There you go, Pat. Somalia. a.k.a. "Utopia." When will you be leaving and what will you take?

Oh, you like it better here? Hmmm..... I wonder if that has anything to do with the infrastructure and resultant economy we have here, or the protections that allow us the liberty we do have.

United States. Government included. Democracy. Unacceptable to Pat.

Somalia. Freedom. No real gubmit. Perfect.

Somalia would be fine if not for the largest terroist country on the planet causing trouble there, the US government. In fact, most of the death and destruction in Somalia over the last 50 years has everything to do with government terrorism, and almost nothing to do with how they ran their country for centuries, the clan system; much the same as Scotland. Somalia would be fine for Somali's, which I am not. Just as Scotland will become fine for Scots, and while my ancestor were Scots, that was a very long time ago. I'm not a Scot any longer, I'm a native South Carolinian. I won't be leaving, the US government will.

Quote:

Oh, you like it better here? Hmmm..... I wonder if that has anything to do with the infrastructure and resultant economy we have here, or the protections that allow us the liberty we do have.

Government provides no liberty at all, individuals do that.

Quote:

United States. Government included. Democracy. Unacceptable to Pat.

That is correct, we don't need the dangerous entity called government.

Quote:

Somalia. Freedom. No real gubmit. Perfect.

Again, most of the misery and death in Somalia is being caused by government, not by their desired form of government. While I'm sure you don't like that fact, it's still a fact.

Here's the web site that demonstrates beyond doubt how dangerous government is to humans, 20th Century Democide. Please note that war time combat deaths are NOT included in their figures. Compared to government; all the petty criminals, irresponsible corporations, and accidental death pale into insignificance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we need a government?
 

Or the kids have found a way to keep mommy and daddy fighting among themselves so they won't notice the shenanigans the kids are up to.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do we need a government?
 

You reminded me of an episode in the San Mateo area of SF Bay, CA. It seems this woman's 14 year old daughter was in her bedroom doing the "wild thing" with her 15 year old boy friend, daddy wasn't in the picture for reasons I can't recall; maybe there wasn't one beyond biological. Anyhow, mommy sees or hears the humping and groaning coming from daughters bedroom, enters and orders them to stop. Both boyfriend and daughter tell mommy where to go and what to do when she gets there, none of which would have been pleasant, some of which was anatomically impossible. Mommy is at a loss as to what to do, so she calls the police to make her daughter stop fornicating in front of her.

The cops charge both with sex with a minor, which carried the potential to have both labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, with the attendant reporting requirements and so forth. I read about it when the trial began, but lost track of the outcome, but still remember it because it demonstrates to me the dependence that has been fostered among certain people, on government. None of the service provided to mommy to rein in daugher were paid for by mommy, it was paid for by me and others, since mommy didn't work because she was raising her daughter. A nice, symetrical story, eh?

Talk about a can of worms!

But dispensing with governments should be debated because the subjugation of idealism in government, in policy making, is a travesty and a major reason why an overwhelming number of people are disillusioned with how they are governed.

I think it's fair to say that most western governments no longer represent people but corporations, although the illusion of the former, now a quaint relic of a more idealist past, is occasionally upheld with cynical -- and ineffectual -- acts of tokenism.

In the case of the U.S. government, I think the dependence on the Military Industrial Complex is intensely destructive. It's the primary reason why some Muslim fanatics want to wipe the U.S. off the map, and why Russia, China, North Korea and India possess nuclear weapons.

And it's the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. If we were to believe the revised pretext, the ’03 invasion was designed to stabilise the Middle East. But all it's done is destabilise the world by engendering cynicism and distrust.

Dispensing with governments, while an appealing, fascinating idea, and, again, one that should be debated, is ultimately fanciful, much like Gene Roddenberry's idealistic but improbable vision for the evolution of mankind.

The members of this BBS that are contributing to this heady topic should also debate the U.S. government's dependence on the Military Industrial Complex, aka the Beast.

If you removed the Beast from the equation then I think you'd find that the idea of removing the <I>government</I> from the equation would become moot.

