mess we are in now, and, promises to give us the likes of Hillary or who knows which other sold-out politician is waiting in the wings.

Surely there are wise students of history on this website who can cite successful nations (in the past) that figured out a reasonable way to get good leadership consistently through several generations.

Give.

[madfranks]

Why do we need "an "elect" cadre of elites who are charged with the responsibility of seeking out, and appointing, leaders who will truly lead in the best interest of the nation"? The best interest of the nation, according to whom? The elites?

[iOWNme]

Who should lead? Who should vote?

Nobody. Because nobody has the moral right to run my life. PERIOD. Just as i do not have the moral right to run anyone else life (sometimes called voting)

Let me ask you this: Who do YOU think should be in charge of YOU?



My fundamental tenant is that democracy (where every person above a certain age can vote) is probably the worst form of government of all, or, at least, amongst the worst.

You are correct. The reason it is far worse is because it gives the slaves the illusion that they are in control. They are not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk



Setting the requirements for voting is actually much more complicated than taking the simple approach and letting all but the obvious irresponsibles enjoy the right to vote. That will guarantee the emergence, growth, and final take-over of silver-tongued charlatans and con-artists who will beguile the general (and unsophisticated) public into voting for their captive politicians who will serve the interests of these greedy players and not the nation as a whole.

There is no 'system' that will guarantee anything. And every system ever created has always lead to the same old authoritarian civics garbage. Individual self ownership is what exists in reality. There is only one species of man on this planet, and they all have the same rights.



Much better would be for there to be an "elect" cadre of elites who are charged with the responsibility of seeking out, and appointing, leaders who will truly lead in the best interest of the nation, disregarding private greed and special interests. I don't know how to set that up, nor do I have any historical studies as to how that has actually been accomplished for more than one generation. But letting the easily-fooled public watch TV, then go vote according to something they saw on TV, is obviously not the answer.


Again, there is no 'system'. There are only individuals each doing right or doing wrong. That is all. Everything else about 'society' and 'civics' and 'voting' and 'Governmnt' are all euphemisums to disguise the true nature of these things = The initiation of violence. Confucious said "The begining of knowledge is to call things by their proper name".



That got us the slew of politicians that have gotten us into the mess we are in now, and, promises to give us the likes of Hillary or who knows which other sold-out politician is waiting in the wings.


There is no such thing as a 'politician'. There are only men doing good or men doing bad. Calling them another name doesnt change this fact. Just because people IMAGINE them to have power, doesnt make it anymore real than Santa Clause. The guns and tanks and weapons are real, the 'Authority' is not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs



Surely there are wise students of history on this website who can cite successful nations (in the past) that figured out a reasonable way to get good leadership consistently through several generations.

Give.

PLEASE watch this video, nd then tell me you think we need a 'leader'.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U

[Ares]

Mad Franks and iOwnme have laid out perfectly why governments in general are a bad idea. Voting does nothing to change it. The problem isn't voting, the problem is government. Or statism if you will. The belief that some other individual or entity knows whats best for you.

Now you may ask, well what is the answer? The answer is obvious if you take a good long look at how a system of volunteerism works. You do that every day if you purchase an item at a grocery store, or choose a mechanic to fix your car. You decided on your own to do business or not to do business with an individual or entity based on your own beliefs and standards.

No one forced you to choose grocery store A or B, just as no one forced you to choose which mechanic shop to make repairs on your automobile. So why would you delegate some of the most important decisions for your existence (i.e. Life, Liberty, and Property) to someone you don't even know? No one values your life liberty or property more than you do as you have a vested interest in them. Someone else doesn't. Oh they can take an oath, they can make promises, but its still not their life, liberty or property they are dealing with, and if you haven't noticed typically exempt themselves to protect their life liberty and property of their idiotic decisions.

It all boils down to belief. Do you have faith in yourself to make your life choices, or do you believe in the state to do it for you?

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/e1/3d/d3e13d8f93d09c1e368ac403b6222925.jpg

While you decide that question, just remember which belief has killed more people than any other religion on the planet.

[Dachsie]

"much better would be for there to be an "elect" cadre of elites"


I presume the reason you suggest a cadre of elites is that you believe will already be independently wealthy and will not be subject to bribery or other money motivations.

That is a valid idea in and of itself.

I do not believe we will have a just system ever in the future. I'm waiting for the new heavens and a new earth promised in the Old and New Testaments.

You have to have the Church keeping the reins on the souls and the actions of the rulers.

If individuals do not believe in an afterlife and the possibility of going to Heaven or Hell based on their actions in this life, I do not see much morality ever possible from them. They will just exercise one or another form of dead selfishness.

We do need to have some kind of government because with no government at all you have no order but only chaos. For every task that needs to be done for the common good of the people, you want to have the task carried out by the lowest most local, even individual, level. This is called the doctrine of subsidiarity and is an excellent guard against having big government.

What exactly "common good" is has been written about extensively but the idea is to protect human's bodies and welfare for the purpose of giving them a chance to seek and reach heaven, and this is not possible when people are barely surviving and in constant struggle for daily existence. The goal and focus of life should always be on trying to live a virtuous life and get to heaven.

Discipline, as in self discipline, is the price of freedom.

[Rubicon]

Who should lead?

Leaders who guarantee/defend homogeneity and oppose diversity/multiculturalism.

If they fail to do that, they're done.

[mick silver]

I will lead ........... you all just keep voting

[Jerrylynnb]

The video seems childish to me, and attempts to paint any idea of governing in ways that make his (Larkin Rose) arguments against governments seem logical.

He posits five reasons for government: 1) helping the poor 2) serving the common good, 3) enforcing good choices,
4) protection the innocent, and 5)
providing subsistence for government leaders.

The only possible point that should have been explored was point 4) protecting the innocent from bad dudes, but, not just a handful of bad dudes, but from sizable hordes of bandits and marauders, even armies from other nations, that will surely rape, rob, and kill anyone of us that is not protected by at least a comparable martial force.

