10 ms·

Broad solution to all this is building your lives in business in a way government can have a minimal control of. Just do what it requires and keep everything el

Broad solution to all this is building your lives in business in a way government can have a minimal control of. Just do what it requires and keep everything else encrypted and anonymized. And don't rely on government for anything, for we are heading for a world of global government failure: people and institutions are going to ignore and circumvent them all, and make them dysfunctional. In a way, that will be like communism: there is little government can be of help nowadays, and it is more and more becoming a nuisance.

pron 13y ago
Don't rely on government for anything? What are you talking about? Almost 100% of scientific research and 100% of infrastructure around the world is funded by government. Almost all of education, health and welfare around the world (though less so in the US) is run by government. A lot of people are suspicious of government, but such fundamental disdain toward and alienation from government are peculiar American (and sometimes Russian) traits.
- santosha 13y ago
  'such fundamental disdain toward and alienation from government are peculiar American' This. If you're so unshakably convinced that a government full of people you vote for every four years is never going to work in your interests, you have serious problems.
  - kenj0418 13y ago
    "full of people" being the operative phrase here. People with power tend to abuse that power. This is human nature, and this is where distrust of government comes from. People work in their own interest (however they may define that). Working in the interests of those that elect them is just a hopeful side effect of the democratic process.
  - nine_k 13y ago
    I wish you counted the officials you voted for and compared it to the number of governmental bureaucrats, agents, and other persons that are assigned, never elected, and often stay at their offices as elected officials change. The number of non-elected officials is vastly larger than the few thousand elected officials people vote for. Not that governments (and other bureaucratic bodies) never work in your interests. They always work in their own interests, and among these are self-perpetuation and grabbing more power. But as long as their other interests are aligned with yours, they could throw all their power at your cause. Should your interests diverge... well, good luck.
    - 7s 13y ago
      Many implementations of democracy have this problem, most prominent example of course the US.
    - 7s 13y ago
      Many implementations of democracy have this problem, most prominent example of course the US.
  - glenra 13y ago
    > a government full of people you vote for every four years You mean a government full of people I vote against every four years, right? I actually don't vote any more, but back when I did, the people I voted for were never the ones who won the election. (At least not at the national level. There might have been a local one, though not any I can recall offhand.) But even if my favored candidate had ever won, there are good public choice reasons to think the system as a whole would resist serving my interests ahead of its own. We have a "government by the government, for the government" - a vast barnacle feeding off the economy, trying to take as many resources as it can without killing the host.
  - randallsquared 13y ago
    I think it's rather the other way. The historical record shows that they hardly ever do what I would have preferred. One problem is that the referents for "you" and "your" don't always match during the sentence: "If you [1] are so unshakably convinced that a government full of people you [2] vote for every four years is never going to work in your [3] interests, you [4] have serious problems." 1. the person reading this 2. the majority of voters in your country, which the person reading this is only likely to be a part of about 50% of the time at best, in the US 3. the person reading this 4. the person reading this Looking at just US presidential elections, people who vote straight Republican or Democrat will have been in the majority at least some of the time, but someone voting their conscience without regard to party has a fair chance of having been in the minority most of the time. Another problem is that voting gives an individual neither control over nor responsibility for anything that the elect do. Look at all the Bush voters outraged about what happened during that administration (either Bush, actually), and all the Obama voters currently outraged about current administration activities.
    - nhaehnle 13y ago
      The thing is, for all its supposed power, government is really bad at marketing. People tend to see only what they don't like about government while simultaneously enjoying the benefits from various services that are provided by the government. As in those "get the government out of my medicare" signs that were seen in the US. (Cue the "blah blah markets can do it blah blah" responses - no, I'm sorry, but even economists disagree with you.)
      - ahallock 13y ago
        > while simultaneously enjoying the benefits from various services that are provided by the government. Using these services because there's no practical way not to is just the reality of our system. Taking a few scraps from your masters to survive does not mean you agree with your chains.
