5 ms·

I've been pondering lately what it would mean for citizens to begin to formally reject government's authority. Unlike cheating on your taxes or speeding, this w

I've been pondering lately what it would mean for citizens to begin to formally reject government's authority. Unlike cheating on your taxes or speeding, this would be not be a self serving action and instead would be a philosophy. My main impetus for imagining this are the huge unfunded liabilities of medicare and social security. When I think of them, my first instinct is: "how can I opt out?" The Declaration of Independence states that government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed, but voter turnout is relatively low, voter approval is very low, and people don't seem to have a sense of partnership with the government. I almost think it time for a movement with two tenants: 1) federal government has lost it's moral authority to govern. 2) We do not respect government authority, but only government power. This movement would be phase one. Phase two could be either an American styled revolution or better, a non-violent Indian styled one, or something else, but preferably not decades of cynicism and decline. I believe a major thing holding this country together right now is our strong sense of justice. I've heard it said of Colombia, that the biggest threat to their country is that when someone gets murdered, families don't except the government to be able to deliver justice. We do still have that expectation.

_delirium 17y ago
A more likely phase two, I think, would be violent chaos amidst a grab for land and resources, unless some sort of alternate leadership emerges (and if that alternate leadership were broadly popular, why couldn't it just take over the existing government?). The primary immediate effect of a loss of government authority would be the dissolution of government-enforced contract and property rights. For the general concept of what it would mean for citizens to opt out of a government in the American context, though, Thoreau wrote quite a bit on the subject: http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html Anti-war groups have typically also debated some version of "how can I opt out?", though I'd say with with mixed success. They can generally find ways to avoid actually serving in the military, but avoiding paying for it or having wars be waged in your name is a lot harder.
andrewcooke 17y ago
how would you place yourself relative to the article? in particular, do you feel that you are reacting to the sense that america is becoming ungovernable, or do you think that you are part of the reason that america is becoming ungovernable?
- euroclydon 17y ago
  What totally blows me away is that the health care bill, though it will surely reduce the number of unemployed, provides for no way to pay for it. I am generally against entitlement programs, but I am greatly in favor of laws or speech or rhetoric that make sense. Single payer made sense! It would have provided a means to reduce the ranks of the uninsured and had the ability to lower costs. All these articles, like the Economist's, are just looking at passing the health care bill as a binary decision, where passing it equals progress, and holding it up equals lack of progress. Every bill these days, after it goes through the congressional meat grinder, comes out as a spineless piece of pork, and unless a magazine like the Economist (who ironically refuses to compute the economics of health care in this article), can point this out, then they, in my opinion, have lost the authority to report.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- euroclydon 17y ago
  Govern, not "rule over." Big difference there.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Govern, not "rule over." Big difference there. Fair enough, but that means that there are two questions. (1) When does anyone earn the moral authority to rule over you? (2) When does anyone earn the moral authority to govern you? Both lead to related questions - when does the US govt have said moral authority? (It's okay to answer "when folks who I like are in power.")
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
nonviolent revolution? whuh? there's never been such a thing. Salt Satyagraha produced scant progress toward dominion status or independence for India, and did not win any major concessions from the British. in the ensuing chaos Communal violence killed an estimated one million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs not to be a jerk, I just get sick of the dominant paradigm which holds that action without the threat of force has ever, in any way, significantly shaped the power structures of human civilization. you've been brought up on docility propaganda.
- euroclydon 17y ago
  Honest question here: So you're saying that Ghandi's movement was just a overemphasized size-show to a more violent revolution? What I am talking about it an idea; perhaps phase two is violent, but without phase one, it's violence without a purpose. P.S. Where are your italicized phrases sourced from?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    source is wikipedia. yes, that is what I'm saying. I don't view a religious civil war between hindus and muslims over pakistani independence to be violence with a purpose. I see all violence as purposeless. the product of ignorance that could have been avoided. I say this not as a high minded ideal, but as simple rational appraisal. violent action is rarely economical unless the aggressors are able to externalize the costs of their aggression onto some other group. support for war is often drummed up through appeals to ignorance on the part of the populace supporting the aggressors.

_delirium 17y ago

A more likely phase two, I think, would be violent chaos amidst a grab for land and resources, unless some sort of alternate leadership emerges (and if that alternate leadership were broadly popular, why couldn't it just take over the existing government?). The primary immediate effect of a loss of government authority would be the dissolution of government-enforced contract and property rights. For the general concept of what it would mean for citizens to opt out of a government in the American context, though, Thoreau wrote quite a bit on the subject: http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html Anti-war groups have typically also debated some version of "how can I opt out?", though I'd say with with mixed success. They can generally find ways to avoid actually serving in the military, but avoiding paying for it or having wars be waged in your name is a lot harder.

andrewcooke 17y ago

how would you place yourself relative to the article? in particular, do you feel that you are reacting to the sense that america is becoming ungovernable, or do you think that you are part of the reason that america is becoming ungovernable?

euroclydon 17y ago
What totally blows me away is that the health care bill, though it will surely reduce the number of unemployed, provides for no way to pay for it. I am generally against entitlement programs, but I am greatly in favor of laws or speech or rhetoric that make sense. Single payer made sense! It would have provided a means to reduce the ranks of the uninsured and had the ability to lower costs. All these articles, like the Economist's, are just looking at passing the health care bill as a binary decision, where passing it equals progress, and holding it up equals lack of progress. Every bill these days, after it goes through the congressional meat grinder, comes out as a spineless piece of pork, and unless a magazine like the Economist (who ironically refuses to compute the economics of health care in this article), can point this out, then they, in my opinion, have lost the authority to report.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

euroclydon 17y ago
Govern, not "rule over." Big difference there.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Govern, not "rule over." Big difference there. Fair enough, but that means that there are two questions. (1) When does anyone earn the moral authority to rule over you? (2) When does anyone earn the moral authority to govern you? Both lead to related questions - when does the US govt have said moral authority? (It's okay to answer "when folks who I like are in power.")

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

nonviolent revolution? whuh? there's never been such a thing. Salt Satyagraha produced scant progress toward dominion status or independence for India, and did not win any major concessions from the British. in the ensuing chaos Communal violence killed an estimated one million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs not to be a jerk, I just get sick of the dominant paradigm which holds that action without the threat of force has ever, in any way, significantly shaped the power structures of human civilization. you've been brought up on docility propaganda.

euroclydon 17y ago
Honest question here: So you're saying that Ghandi's movement was just a overemphasized size-show to a more violent revolution? What I am talking about it an idea; perhaps phase two is violent, but without phase one, it's violence without a purpose. P.S. Where are your italicized phrases sourced from?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  source is wikipedia. yes, that is what I'm saying. I don't view a religious civil war between hindus and muslims over pakistani independence to be violence with a purpose. I see all violence as purposeless. the product of ignorance that could have been avoided. I say this not as a high minded ideal, but as simple rational appraisal. violent action is rarely economical unless the aggressors are able to externalize the costs of their aggression onto some other group. support for war is often drummed up through appeals to ignorance on the part of the populace supporting the aggressors.