I am not a historian, but, I have read enough of how simple people trying to live peaceful lives, creating wealth for their families, have been set upon by horrible attackers and the stories are too brutal to dwell upon. See some recent examples of whites (who lost their government) in Rhodesia and South Africa who were robbed, raped, and subjected to horrendous torture and dismemberment prior to being killed. That didn't happen when they had a government whose job it was to protect them.

There are many other examples where individuals, or families, trying to go it alone without government, are just sitting ducks, looking like plums for the picking, by outsiders who have no qualms about attacking, assaulting, and committing the most brutal and horrible crimes against these unprotected folks.

If you really think you could make it all alone (you and yours, without government), then read about the many stories from the past how such freedom-lovers fall prey to bands of masqueraders and pirates.

I don't know the answer as to how governments should be formed - that is why I asked on this board. I assumed all here were mature enough to accept that government is necessary for the protection of life and limb from the many would-be attackers running loose. I surely wasn't expecting so many responses that overlook the need for armed law enforcement and militia for the general protection against outside threats, as well as bands of outlaws within our midst always on the lookout for unprotected victims, who foolishly think they alone can be ready to ward off any attacks.

Those of you who have embraced anarchy (no government at all), you need to ask yourself whether or not you are receiving the benefit of protection (by the government) to be secure in your house? How long would it be, without police and/or militia, before you'd be surprised by an overwhelming force of thugs barging in on you and yours with very bad things in store for you?
That doesn't happen because these would-be attacker know there are police, state troopers, and a variety of lawmen who would hunt them down and probably shoot them dead as they are being captured.
You are enjoying this vital benefit, whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it. If you really think you and yours are safe without any government, go live in northern Mexico for a spell, out in the countryside, and see how long before bandidos have their way with you.

As a point of history that I do know about, wandering gangs of bandidos did actually roam around northern Mexico AND they crossed over into bordering states to wreck havoc on border dwellers. This was around the turn of the 20th century, and the big time honcho was Pancho Villa, and it took general Pershing and his modern army to chase after him, causing him to run like a scared jack-rabbit and finally be ambushed by lawmen. Without government, Villa's gangs would have just gone on without end. Look it up - I sure hope we can all accept that we need government to stand as a bulwark against banditry and piracy, AND invading armies. I live peacefully and do not feel any threats, but, I surely know that I would be a sitting duck if there were no government and lawmen standing by to hunt down any trespassing criminals.

If you can get past this fantasy of "no government", please seek an answer as to how best to select leaders to govern.

[Ares]

If you can get past this fantasy of "no government", please seek an answer as to how best to select leaders to govern.

The only fantasy is relying on a group or entity for your protection when you're perfectly able to form a community for self preservation. That's how societies started to begin with. The power structure became corrupted when they realized the amount of power they have over the population and FORCED people into "their" community.

Take Mexico for example, there was a community whose government failed them repeatedly (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/08/how-a-group-of-civilians-took-up-arms-to-fight-back-against-drug-cartels-when-the-govt-could-no-longer-protect-them/#) in regards to the cartel. They took up arms against the cartels because their own government was being bought off by the cartels. There are numerous examples through out history of governments abusing the very people they are charged with "protecting".

Thanks, but no thanks. You can keep your FANTASY of government. I'll live in the real world where I know that government is a complete fantasy and illusion. How do I know for sure? Easy, because government doesn't exist without people recognizing it. State boundaries don't exist, but only on paper. You give them far more power than they deserve. That is why you will always be a slave.

Humans can only interact with each through either force or reason. I choose reason, and you choose force. A state or government is nothing but force, so that's why I said your choice is force.

[Carl]

It all boils down to belief. Do you have faith in yourself to make your life choices, or do you believe in the state to do it for you?
.

False Dilemma or Dichotomy
A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.

In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two oppositie options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options.

[madfranks]

The only possible point that should have been explored was point 4) protecting the innocent from bad dudes, but, not just a handful of bad dudes, but from sizable hordes of bandits and marauders, even armies from other nations, that will surely rape, rob, and kill anyone of us that is not protected by at least a comparable martial force.

I am not a historian, but, I have read enough of how simple people trying to live peaceful lives, creating wealth for their families, have been set upon by horrible attackers and the stories are too brutal to dwell upon. See some recent examples of whites (who lost their government) in Rhodesia and South Africa who were robbed, raped, and subjected to horrendous torture and dismemberment prior to being killed. That didn't happen when they had a government whose job it was to protect them.

Protection and security are things that normal people want, and where there is a need, the market (if left free to do so) will provide these things. I suggest you read Murray Rothbard's book, "For a New Liberty", where he details some possible ways that defense and protection for whole cities and communities can happen, freely without coercion. One method would be through insurance companies being able to increase the scope of their protection. Say insurance company A insures two or three buildings against damage, and part of that policy is damage caused by criminal acts or attacks. Say insurance company B insures a few others, and insurance company C a few more. Soon enough you've got the majority of the city insured through various companies. Likely these insurance companies will pool their resources and in order to protect their insured, hire private security to an appropriate degree to protect against criminal trespass and invasion of the whole city. This is just one way that private industry can provide security that right now we think only the government can do.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

Also check out Robert Murphy's "Chaos Theory" for more insight. He has a whole chapter dedicated to private defense: https://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

[Carl]

...Likely these insurance companies will pool their resources and in order to protect their insured, hire private security to an appropriate degree to protect against criminal trespass and invasion of the whole city....... Unelected, selective government, for hire. What a novel idea. What could possibly go wrong....

[Ares]

False Dilemma or Dichotomy
A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.

In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two oppositie options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options.

So you're saying you're not capable of making your own decisions or working within your community for self preservation?

[Ares]

Unelected, selective government, for hire. What a novel idea. What could possibly go wrong....