        md224 13y ago
        I'm curious, what's your ideal political arrangement? How do you propose we provide for transportation infrastructure, medical services, police, fire departments, etc? I'm not convinced that abolishment of the state is possible or even ideal, but I'm open to discussion.
- kinghajj 13y ago
  Libertarian socialism is more popular in Europe than in America, and they, too, strongly disdain governments.
  - iuguy 13y ago
    I think many in Europe have a disdain for governments because our countries have experienced tyranny up close and personal, if not experienced it directly. Many European countries have at some point in fairly recent history have had governments that have gone too far against their own people (Spain, Greece, Turkey, Italy spring to mind for example, but also to a lesser extent France, the UK, East Germany, Poland etc.). In many European countries there's been a history of oppression and a state controlled press that spouts untruths, which makes people quite skeptical and untrusting of governments. Indeed, some countries still have this or a notionally free press that's hampered through other means. There's an almost brave new world-like contrast in the US whereby having the illusion of a free press and free democracy has lead many Americans to believe they're free, even though they're supporting things that work against them collectively. I'm not bashing America, there are many free-thinking Americans (on this site especially) and there are many non-free-thinking Europeans, I'm just trying to highlight some of the differences.
- vaadu 13y ago
  All of these are taxpayer funded.
- lettergram 13y ago
  1) Most people around the world have some alienation towards their government (probably because most governments are willing to screw over/kill their citizens to maintain power if need be). 2) The United States Found Fathers pretty much all warned (and every child is taught in school) that the government should not be trusted (at least not with that much power). Its astonishing that most American's allowed their government to become so over baring. If anyone read a couple history books as a child or young adult they would understand that one of the greatest concern for many of the nations leaders was the government become tyrannical. If it is a "peculiar American" trait, it comes from the literature, ideology, and moral fortitude of the original founders of the culture/nation.
- w_t_payne 13y ago
  /sarcasm -- (to be read in the voice of Sir Humphrey Appleby) I, for one, rely on my government to perform all those vital, but tragically under-appreciated services done selflessly and at great sacrifice, and all for the public good. Our top Whitehall mandarins do so much to pre^H^H^Hdeserve their salaries. The fabulous residences for the ambassadors, senior diplomats and other political appointees -- all those social events on the diplomatic circuit -- absolutely essential for our collective well-being. The unending sole-supplier cost-plus contracts given to the private contractors with the largest revolving door -- where would the nation be without them? The quangos and consultants, lobbyists and contractors -- our newly publicly-owned financial industry - the whole system -- not to mention the only middle class that we have left -- would suffer so very terribly without the kind patronage of a friendly state to steward and protect them. /sarcasm
  - pron 13y ago
    I don't understand your point. You could probably say the same about your family. The fact that something is not working as well as it should does not mean it's not essential. I mean, would you prefer feudal lords? Because that's what we had before central government, and that's what many corporations would like. Do you want to be ruled by Google? By Walmart?
    - throwit1979 13y ago
      Do you want to be ruled by Google? By Walmart? Why is the default assumption by Statists that if the government won't rule us, corporations will? A novel concept that people may want to attempt to grasp is that there could be no rulers, and as such, there's no need to make up a fictitious "new ruler".
      - unimpressive 13y ago
        >A novel concept that people may want to attempt to grasp is that there could be no rulers It seems to me that the fastest way to evaluate this idea is to look at how an organization is propelled to statehood in the first place. If incentive structures support states, they will exist.
- anovikov 13y ago
  I just meant that in a personal way. That is: if you get into trouble, don't rely on the government to help you, for it is not too much willing to help, and pretty soon will be unable to. If you are in your 20s, no way you should hope the government will pay you pension once you grow old, for example.
  - pron 13y ago
    I see. In that case, if you're in your 20s maybe you should try to get into politics and change government so that it would work better.
    - stelonix 13y ago
      That's a nice view. What sucks is that you need money in order to get elected. And if you're not a millionaire already, chances are corporations won't be willing to lobby for someone proposing to change the status quo.
- iuguy 13y ago
  As someone who does research and builds infrastructure, it's not all government funded stuff. In fact, I'd say that governments indirectly fund a very small part of my research and none of my infrastructure.

