4 ms·

>> Trust in governments would evaporate I am unclear why anyone ever trusted government or believed government would be the avenue for resolution of this probl

>> Trust in governments would evaporate I am unclear why anyone ever trusted government or believed government would be the avenue for resolution of this problem You either understand history, or you trust government, you can not both understand history and trust government.. The second people put their trust in government was the second humanity was fucked. In the best of time Government is like fire, is a troublesome servant and a terrible master. >the purpose of a government is to keep us all safe When has that ever been the case... The purpose for government is to provide a framework for non-violent dispute resolution, and to safe guard natural rights and property), and maybe form a national defense force. Not to provide individual safety and security. >>Currency would lose its value, because it assumes that there will be a future better than the present where you might want to buy things. No fiat currency actually needs the future to look worse than today to encourage spending today and discourage saving for tomorrow. This is why fiat currency required inflation, and why deflation is feared above all else with fiat currency. You have to have spending today, you have to have people spending in multiples of what they really have in currency (i.e debt spending) and you have to have that in perpetuity. In short, Fiat Currency is a legal pozi scheme that is destined to fail at some point anyway....

brewdad 4y ago
> The purpose for government is to provide a framework for non-violent dispute resolution, and to safe guard natural rights and property), and maybe form a national defense force. Not to provide individual safety and security. Providing for national defense, non-violent dispute resolution, and protecting natural rights and property sounds an awful lot like "keeping us all safe". I'm not sure what else you think that could mean.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Well in the context of this conversation it seems to be extended to solving climate change, and in other context it extends to personal defense (i.e the belief the police are a individual protection force) or to provide services like School, healthcare, etc etc etc...
  - nostrademons 4y ago
    In very general terms, I meant that the implicit social contract is that "If you follow the rules of society, you do not have to worry that you are going to randomly die." That could be in the sense of monopolizing physical force so that roving gangs can't kill you, or it could also be in the sense of ensuring that a random natural disaster doesn't kill you or you don't starve to death. When that social contract is broken, people tend to ignore the other half of it, which is "if you follow the rules of society..." Empirically, it doesn't seem to matter whether the root cause is starvation or war or violence, the result is still civil disorder and anarchy - which usually just intensifies the survival challenges.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>I meant that the implicit social contract is that The social contract does not exist. >> That could be in the sense of monopolizing physical force so that roving gangs can't kill you, or it could also be in the sense of ensuring that a random natural disaster doesn't kill you or you don't starve to death. Here you are expanding government well beyond my definitional parameters. Government can not prevent and does not prevent either one of those. We also have plenty of examples in modern times of government failing pretty publically at those things >>When that social contract is broken, people tend to ignore the other half of it, which is "if you follow the rules of society..." Incorrect. Society stops following the rules when the rules become either too draconian or as we are seeing more recently selectively enforced to the point where the people that follow the rules are the ones being punished by government in general, and people that do not are rewarded by government either directly or indirectly which is what we are seeing to some degree today. People desire to live in a civil society because that is what is in their best interest to do normally. Civil Society is normally the best for not only survival but to thrive and enjoy life. Civil society is not created by government, nor can it be created from government violence. The break down of civil society normally comes when the government starts to protect those that are not civil

brewdad 4y ago

> The purpose for government is to provide a framework for non-violent dispute resolution, and to safe guard natural rights and property), and maybe form a national defense force. Not to provide individual safety and security. Providing for national defense, non-violent dispute resolution, and protecting natural rights and property sounds an awful lot like "keeping us all safe". I'm not sure what else you think that could mean.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Well in the context of this conversation it seems to be extended to solving climate change, and in other context it extends to personal defense (i.e the belief the police are a individual protection force) or to provide services like School, healthcare, etc etc etc...
- nostrademons 4y ago
  In very general terms, I meant that the implicit social contract is that "If you follow the rules of society, you do not have to worry that you are going to randomly die." That could be in the sense of monopolizing physical force so that roving gangs can't kill you, or it could also be in the sense of ensuring that a random natural disaster doesn't kill you or you don't starve to death. When that social contract is broken, people tend to ignore the other half of it, which is "if you follow the rules of society..." Empirically, it doesn't seem to matter whether the root cause is starvation or war or violence, the result is still civil disorder and anarchy - which usually just intensifies the survival challenges.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>I meant that the implicit social contract is that The social contract does not exist. >> That could be in the sense of monopolizing physical force so that roving gangs can't kill you, or it could also be in the sense of ensuring that a random natural disaster doesn't kill you or you don't starve to death. Here you are expanding government well beyond my definitional parameters. Government can not prevent and does not prevent either one of those. We also have plenty of examples in modern times of government failing pretty publically at those things >>When that social contract is broken, people tend to ignore the other half of it, which is "if you follow the rules of society..." Incorrect. Society stops following the rules when the rules become either too draconian or as we are seeing more recently selectively enforced to the point where the people that follow the rules are the ones being punished by government in general, and people that do not are rewarded by government either directly or indirectly which is what we are seeing to some degree today. People desire to live in a civil society because that is what is in their best interest to do normally. Civil Society is normally the best for not only survival but to thrive and enjoy life. Civil society is not created by government, nor can it be created from government violence. The break down of civil society normally comes when the government starts to protect those that are not civil