It's not unelected. Because in the scenario Madfranks laid out, they aren't in the business to represent you. You pay for protection, you get protection. They don't represent you anymore than Cosco would represent you. In a truly free market you do business with whomever you choose to do business with. If you do business with Company A, and company B comes to your house to collect a bill. You would outright refuse them and tell them to get lost. If someone from the state were to come to your house saying we enacted a new tax, and by the way, you owe us $100, you would pay it wouldn't you? Even though you had no say in the new tax being implemented, and had absolutely no say in whatever illusionary service they pull out of their ass to justify the new tax.

Free market dictates that if you do not like a service a company provides you can remove yourself from them by refusing to do business with them. With government the task isn't so easy.

I honestly don't give a shit if members of county, state, federal were elected. They don't represent me any more than Walmart or Target represents me. This belief in government as a protector and guarantee of rights is absolutely sickening. The whole philosophy behind government looks similar to battered wife's syndrome. It's like the battered wife keeps telling herself, I can make him change. He's really sorry, he said he wouldn't do it again. I view the relationship I have with government like a one sided marriage. Getting married again (new government) won't change the standing any. You're still giving "elected" (read SELECTED) members control over your daily life and having FAITH that they don't abuse it.

[Carl]

....Humans can only interact with each through either force or reason. I choose reason, and you choose force...... And because you choose 'reason' you assume that no one else around you would reason that they could use force to take from you what you reasonably assumed was yours?

So you would choose to live in a world where you would be forced to spend your entire time defending what little you could accumulate simply because you believe government makes men evil and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that government is made evil by men.

[iOWNme]

The video seems childish to me, and attempts to paint any idea of governing in ways that make his (Larkin Rose) arguments against governments seem logical.

He posits five reasons for government: 1) helping the poor 2) serving the common good, 3) enforcing good choices,
4) protection the innocent, and 5)
providing subsistence for government leaders.

These are reasons most people IMAGINE they need 'Government' for. So 'exploring' these points is how other people can see how silly it is.



The only possible point that should have been explored was point 4) protecting the innocent from bad dudes, but, not just a handful of bad dudes, but from sizable hordes of bandits and marauders, even armies from other nations, that will surely rape, rob, and kill anyone of us that is not protected by at least a comparable martial force.

So 'other' bad guys might come try and boss us around and steal our money, so we need to 'elect' 'leaders' who will boss us around and steal our money in order to 'protect' us. Contradiction #1.




I am not a historian, but, I have read enough of how simple people trying to live peaceful lives, creating wealth for their families, have been set upon by horrible attackers and the stories are too brutal to dwell upon. See some recent examples of whites (who lost their government) in Rhodesia and South Africa who were robbed, raped, and subjected to horrendous torture and dismemberment prior to being killed. That didn't happen when they had a government whose job it was to protect them.


So man is a violent animal who cannot be trusted to govern himself. What species do you think should be these 'leaders' you speak of? Contradiction #2.



There are many other examples where individuals, or families, trying to go it alone without government, are just sitting ducks, looking like plums for the picking, by outsiders who have no qualms about attacking, assaulting, and committing the most brutal and horrible crimes against these unprotected folks.

What you just described is 'Government'. If you add up all of the horrors committed by individual criminals compared to the horrors committed by 'Law Enforcers' it wouldnt even be close. Contradiction #3.



If you really think you could make it all alone (you and yours, without government), then read about the many stories from the past how such freedom-lovers fall prey to bands of masqueraders and pirates.


So man cannot defend himself and make it on his own without 'Government'. What species is in this 'Government' you speak of? Contradiction #4.




I don't know the answer as to how governments should be formed - that is why I asked on this board. I assumed all here were mature enough to accept that government is necessary for the protection of life and limb from the many would-be attackers running loose. I surely wasn't expecting so many responses that overlook the need for armed law enforcement and militia for the general protection against outside threats, as well as bands of outlaws within our midst always on the lookout for unprotected victims, who foolishly think they alone can be ready to ward off any attacks.


There is no such thing as 'Government'. Can a man delegate a right he does not have as an individual? So where did this 'Government' get the right to do something that I do not have the right to do? Contradiction #5.



Those of you who have embraced anarchy (no government at all), you need to ask yourself whether or not you are receiving the benefit of protection (by the government) to be secure in your house? How long would it be, without police and/or militia, before you'd be surprised by an overwhelming force of thugs barging in on you and yours with very bad things in store for you?
That doesn't happen because these would-be attacker know there are police, state troopers, and a variety of lawmen who would hunt them down and probably shoot them dead as they are being captured.

Ummm...Are you serious? How can i be 'protected' by being threatened into compliance? Do you really IMAGINE that stealing a little bit from everyone is going to fix the world? Can i steal from you? Then how can 'Government' steal from anyone? Contradiction #6.



You are enjoying this vital benefit, whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it. If you really think you and yours are safe without any government, go live in northern Mexico for a spell, out in the countryside, and see how long before bandidos have their way with you.

Mexico? LOL The reason Mexico is a shit hole is BECAUSE of 'Government', not a lack of. Where do you think these 'Bandidos' came from? They were created by 'Government' making 'drugs' illegal. There would be no 'Bandidos' without 'Government' first restricting markets. Contradiction #7.



As a point of history that I do know about, wandering gangs of bandidos did actually roam around northern Mexico AND they crossed over into bordering states to wreck havoc on border dwellers. This was around the turn of the 20th century, and the big time honcho was Pancho Villa, and it took general Pershing and his modern army to chase after him, causing him to run like a scared jack-rabbit and finally be ambushed by lawmen. Without government, Villa's gangs would have just gone on without end. Look it up - I sure hope we can all accept that we need government to stand as a bulwark against banditry and piracy, AND invading armies. I live peacefully and do not feel any threats, but, I surely know that I would be a sitting duck if there were no government and lawmen standing by to hunt down any trespassing criminals.

Everything you describe here is a direct result of 'Government' either restricting markets to create criminals. Do you think you can change something bad (stealing) into something good (taxation) by changing the name of it? Contradiction #8.