I also think it would do a lot to restore idealism as the bedrock of American policy making, and in turn, this would restore the American people's faith in government and compell other compromised democracies to follow suit.

Voters get the gov't they deserve.

Much of the rest is social policy and that's endless bs'ing. If solutions were dynamic instead of based on the current static situation most voters wouldn't have the brains to understand the issue. Real bottom line with voters is economic policy and the politicans know this. They should have enough brains to either perform or hide it under a social policy agenda.

dd is a thinker and brought up a subject that draws the line where each of us stands.

I would have asked Does the world need the USA ?

That's better entertainment imo.

Maybe I am not imaginative enough, but the need for a national government seems pretty clear to my simple mind.

Defense.
1. Central governments have powers that local city-states cannot. For instance, deploy large militaries, conduct major wars, organize large projects, etc. Imagine South Carolina trying to support an air force, or Philadelphia an armored division.
2. The US has wealth (land, resources, financial, material, intellectual, etc). Other people would like to possess our wealth. Those other people are organized into nations with central governments. Those central governments have armed forces. Some would not have qualms about using them for conquest.
3. So, could the Chinese military project enough force to invade and occupy, say, South Carolina? Of course they could.
4. Think back to the War of Independence. The British were able to subjugate individual states and cities. To throw off the royal yoke, the states were forced by necessity to form a central government.

Economies of Scale.
1. Modern society is very complex. In the olden days, all it took for adjoining states to trade efficiently was to agree that on how many ounces to the gallon and on a standard gauge of railroad. Today, literally thousands of protocols have to be integrated, from cellular telephone frequencies to air traffic control systems to patent and trademark regulations to hazardous materials labeling etc etc.
2. How practical would it be for the localities of Duluth, Seattle, Houston, and hundreds or thousands of other towns and cities to have to sit down and agree on everything from what the 2.4GHz band gets used for to what sort of tanker car can be used to transport lethal chemicals through each town?
3. How efficient would it be for each city and town to have their own experts on microwave spectrums and hazmat/railcar safety and thousands of other subjects? Or should they each send Aunt Millie to the negotiations?
4. Sure, we could try to do it - and it would be a nightmare. Imagine not being able to call your sister two states away because the local telcos don't talk, or losing power because the electrical grids aren't connected, or changing planes five times from NY to LA.

I can think of numerous other reasons why we need central governments, but why keep typing?

City-states became obsolete when the Romans supplanted the Greeks. Small regional states were exterminated, or forced to form into nations for survival, after Europe emerged from the Dark Ages. Small nations survive today only because they have protection (e.g. Taiwan) or are fierce fighters (e.g. Israel).

It's the blunt reality, guys.

Now, if we're asking a different question - not why do we need government, but why does our government suck - the answer is even more blunt. Our government sucks because we suck. We elect them, re-elect them, contribute to their campaigns, swallow their BS, and cheer them on. Did Texas voters punish the Republicans for blatantly gerrymandering the state? No. Did California voters punish the Democrats for doing the same? No. Do US voters reward Congressmen for wasting days debating flag-burning and Terri Schiavo instead of effectively running our country? Yes. Did we re-elect a moron and his cabal of idiots to a second term? Yes. Can the average voter even tell you what the biggest items in the federal budget are, or for that matter find North Korea on a map? No. And so on.

We get the government we deserve.

The lack of a central goverment in a country has rarely, if ever, been a good thing. Look at pre-Bismarck Germany or the Warring States period of China. It has always led to more conflict and eventually a centralized government. Sort of a pay-now-or-pay-later thing. It might work better here than anywhere else because we're surrounded by great oceans. But there is a very long list of well-organized governments with militaries who would not hesitate to fill the power vacuum we left. And they'd make short work of disjointed state militias here in the US.

Without the military, and what are really plain clothed military, the FBI and the other alphabet agencies; the government would cease to exist as we know it. That means the notion of doing away with the Military Industry Complex (MIC) without eliminating all or most of government is, I'm afraid, the fanciful idea. We need to be thinking about how we're going to proceed with dismantling government, and then do it.

