3 ms·

I was thinking more of just international lobbying, even though that sorta sucks and doesn't work (ex. Syria). We would hopefully be able to use the ICC and int

I was thinking more of just international lobbying, even though that sorta sucks and doesn't work (ex. Syria). We would hopefully be able to use the ICC and international law to help our rightful citizens. I can't think of a better solution to that yet, and there may not be one. And no, you would still be a citizen without paying taxes, but you would lose access/be restricted from all services.

joeclark77 11y ago
You ought to know that it's pretty radical to think of "government" as an entity that spends your money for you. Before the 1900s it was hardly imagined, and I think the jury is still out on whether it's an effective model. What has always been understood is what's written in the Declaration of Independence: that the purpose of government is to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. You're proposing to discard that old purpose entirely, and just focus on providing services for money. I don't think I'd call it "government", myself. Not to discourage you, just want to point out that you've got a lot of work to do to convince people that the thing you're describing is actually capable of being what you think it is.
- starshadowx2 11y ago
  I'm not American, so I actually don't know the DoI very well. I still think people need to be protected, but the world is a lot different from what it was back then. International law needs to be changed, government needs to be more digitally connected with it's citizens, and the idea of governments and nations need to be revised for the modern world. For the record, I didn't really think of this as a complete replacement for physical governments, but more of an overarching one that would protect your rights and freedoms using an international legal system while also providing services that some established governments might not be able to. This would probably be more like a global NGO with a membership I guess. Or it could be like a citizen-based lobbying group. If enough people are a part of it, voting for the rights and laws they want it could make more politicians take notice.
  - joeclark77 11y ago
    Sure, but you obviously can't "protect your rights and freedoms" without armed forces, police, and prisons. A "legal system" with no power to enforce its laws and judgments is useless. All you are left with is an organization that collects money from its citizens and then spends it for them.
    - starshadowx2 11y ago
      Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me free. They would not just go and start a war. This is what I mean by the world being different now where most regular citizens aren't scared of being jailed in a foreign country. Say you get married in a state that allows LGBT couples, and then move to one that doesn't, AFAIK your marriage is still valid and recognized. Maybe in some countries it isn't (ex. various Middle-eastern ones) but generally it is. If there was an international body that could allow you those rights and freedoms then could help use legal means to protect them. Protection doesn't only mean physical force, especially not in this age. I'm not saying I don't agree with you in some way though. There would be very little/nothing an ephemeral government could do against physical aggression, which is what I meant by my earlier statement, "I can't think of a better solution to that yet, and there may not be one."
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me free. "International legal means" -- especially in those scenarios -- is just a thin layer of formalities wrapped around the threat that your country, perhaps with assistance from its allies, will impose consequences like trade sanctions, and, if necessary, ultimately wage war if their requests are not adhered to. Sure, they could ultimately do nation-vs-nation legal action in the ICJ, but even if your nation wins, its not like the ICJ has marshals it can send in to enforce its orders. Enforcement is basically self-service. > They would not just go and start a war. No, but they would be threatening one, if only implicitly. > This is what I mean by the world being different now where most regular citizens aren't scared of being jailed in a foreign country. Lots of them, I would bet, are, they just choose not to travel to the countries they are afraid of being jailed in.

joeclark77 11y ago

You ought to know that it's pretty radical to think of "government" as an entity that spends your money for you. Before the 1900s it was hardly imagined, and I think the jury is still out on whether it's an effective model. What has always been understood is what's written in the Declaration of Independence: that the purpose of government is to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. You're proposing to discard that old purpose entirely, and just focus on providing services for money. I don't think I'd call it "government", myself. Not to discourage you, just want to point out that you've got a lot of work to do to convince people that the thing you're describing is actually capable of being what you think it is.

starshadowx2 11y ago
I'm not American, so I actually don't know the DoI very well. I still think people need to be protected, but the world is a lot different from what it was back then. International law needs to be changed, government needs to be more digitally connected with it's citizens, and the idea of governments and nations need to be revised for the modern world. For the record, I didn't really think of this as a complete replacement for physical governments, but more of an overarching one that would protect your rights and freedoms using an international legal system while also providing services that some established governments might not be able to. This would probably be more like a global NGO with a membership I guess. Or it could be like a citizen-based lobbying group. If enough people are a part of it, voting for the rights and laws they want it could make more politicians take notice.
- joeclark77 11y ago
  Sure, but you obviously can't "protect your rights and freedoms" without armed forces, police, and prisons. A "legal system" with no power to enforce its laws and judgments is useless. All you are left with is an organization that collects money from its citizens and then spends it for them.
  - starshadowx2 11y ago
    Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me free. They would not just go and start a war. This is what I mean by the world being different now where most regular citizens aren't scared of being jailed in a foreign country. Say you get married in a state that allows LGBT couples, and then move to one that doesn't, AFAIK your marriage is still valid and recognized. Maybe in some countries it isn't (ex. various Middle-eastern ones) but generally it is. If there was an international body that could allow you those rights and freedoms then could help use legal means to protect them. Protection doesn't only mean physical force, especially not in this age. I'm not saying I don't agree with you in some way though. There would be very little/nothing an ephemeral government could do against physical aggression, which is what I meant by my earlier statement, "I can't think of a better solution to that yet, and there may not be one."
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Say if I'm a Canadian citizen and I go to visit somewhere like Russia or North Korea, and get jailed for something that they just didn't like (not for a valid reason), then my country would use international legal means to get me free. "International legal means" -- especially in those scenarios -- is just a thin layer of formalities wrapped around the threat that your country, perhaps with assistance from its allies, will impose consequences like trade sanctions, and, if necessary, ultimately wage war if their requests are not adhered to. Sure, they could ultimately do nation-vs-nation legal action in the ICJ, but even if your nation wins, its not like the ICJ has marshals it can send in to enforce its orders. Enforcement is basically self-service. > They would not just go and start a war. No, but they would be threatening one, if only implicitly. > This is what I mean by the world being different now where most regular citizens aren't scared of being jailed in a foreign country. Lots of them, I would bet, are, they just choose not to travel to the countries they are afraid of being jailed in.