All you have done here is point out problems that were CREATED BY 'GOVERNMENT" and then used those as the justifications as to why we need 'Government'. Contradiction #9.



If you can get past this fantasy of "no government", please seek an answer as to how best to select leaders to govern.

Since you didnt answer any questions i posted, i will ask again:

Who should be the one to tell YOU how to live YOUR life?

[iOWNme]

Unelected, selective government, for hire. What a novel idea. What could possibly go wrong....


Because 'electing' criminals to run the 'Government' has usually worked out for the better. LOL

Have individual criminals done more damage to this world or have 'Governments' enforcing 'Law' done more damage?

[iOWNme]

Unelected, selective government, for hire. What a novel idea. What could possibly go wrong....

Contradiction Carl chimes in! A thread promoting Statism wouldnt be complete without him. :)

Carl says that no man should be able to tell him how to live his life, but then says that man cannot be trusted to live his own life.

You have a contradiction soup of dry water and square chicken eggs mushing around your head.

You never answered me Carl, WHO should be the one to tell YOU how to live your life?

[Ares]

And because you choose 'reason' you assume that no one else around you would reason that they could use force to take from you what you reasonably assumed was yours?

There is nothing stopping this scenario now even with government. More often than not, it will be government taking from you by force.


So you would choose to live in a world where you would be forced to spend your entire time defending what little you could accumulate simply because you believe government makes men evil and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that government is made evil by men.

With a 5,000+ year track record of government failures, genocide and slaughter. I don't feel men have any more right to lead or be in charge of others. Government doesn't make men evil. Power does, continuing to give that power over others is the common denominator in the past 5,000 years looking at the history of government. It doesn't matter how well intentioned they began it always ends with the people on the other end of a gun.

[Carl]

So you're saying you're not capable of making your own decisions or working within your community for self preservation? So you're saying that you cannot reason beyond presenting logical fallacies as the basis for your arguments?

Humans usually create governments with laws to free themselves form living in constant fear for their lives and property, so they don't have to huddle in walled compounds, in fear that others in greater numbers will come along and take from them what they're struggling to keep.

[EE_]

So you're saying you're not capable of making your own decisions or working within your community for self preservation?

My reply to this: maybe you are capable and I am capable of making my own decisions and working with a community...it's the other people that are not capable and you can't change them.
To use your analogy "It's like the battered wife keeps telling herself, I can make him change. He's really sorry, he said he wouldn't do it again".
They aren't going to change!

I would love to hear a very clear step by step iOWNme principle laid out on how it would function in our society where we have an over-abundant amout of moralless, uneducated degenerate people.

[Ares]

So you're saying that you cannot reason beyond presenting logical fallacies as the basis for your arguments?

No that would be you. Trying to put out false dichotomy as justification for why you feel you need government. The argument is the same. You either believe in yourself to make your own decisions, or you believe in an entity to do it for you. That is hardly false dichotomy.


Humans usually create governments with laws to free themselves form living in constant fear for their lives and property, so they don't have to huddle in walled compounds, in fear that others in greater numbers will come along and take from them what they're struggling to keep.

So how can you explain our current state then where people are fearful of cops who call themselves "Law enforcement" who have a notorious track record as of late for beating, tasing, and even killing people without getting so much as a slap on the wrist because Internal Affairs ruled it as "justified use of force"?

People are struggling to keep what they have because governments steal by 2 different methods. One is inflation or the "hidden tax" and the second is through taxation. You can't honestly sit there and say with a straight face that we are better off because of government when they do every thing you listed as for reasons why they were created can you?

[Ares]

My reply to this: maybe you are capable and I am capable of making my own decisions and working with a community...it's the other people that are not capable and you can't change them.
To use your analogy "It's like the battered wife keeps telling herself, I can make him change. He's really sorry, he said he wouldn't do it again".
They aren't going to change!

No instead we give them a title and "elect" them so they can do far more damage than they could without the title of government.

[EE_]

No instead we give them a title and "elect" them so they can do far more damage than they could without the title of government.

We/I didn't give them shit. Evil people with vast resorces appointed them.
Now give me a better answer.
Let's start with our world with no government and build it from the ground up.
Take your time and we can discuss each point as we go.

[Carl]

.....I honestly don't give a shit if members of county, state, federal were elected. They don't represent me any more than Walmart or Target represents me. .....

And there, that is exactly the prevailing belief system that is responsible for the government we have today.

You don't want to take responsibility for the government that you allow to dominate your life and bitch about, yet insist you will take responsibility if it were to magically disappear.

..... You are free to believe as you wish....

[Ares]

We/I didn't give them shit. Evil people with vast resorces appointed them.
Now give me a better answer.
Let's start with our world with no government and build it from the ground up.
Take your time and we can discuss each point as we go.

Okay, fair enough. Let's say tomorrow for whatever reason people no longer want or need government.

Safety / Protection:

People already have insurance plans for their homes or automobiles. Insurance companies could also provide the protection aspect. Say armed guards to patrol streets during day and night. High end HOA's already do this and pay this through HOA fee's. There is no reason insurance companies couldn't provide it. Personal defense firms already exist and do it, but for people with a lot more money. The cost can be bared by all insurance members lowering monthly payments to an acceptable level to justify the added expense to your premium. The difference with those types of armed guards and the ones provided by the state is they have no enforcement powers. They are strictly defense or reactive force instead of proactive.

Education:

Communities can provide for their education much better than a nation state. Education had a LOT higher standards before the Department of Education was created and tried to make it a one size fits all. In a free market society, only those who have children who actually attend the school bare the cost of sending their children to school. That would eliminate the NEA right off the bat removing unwanted waste from the system. Without waste, schools become more efficient at educating children and there is nothing stopping it going completely on-line. The entire model of education needs to change to keep up with the times as well as realizing that one size absolutely does not fit all when it comes to education. The NEA stops that at every turn currently.

Fire protection against homes burning down:

Also be added to home owner insurance policies or even volunteer fire fighting.