Nowhere have I claimed a "Gene Rodenberry'ish" TV show utopia or fairie land result, the displaced government workers alone will be a problem since many of them aren't capable of doing real jobs, but most of them are and the increases in productivity in the "real job" (aka private) sector will likely more than offset those that can't work. Of course, many will fill the need for day laborers and so forth, the minimum wage having been long gone.

The main thing is that we rid ourselves of this extremely dangerous entity, government. Then sort out what we need to do to get along when we're all safer.

Yes, the centralized state of England continually attacked Scotland, but was unsuccessful most of the time, until it simply bought out the low-land Scots, who then turned on the highlanders.

The difference, I think, is that first, we lived in a land that has most of the resources we need to live; even with those resources that have been blocked from development by the effete parasites living here. Further, speed of communications is such that we're not dependent on an easily controllable method of passing on information, essentially all of the information in all of the libraries on the planet are available in every home now, and even though government schooling has produced some really poorly educated people over the last 150 years, exponentially poorer with the passage of time and the development of Education degrees, those that wish to do so can acquire a real education for themselves now at home. I expect those that want to be educated are doing just that. Thirty years ago very few were discussing the subject of this thread, millions are now.

The news is no longer controlled by a few outlets. While there are those who still read the New York Times and watch the big three or four or five; millions don't and are getting informed faster and with a richer content on the internet. Check out the latest at http://www.digg.com/ wherein you vote for the most important stories of the day, week, and month. More views daily than the NYT online, and growing.

No place on earth in the past could do these things, that is the change that will allow us to dispense with government as we know it.

Democracies get the government they want and force it on those that don't want it. We don't need democracy, we need unanimous consent.

Quote:

Much of the rest is social policy and that's endless bs'ing. If solutions were dynamic instead of based on the current static situation most voters wouldn't have the brains to understand the issue. Real bottom line with voters is economic policy and the politicans know this. They should have enough brains to either perform or hide it under a social policy agenda.

We don't need government to solve problems, the market will do that faster, better, and at lowest cost.

Quote:

dd is a thinker and brought up a subject that draws the line where each of us stands. I would have asked Does the world need the USA ? That's better entertainment imo.

It is an irrelevant question. The extent to which the world needs Americans, not the USA, is largely determined by the market for what we have to sell, I want that to become 100% determined solely by market forces.

There were reasons for the aglomeration of smaller states into larger super-nation states, just as there are reasons for the ongoing decline of the super-nation state today. This is explained quite well in Martin van Creveld's The Rise and Decline of the State.

Further reading can be had in Richard Mayberry's "Uncle Eric" series of books which cover world history since the Roman Empire. Highly recommended, when I gave some of them to a couple of my MD colleagues they read them all and asked for more. If you want just a few try these;
1. Ancient Rome: How It Affects You Today, 2nd edition.
2. The Thousand Year War in the Mideast.
3. World War I: The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today, rev. ed..
4. World War II: The Rest of the Story & How It Affects You Today, rev. ed.
These four will take you through almost 2000 years of history from the "why did it happen that way" point of view.

My God, pat..

Take a breather!! Let your poor fingers reast!!

Pat you are out of your mind if you think this will work. Try that with even a family of six.

Doesn't matter anyway, Pat really does not believe this. He would shoot himself in the foot if he really got this "unanimous consent" wish. Pat, how are you going to get the south to secede if you get your wish? I dare say that by this reasoning the south was illegally trying to gain Independence in the Civil War. I am sure that there must have been at least one person against the south leaving the union.

No, Pat would really like for the Pat+1 to dictate to the 100%-2.

Clearly, you don't understand what Unanimous Consent means in the context of this discussion.

That means that all wishing to build expensive, and unnecessary Interstate Highways would have to pay for the construction of them, route them only on land purchased at the asking price by willing sellers, and then pay for the upkeep.

The building of a massive standing army, its' maintenance, and the ongoing medical and retirement expenditures would be funded by those wishing to do that; and not by the rest of us.

The issue of illegal aliens would be virtually non-existent since all the land on the border would be private land, trespass would be instantly prosecutable.

Those are just scratches on the surface of Gorvernment by Unanimous Consent, but that is where we need to be. We absolutely must stop government by implied or actual violence, which is government by democracy.