4 ms·

This is a fairly general argument for abolishing government, period, and not a specific criticism of the U.S. If anyone can unilaterally decide not to be gover

by ksdale 7y ago

This is a fairly general argument for abolishing government, period, and not a specific criticism of the U.S. If anyone can unilaterally decide not to be governed, then the government ceases to have any purpose. I think there's definitely a case to be made for allowing people to have more personal control, but what you're advocating is basically anarchy.

mirimir 7y ago
Anarchy might work. But only after the authoritarian jerks (maybe 10-20%) had been killed. Burroughs did go on about that, but maybe he was joking. I was just rereading Abercrombie's A Little Hatred, and came across this, said by Sand dan Glokta (a notorious torturer) to a young associate: > The goal of government, you see, is to load the unhappiness on to those least able to make you suffer for it.
- ksdale 7y ago
  My own personal opinion based on no data whatsoever is that you're way underestimating the number of people who would be authoritarian jerks under the right circumstances. I think the numbers are reversed, only 10-20% of people wouldn't become authoritarian jerks under any circumstances, so it's important to build systems that limit the damage that authoritarian jerks can do.
  - DubiousPusher 7y ago
    Yeah and terror has a way of making those authoritarian jerks come out of the woodwork. See the repeated variously aligned purges of the French Revolution.
anigbrowl 7y ago
That's expressly not the case, and I'm not sure why you'd lead off with such a mischaracterization of the comment you're replying to.
- djohnston 7y ago
  if revoking consent to be governed isn't anarchy, what is it?
  - crawfordcomeaux 7y ago
    A request for ad hoc processes to design a new process oriented toward better meeting needs? Example: today, I was in court to convert traffic fines to community service. I was then informed community service must be performed for a 501c.3 to be recognized by the court. Society and the government don't typically consider parenting or healing oneself physically/mentally/emotionally as something to be valued the same way as any paying job. Both take work and arebeneficial to society & the government, but people who help others accomplish those goals are currently paid/valued far more in capitalism. So, I'm starting a 501c.3 to validate time spent parenting, supporting parents, healing and supporting healing for legal community service. The board will likely be stacked with anarchists (initially) and may be required to demonstrate a willingness to operate as such. In the face of by-laws requirements, this may be tricky to codify. In any case, I see this as a way to starve the government of fines levied against people who fall into any of those categories (which can easily be met by anyone simply by hanging out with friends). Or at least I think it can apply to anyone. If I'm leaving anyone out, let's try to expand the mission to easily include them! So we starve the state together through forming a nonprofit while meeting human needs. It'd be nice if we could just say "This requirement doesn't meet my needs. Can we figure out another arrangement that doesn't require so much administrative overhead? I'm a full-time parent seeking to minimize the amount of time away from my child until I have broader solidaritous community support in my life." I can write more on this, as this idea spawned out of already-in-place thoughts on peacefully revoking consent to be governed (for Lent and for All). But first I'm going to eat, clean the living room, and meditate on the nonprofit more while my partner and child nap.
  - crawfordcomeaux 7y ago
    Also, it's totally anarchy. Temporary anarchy. I view the rigid dedication to "one governance system at all times" is a cultural artifact of static thinking. Neuroplasticity and grown mindsets are a thing. The science of learning how to learn suggest we operate in a more fluid fashion. Same for cultural evolution. Let's redesign everything from these recent perspectives instead of clinging to ancient paradigms.

by ksdale 7y ago

mirimir 7y ago

Anarchy might work. But only after the authoritarian jerks (maybe 10-20%) had been killed. Burroughs did go on about that, but maybe he was joking. I was just rereading Abercrombie's A Little Hatred, and came across this, said by Sand dan Glokta (a notorious torturer) to a young associate: > The goal of government, you see, is to load the unhappiness on to those least able to make you suffer for it.

ksdale 7y ago
My own personal opinion based on no data whatsoever is that you're way underestimating the number of people who would be authoritarian jerks under the right circumstances. I think the numbers are reversed, only 10-20% of people wouldn't become authoritarian jerks under any circumstances, so it's important to build systems that limit the damage that authoritarian jerks can do.
- DubiousPusher 7y ago
  Yeah and terror has a way of making those authoritarian jerks come out of the woodwork. See the repeated variously aligned purges of the French Revolution.

anigbrowl 7y ago

That's expressly not the case, and I'm not sure why you'd lead off with such a mischaracterization of the comment you're replying to.

djohnston 7y ago
if revoking consent to be governed isn't anarchy, what is it?
- crawfordcomeaux 7y ago
  A request for ad hoc processes to design a new process oriented toward better meeting needs? Example: today, I was in court to convert traffic fines to community service. I was then informed community service must be performed for a 501c.3 to be recognized by the court. Society and the government don't typically consider parenting or healing oneself physically/mentally/emotionally as something to be valued the same way as any paying job. Both take work and arebeneficial to society & the government, but people who help others accomplish those goals are currently paid/valued far more in capitalism. So, I'm starting a 501c.3 to validate time spent parenting, supporting parents, healing and supporting healing for legal community service. The board will likely be stacked with anarchists (initially) and may be required to demonstrate a willingness to operate as such. In the face of by-laws requirements, this may be tricky to codify. In any case, I see this as a way to starve the government of fines levied against people who fall into any of those categories (which can easily be met by anyone simply by hanging out with friends). Or at least I think it can apply to anyone. If I'm leaving anyone out, let's try to expand the mission to easily include them! So we starve the state together through forming a nonprofit while meeting human needs. It'd be nice if we could just say "This requirement doesn't meet my needs. Can we figure out another arrangement that doesn't require so much administrative overhead? I'm a full-time parent seeking to minimize the amount of time away from my child until I have broader solidaritous community support in my life." I can write more on this, as this idea spawned out of already-in-place thoughts on peacefully revoking consent to be governed (for Lent and for All). But first I'm going to eat, clean the living room, and meditate on the nonprofit more while my partner and child nap.
- crawfordcomeaux 7y ago
  Also, it's totally anarchy. Temporary anarchy. I view the rigid dedication to "one governance system at all times" is a cultural artifact of static thinking. Neuroplasticity and grown mindsets are a thing. The science of learning how to learn suggest we operate in a more fluid fashion. Same for cultural evolution. Let's redesign everything from these recent perspectives instead of clinging to ancient paradigms.