Law / punishment of violating someones rights:

You're right in your assessment that there will ALWAYS be people who violate life, liberty and property no matter what system is in place. Set up community court systems but only with the power of enforcement on a case by case scenario and judgements are only binding in that particular case. This prevents judges legislating from the bench. Judges no longer appointed but have to go through an election process every other year with past judgements used as an indicator for performance evaluation. Judges can be removed from the bench immediately for corruption, or malfeasance. To keep local complaints fair have outside communities on a rotating basis decide on a case by case basis. Say a dispute with a new community tax or fee, you think is unfair or you never agreed to it. Have it go to an outside independent community for judgement. Both sides can plea their case and the outside independent community can make its binding decision. Appeals can be handled the same way. Each party only gets 2 appeals on none life threatening or property cases. Say John kills Jane. Jane's private insurance company starts investigating the case as they have a vested interest in getting a judgement for their now deceased client to keep their current clients satisfied with service. After finding DNA, talking with witnesses, Jane's insurance company contacts John's insurance company and tells them that they have a strong case that John killed a client. John's insurance company wanting to keep a good community image and also want to keep its clients happy arrest John under suspicions or murder. Either insurance provider would have arrest powers in cases of life liberty and property violations. Both insurance providers go to a community court to present their case for why John, is guilty or not guilty of killing Jane. Jane's insurance provides the evidence, John's insurance provides its evidence and version of events. Not too different on how its handled now, except that only cases involving murder, theft, and property related cases make it to trial.

State / Regional / National boundaries:

States can keep their current boundaries with recognition packs between the states, counties, communities etc. State A recognizes State B as an independent sovereign etc.. Disputes between the states can be handled in a similar matter. States can elect arbitrage mediators to a dispute board on a 2 year basis. They have no power to legislate or make laws. They're power is strictly limited at the state mediation level. Meaning if State A is stealing water from State B, the mediators impose a fine, and try to find a workable solution to state B's water needs. Compromise will be the game, as its in the states best interest to work with its neighbor(s), also lessons the chance of conflict if a state can bring its dispute to an independent mediator. Right now states have no way to address their disputes as they have no where to go but through the current federal court system. On the global stage people can elect members of their community to represent the the new country on the world stage. Their responsibilities will be to asses wars, conflicts, and bring them to the states to determine if we should prepare for war, and if so who will be and who will not be taking part in the conflict. The Congress will have no legislative authority over anyone. Their soul existence is to be the outside face to the collective states / country. Treaties are on a case by case basis, they can either be a collective (All states agree) treaty, or a state level treaty. Yes it may be a hassle for outside nations, but its supposed to be. Treaties are not something that should be taken lightly and states are free to join or not to join the initial treaty negotiations. Since they are binding each state will have to determine if joining makes economic sense to them.

If you have any suggestions or criticism I welcome it.

[Ares]

And there, that is exactly the prevailing belief system that is responsible for the government we have today.

You don't want to take responsibility for the government that you allow to dominate your life and bitch about, yet insist you will take responsibility if it were to magically disappear.

..... You are free to believe as you wish....

LOL HA HA HA HA. I'm supposed to compete with Exxon, Microsoft, Google, Israel on how my government represents me? Who the hell are you trying to fool here Carl?

Haven't you been paying attention? People have been trying to get their government to represent them from day 1. Yet it refuses to do so. Right after the American Revolutionary War we had the Whiskey Rebellion. Who represented the people who didn't want that tax Carl? It was the idea of Alexander Hamilton to raise money by taxing domestic spirits. He sent it to Congress who voted for it even though the people didn't want it. Yet it still passed. Sound familiar?

I'm no person of influence and I'm not naive enough to believe that my so called government represents me anymore than it represents its own self interest.

[EE_]

Okay, fair enough. Let's say tomorrow for whatever reason people no longer want or need government.

Safety / Protection:

People already have insurance plans for their homes or automobiles. Insurance companies could also provide the protection aspect. Say armed guards to patrol streets during day and night. High end HOA's already do this and pay this through HOA fee's. There is no reason insurance companies couldn't provide it. Personal defense firms already exist and do it, but for people with a lot more money. The cost can be bared by all insurance members lowering monthly payments to an acceptable level to justify the added expense to your premium. The difference with those types of armed guards and the ones provided by the state is they have no enforcement powers. They are strictly defense or reactive force instead of proactive.

Okay, in this new world where there is no government oversight, will we have to appoint or vote in a committee to police the insurance companies. Insurance companies are run by a bunch of crooks that have a primary mission to suck as much money from your pockets as possible. How will we handle the corruption inside these companies?


Education:

Communities can provide for their education much better than a nation state. Education had a LOT higher standards before the Department of Education was created and tried to make it a one size fits all. In a free market society, only those who have children who actually attend the school bare the cost of sending their children to school. That would eliminate the NEA right off the bat removing unwanted waste from the system. Without waste, schools become more efficient at educating children and there is nothing stopping it going completely on-line. The entire model of education needs to change to keep up with the times as well as realizing that one size absolutely does not fit all when it comes to education. The NEA stops that at every turn currently.

Agreed, communities can do a much better job of education. Who will handle the finances? Will we have to appoint a committee to oversee the finances and safegard against corruption?


Fire protection against homes burning down:

Also be added to home owner insurance policies or even volunteer fire fighting.

The committee will oversee this too?


Law / punishment of violating someones rights:

You're right in your assessment that there will ALWAYS be people who violate life, liberty and property no matter what system is in place. Set up community court systems but only with the power of enforcement on a case by case scenario and judgements are only binding in that particular case. This prevents judges legislating from the bench. Judges no longer appointed but have to go through an election process every other year with past judgements used as an indicator for performance evaluation. Judges can be removed from the bench immediately for corruption, or malfeasance. To keep local complaints fair have outside communities on a rotating basis decide on a case by case basis. Say a dispute with a new community tax or fee, you think is unfair or you never agreed to it. Have it go to an outside independent community for judgement. Both sides can plea their case and the outside independent community can make its binding decision. Appeals can be handled the same way. Each party only gets 2 appeals on none life threatening or property cases. Say John kills Jane. Jane's private insurance company starts investigating the case as they have a vested interest in getting a judgement for their now deceased client to keep their current clients satisfied with service. After finding DNA, talking with witnesses, Jane's insurance company contacts John's insurance company and tells them that they have a strong case that John killed a client. John's insurance company wanting to keep a good community image and also want to keep its clients happy arrest John under suspicions or murder. Either insurance provider would have arrest powers in cases of life liberty and property violations. Both insurance providers go to a community court to present their case for why John, is guilty or not guilty of killing Jane. Jane's insurance provides the evidence, John's insurance provides its evidence and version of events. Not too different on how its handled now, except that only cases involving murder, theft, and property related cases make it to trial.

So we will be appointing a new judicial system with lawyers and judges? Who will oversee them to make sure they aren't taking bribes and payoffs? More corrupt people?


State / Regional / National boundaries:

States can keep their current boundaries with recognition packs between the states, counties, communities etc. State A recognizes State B as an independent sovereign etc.. Disputes between the states can be handled in a similar matter. States can elect arbitrage mediators to a dispute board on a 2 year basis. They have no power to legislate or make laws. They're power is strictly limited at the state mediation level. Meaning if State A is stealing water from State B, the mediators impose a fine, and try to find a workable solution to state B's water needs. Compromise will be the game, as its in the states best interest to work with its neighbor(s), also lessons the chance of conflict if a state can bring its dispute to an independent mediator. Right now states have no way to address their disputes as they have no where to go but through the current federal court system. On the global stage people can elect members of their community to represent the the new country on the world stage. Their responsibilities will be to asses wars, conflicts, and bring them to the states to determine if we should prepare for war, and if so who will be and who will not be taking part in the conflict. The Congress will have no legislative authority over anyone. Their soul existence is to be the outside face to the collective states / country. Treaties are on a case by case basis, they can either be a collective (All states agree) treaty, or a state level treaty. Yes it may be a hassle for outside nations, but its supposed to be. Treaties are not something that should be taken lightly and states are free to join or not to join the initial treaty negotiations. Since they are binding each state will have to determine if joining makes economic sense to them.

Agree on state sovereignty, but we will need enforcers and someone to over see them.
Are you sure we aren't just building another corrupt government like the one we have now?


If you have any suggestions or criticism I welcome it.

In a world of money, we will always need watchers to watch the watchers. Looks like we will be appointing a lot of people.
Smooth talking people with smiling faces and firm handshakes...until you turn around and they stab you in the back for the almighty buck.

[Ares]

Okay, in this new world where there is no government oversight, will we have to appoint or vote in a committee to police the insurance companies. Insurance companies are run by a bunch of crooks that have a primary mission to suck as much money from your pockets as possible. How will we handle the corruption inside these companies?

The free market will do the policing for us. With no government approved preferential treatment, they'll have to be responsive to their clients and offer a market price for services. With a number of insurance companies, and considering how lucrative that sector is / would be. Remove government barriers of entry for insurance companies you can have companies from other states or even countries providing services. If you have company A charging 500 a month, while company B offers the same service and throws in additions like a home security system for free for a charge of 300 a month. How is Company A going to remain competitive with its pricing scheme?




Agreed, communities can do a much better job of education. Who will handle the finances? Will we have to appoint a committee to oversee the finances and safegard against corruption?

Right now school boards and superintendents do it.. Well after they get their money from the state. If they get it directly from their communities they'll have to be more open to how the money is being spent. Could have it in a bill type format. You paid X amount, and your share went to teacher salary, supplies, books etc. I think of it more like a private school situation. Where you are billed for services. They are required to be competitive with pricing as well as quality of education or they go out of business. They can oversea their own finances as there are no barriers for another school popping up If cost go up, you're always free to leave to choose another school, and that school will no longer get your money. Everything in life is a business, at least in a free market society you're free to do business with whomever you choose. If you decide to pull your kid out of school, you're money is no longer going to them. So it makes them more honest and accountable.




The committee will oversee this too?

Again the free market will.




So we will be appointing a new judicial system with lawyers and judges? Who will oversee them to make sure they aren't taking bribes and payoffs? More corrupt people?

The people themselves. You can have the entire voting process on-line to get rid of the shadow voting system. If you're going to vote, you shouldn't be ashamed to hide behind a curtain. The system itself should also be honest on who voted for whom to have it more of an accountable process. If you accept campaign money to be a judge. You're required to list who your campaign financiers are. If its not disclosed you're automatically removed (if you won) and are disqualified from ever running again.




Agree on state sovereignty, but we will need enforcers and someone to over see them.
Are you sure we aren't just building another corrupt government like the one we have now?

That one is also a difficult one and was a long debate process during the founding of this country. Franklin solved it with a grand compromise. (2 houses of congress, People and State) The mediation board would have enforcement powers at the state level. Again to enforce the fine on State B for stealing State A's water. It could impose the fine and use import / export taxes to enforce the fine if they refused to pay. But the taxes are ONLY in place to render judgement and must be lifted after the fine has been paid in full.

[Carl]

.......People have been trying to get their government to represent them from day 1....

Why do you mean by "represent"?

**In your world, who writes the laws that everyone will follow?

[Jerrylynnb]

Well, I guess I'm sorry I started this thread. I hadn't realized there was so much resentment here against any government at all. I am sure all the posters on this gold-silver board are highly intelligent and the arguments here reflect the sorry state of affairs we have fallen into by having had bad government for so long. It is enough to drive sane folks to swear off all government due to the utter helplessness we feel when government itself violates our sense of liberty.

I have no illusions as to the need for government, or, what Ares referred to as "working with your community". That is exactly what government is, on a large scale - working as a community on fundamental issues as opposed to each individual or family deciding all by themselves what they will or won't do, regardless of the consequences to their neighbors - such as dumping your waste downstream of the river you live by - makes sense for you and your family but would be disastrous for your neighbors further downstream. But, without government, the only way you could put a stop to this would be to just go in and beat the hell out of the dumpers, or just kill them and be done with that problem.

What has always perplexed me was figuring out how to select the leaders who run the government. I assumed those on this board were smarter than I am and could help showing better methods of selecting leaders. I now see that there is so much resentment here to any government at all, that, even those who could offer good suggestions refuse to do so because that would imply an acceptance of the need for a government in the first place - something that grates the wrong way with many on this board - OK, I get it. I withdraw my request.

For the record, the idea of having family patriarchs of the many families (that make up a nation) meeting to work out some method for the common defense seems rational to me, but, I really don't know how something like that would work out - it is obvious to me that the way government has become over the last few decades is definitely NOT the way to go. I don't have an answer - I fear disaster is just around the corner due to the unchecked corruption that has saturated the government.

As to the question of who can tell me how to run my life, that is a foolish question. As a child, I assumed my parents could tell me how to run my life - they did and I learned to listen to them or get spanked. As a teenager, I learned to listen to my teachers, or get expelled and face harsh discipline.
As an adult, I rarely need anyone but I do consult with doctors, lawyers, and other advisers when I feel the need for guidance in matters that I am not so sure of.

And yes, I would listen to government officials, unless I suspected they were corrupt and needed to be ignored (which is more likely than not these past few decades).

[Carl]

.......That one is also a difficult one and was a long debate process during the founding of this country. Franklin solved it with a grand compromise. (2 houses of congress, People and State) The mediation board would have enforcement powers at the state level. Again to enforce the fine on State B for stealing State A's water. It could impose the fine and use import / export taxes to enforce the fine if they refused to pay. But the taxes are ONLY in place to render judgement and must be lifted after the fine has been paid in full.

Government.

It all comes right back to government with the only difference between you and I being that, you believe that if you don't use the descriptive word "government", it won't exist as such.

[Carl]

Well, I guess I'm sorry I started this thread..... Actually I stepped in to comment on topic, but got distracted by some people's rationalizations.

People who receive compensation from government, in any form for any purpose, should be barred from voting.

The Senate should be returned to the state's legislators.

Corporations are not human beings and should not be involved in human politics, period.

That's just a few from my wish list...

[madfranks]

Everyone should take 10 minutes of their time and read chapter two of this book: https://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

[EE_]

Maybe we need to back up a couple steps before any of these good ideas can be implemented.

Who will make/control the money?
Who will remove the Federal Reserve?
Should we allow Wall Street to exist?
What should we do with all the corrupt criminals that are running things now? These people have been robbing us, killing us and screwing us over for so long they don't know any different. They are not salvagable and must be removed from society.
Maybe the people should take a couple cruise ships to Manhattan and load them up, take them to the middle of the ocean and sink them? Next stop DC, same scenario. The District of Columbia will then become part of Virginia.
Next stop to clean up the world. London, Israel and Switzerland must go.

There are many big problems to be addressed before any change can take place. If you don't remove these parasites, they will just regroup and undo anything you try to change.

I call it the "iREMOVEDthem" principle

[Ares]

Why do you mean by "represent"?

**In your world, who writes the laws that everyone will follow?

Nature does that already. It's not pretty, or fair. But we've tried the experiment of having men lead and it leads to oppression. It comes to the simple conclusion that men cannot be trusted to lead. So why have laws that favor individuals or entities for some to follow and some to exempt themselves from?

So the law if you will is to value Life, Liberty, and Property. They are supreme and without reproach. You have a right to exist and pursue your own happiness or wealth without others thinking they have a right to it.

[Ares]

Government.

It all comes right back to government with the only difference between you and I being that, you believe that if you don't use the descriptive word "government", it won't exist as such.

Not really, I spelled out pretty clearly that the mediation board only has power at the state level and are incapable of making laws. That's not government, that is an avenue to handle disputes without resulting in violence.

[Ares]

Well, I guess I'm sorry I started this thread. I hadn't realized there was so much resentment here against any government at all. I am sure all the posters on this gold-silver board are highly intelligent and the arguments here reflect the sorry state of affairs we have fallen into by having had bad government for so long. It is enough to drive sane folks to swear off all government due to the utter helplessness we feel when government itself violates our sense of liberty.

I have no illusions as to the need for government, or, what Ares referred to as "working with your community". That is exactly what government is, on a large scale - working as a community on fundamental issues as opposed to each individual or family deciding all by themselves what they will or won't do, regardless of the consequences to their neighbors - such as dumping your waste downstream of the river you live by - makes sense for you and your family but would be disastrous for your neighbors further downstream. But, without government, the only way you could put a stop to this would be to just go in and beat the hell out of the dumpers, or just kill them and be done with that problem.

What has always perplexed me was figuring out how to select the leaders who run the government. I assumed those on this board were smarter than I am and could help showing better methods of selecting leaders. I now see that there is so much resentment here to any government at all, that, even those who could offer good suggestions refuse to do so because that would imply an acceptance of the need for a government in the first place - something that grates the wrong way with many on this board - OK, I get it. I withdraw my request.

For the record, the idea of having family patriarchs of the many families (that make up a nation) meeting to work out some method for the common defense seems rational to me, but, I really don't know how something like that would work out - it is obvious to me that the way government has become over the last few decades is definitely NOT the way to go. I don't have an answer - I fear disaster is just around the corner due to the unchecked corruption that has saturated the government.

As to the question of who can tell me how to run my life, that is a foolish question. As a child, I assumed my parents could tell me how to run my life - they did and I learned to listen to them or get spanked. As a teenager, I learned to listen to my teachers, or get expelled and face harsh discipline.
As an adult, I rarely need anyone but I do consult with doctors, lawyers, and other advisers when I feel the need for guidance in matters that I am not so sure of.

And yes, I would listen to government officials, unless I suspected they were corrupt and needed to be ignored (which is more likely than not these past few decades).

It took a lot of soul searching for myself to come to the realization that government just doesn't work. The founding fathers drafted a near "perfect" government yet men were still able to corrupt it. Even the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified yet its still there as an amendment. After digging through history from Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Communism, etc. You begin to see a pattern. All started off with noble ideals, but all ended in collapse or oppression.

So the only sane thing you can do to avoid being caught in an infinite feedback loop is to step away and try something different. I don't have all the answers, I just know that what has been tried before doesn't work.

[Carl]

Nature does that already. It's not pretty, or fair. But we've tried the experiment of having men lead and it leads to oppression. It comes to the simple conclusion that men cannot be trusted to lead. So why have laws that favor individuals or entities for some to follow and some to exempt themselves from?

Government isn't supposed to be comprised of leaders that people follow. Government's sole purpose is to safeguard the environment within which we exercise our liberty and to administer laws that serve to protect our unalienable right to life, property, contract and to mediate disputes.



So the law if you will is to value Life, Liberty, and Property. They are supreme and without reproach. You have a right to exist and pursue your own happiness or wealth without others thinking they have a right to it. Yes, people naturally agree upon everything so there is absolutely no need for laws.....

[Ares]

Government isn't supposed to be comprised of leaders that people follow. Government's sole purpose is to safeguard the environment within which we exercise our liberty and to administer laws that serve to protect our unalienable right to life, property, contract and to mediate disputes.

Ideally I would most definitely agree. In practice that hasn't happened.



Yes, people naturally agree upon everything so there is absolutely no need for laws.....

Remove state coercion and people become more agreeable as they do not have a fall back or anything to protect them for making stupid decisions. Like I listed earlier, there will ALWAYS be people who will Kill, steal, and damage property. That's just the way it is, and why I recommended community judgement.. If John is convicted of killing Jane from my previous scenario it is up to the community to determine his punishment. Everything from the death penalty, or imprisonment. Imprisonment could also be different, instead of being behind bars for the rest of your existence could serve out his time doing community service under armed guard. Trash pick up, recycling, pot hole repairing, street lamp cleaning, repairing, road kill removal etc. The possibilities are endless in regard to what a free market can come up with to dish out a punishment for murder without a government determining any of it.

[Carl]

Not really, I spelled out pretty clearly that the mediation board only has power at the state level and are incapable of making laws. That's not government, that is an avenue to handle disputes without resulting in violence.Your 'mediation board' is an emotional circle jerk, which everyone will be free to ignore. It will be like everything else in your world view, people will be amiable for as long as it suites their interests. And it is beyond all logical reason to assume that people will not organize to the detriment of the life and property of others.

[Ares]

Your 'mediation board' is an emotional circle jerk, which everyone will be free to ignore. It will be like everything else in your world view, people will be amiable for as long as it suites their interests. And it is beyond all logical reason to assume that people will not organize to the detriment of the life and property of others.

You might want to look in the mirror with that assessment.

[madfranks]

I work in a handful of litigation cases here and there, and in almost every single one, the contracts state that private mediation shall be pursued in lieu of state courts. Both parties agreed at the beginning that if conflict arose, they would use an agreed upon mediation service. So it already works that way much of the time.

[madfranks]

It took a lot of soul searching for myself to come to the realization that government just doesn't work. The founding fathers drafted a near "perfect" government yet men were still able to corrupt it. Even the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified yet its still there as an amendment. After digging through history from Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Communism, etc. You begin to see a pattern. All started off with noble ideals, but all ended in collapse or oppression.

It's been said that we either have the government the constitution designed us to have, or the constitution failed. I'm pretty sure it's the latter of the two.

[Ares]

It's been said that we either have the government the constitution designed us to have, or the constitution failed. I'm pretty sure it's the latter of the two.

I agree, and there are literally no consequences for politicians to break their oath to the Constitution. Why I have a hard time going along with just making changes here and there knowing they can violate it at will now.

I work in I.T. and have done consulting work. I and the other party would use mediation if there was a disagreement. It works. It's not a government. It's a 3rd party independent of the matter at hand working to resolve a dispute.

[Rubicon]

There are only two possibilities regarding the Constitution of the United States. One is that it is working as it was intended, in which case it is a monstrosity. The other is that it was broken somewhere along the way – in which case it failed.

[iOWNme]

We/I didn't give them shit. Evil people with vast resorces appointed them.
Now give me a better answer.

I think the problem is you dont understand the answer. Its not that your not smart enough (its obvious you are) its because you have already made your mind up about Anarchy. So its not because you understand the philosophy of Anarchy and disagree with it, its because you dont like the word 'Anarchy'. This is stopping you from actually thinking about what is being said and responding emotionally.



Let's start with our world with no government and build it from the ground up.
Take your time and we can discuss each point as we go.

You STILL dont understand it. There is no such thing as 'Government'. There is only a gang of violent criminals with the IMAGINED right to rule. And if your saying lets start over without that, then i agree!

[iOWNme]

And there, that is exactly the prevailing belief system that is responsible for the government we have today.

Here comes contradiction Carl to blame the victims of State oppression. Since Ares didnt try to lessen his abuse from his Master, he deserves to be beat and whipped. Never ceases to amaze me. You make me want to vomit.


You don't want to take responsibility for the government that you allow to dominate your life and bitch about, yet insist you will take responsibility if it were to magically disappear.

..... You are free to believe as you wish....


Ares advocates for self ownership, voluntaryism, and the NAP. You advocate for a 'limited government'. Who the fuck is the irresponsible one? I see you and what your trying to do Carl......

[iOWNme]

It's been said that we either have the government the constitution designed us to have, or the constitution failed. I'm pretty sure it's the latter of the two.


You mean scribbling words on paper didnt stop bad guys from being evil?

[Carl]

..... I see you and what your trying to do Carl......

Do you really believe I would care what a neomarxist thinks?