pron 13y ago

Don't rely on government for anything? What are you talking about? Almost 100% of scientific research and 100% of infrastructure around the world is funded by government. Almost all of education, health and welfare around the world (though less so in the US) is run by government. A lot of people are suspicious of government, but such fundamental disdain toward and alienation from government are peculiar American (and sometimes Russian) traits.

santosha 13y ago
'such fundamental disdain toward and alienation from government are peculiar American' This. If you're so unshakably convinced that a government full of people you vote for every four years is never going to work in your interests, you have serious problems.
- kenj0418 13y ago
  "full of people" being the operative phrase here. People with power tend to abuse that power. This is human nature, and this is where distrust of government comes from. People work in their own interest (however they may define that). Working in the interests of those that elect them is just a hopeful side effect of the democratic process.
- nine_k 13y ago
  I wish you counted the officials you voted for and compared it to the number of governmental bureaucrats, agents, and other persons that are assigned, never elected, and often stay at their offices as elected officials change. The number of non-elected officials is vastly larger than the few thousand elected officials people vote for. Not that governments (and other bureaucratic bodies) never work in your interests. They always work in their own interests, and among these are self-perpetuation and grabbing more power. But as long as their other interests are aligned with yours, they could throw all their power at your cause. Should your interests diverge... well, good luck.
  - 7s 13y ago
    Many implementations of democracy have this problem, most prominent example of course the US.
  - 7s 13y ago
    Many implementations of democracy have this problem, most prominent example of course the US.
- glenra 13y ago
  > a government full of people you vote for every four years You mean a government full of people I vote against every four years, right? I actually don't vote any more, but back when I did, the people I voted for were never the ones who won the election. (At least not at the national level. There might have been a local one, though not any I can recall offhand.) But even if my favored candidate had ever won, there are good public choice reasons to think the system as a whole would resist serving my interests ahead of its own. We have a "government by the government, for the government" - a vast barnacle feeding off the economy, trying to take as many resources as it can without killing the host.
- randallsquared 13y ago
  I think it's rather the other way. The historical record shows that they hardly ever do what I would have preferred. One problem is that the referents for "you" and "your" don't always match during the sentence: "If you [1] are so unshakably convinced that a government full of people you [2] vote for every four years is never going to work in your [3] interests, you [4] have serious problems." 1. the person reading this 2. the majority of voters in your country, which the person reading this is only likely to be a part of about 50% of the time at best, in the US 3. the person reading this 4. the person reading this Looking at just US presidential elections, people who vote straight Republican or Democrat will have been in the majority at least some of the time, but someone voting their conscience without regard to party has a fair chance of having been in the minority most of the time. Another problem is that voting gives an individual neither control over nor responsibility for anything that the elect do. Look at all the Bush voters outraged about what happened during that administration (either Bush, actually), and all the Obama voters currently outraged about current administration activities.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    The thing is, for all its supposed power, government is really bad at marketing. People tend to see only what they don't like about government while simultaneously enjoying the benefits from various services that are provided by the government. As in those "get the government out of my medicare" signs that were seen in the US. (Cue the "blah blah markets can do it blah blah" responses - no, I'm sorry, but even economists disagree with you.)
    - ahallock 13y ago
      > while simultaneously enjoying the benefits from various services that are provided by the government. Using these services because there's no practical way not to is just the reality of our system. Taking a few scraps from your masters to survive does not mean you agree with your chains.
      - md224 13y ago
        I'm curious, what's your ideal political arrangement? How do you propose we provide for transportation infrastructure, medical services, police, fire departments, etc? I'm not convinced that abolishment of the state is possible or even ideal, but I'm open to discussion.
kinghajj 13y ago
Libertarian socialism is more popular in Europe than in America, and they, too, strongly disdain governments.
- iuguy 13y ago
  I think many in Europe have a disdain for governments because our countries have experienced tyranny up close and personal, if not experienced it directly. Many European countries have at some point in fairly recent history have had governments that have gone too far against their own people (Spain, Greece, Turkey, Italy spring to mind for example, but also to a lesser extent France, the UK, East Germany, Poland etc.). In many European countries there's been a history of oppression and a state controlled press that spouts untruths, which makes people quite skeptical and untrusting of governments. Indeed, some countries still have this or a notionally free press that's hampered through other means. There's an almost brave new world-like contrast in the US whereby having the illusion of a free press and free democracy has lead many Americans to believe they're free, even though they're supporting things that work against them collectively. I'm not bashing America, there are many free-thinking Americans (on this site especially) and there are many non-free-thinking Europeans, I'm just trying to highlight some of the differences.
vaadu 13y ago
All of these are taxpayer funded.
lettergram 13y ago
1) Most people around the world have some alienation towards their government (probably because most governments are willing to screw over/kill their citizens to maintain power if need be). 2) The United States Found Fathers pretty much all warned (and every child is taught in school) that the government should not be trusted (at least not with that much power). Its astonishing that most American's allowed their government to become so over baring. If anyone read a couple history books as a child or young adult they would understand that one of the greatest concern for many of the nations leaders was the government become tyrannical. If it is a "peculiar American" trait, it comes from the literature, ideology, and moral fortitude of the original founders of the culture/nation.
w_t_payne 13y ago
/sarcasm -- (to be read in the voice of Sir Humphrey Appleby) I, for one, rely on my government to perform all those vital, but tragically under-appreciated services done selflessly and at great sacrifice, and all for the public good. Our top Whitehall mandarins do so much to pre^H^H^Hdeserve their salaries. The fabulous residences for the ambassadors, senior diplomats and other political appointees -- all those social events on the diplomatic circuit -- absolutely essential for our collective well-being. The unending sole-supplier cost-plus contracts given to the private contractors with the largest revolving door -- where would the nation be without them? The quangos and consultants, lobbyists and contractors -- our newly publicly-owned financial industry - the whole system -- not to mention the only middle class that we have left -- would suffer so very terribly without the kind patronage of a friendly state to steward and protect them. /sarcasm
- pron 13y ago
  I don't understand your point. You could probably say the same about your family. The fact that something is not working as well as it should does not mean it's not essential. I mean, would you prefer feudal lords? Because that's what we had before central government, and that's what many corporations would like. Do you want to be ruled by Google? By Walmart?
  - throwit1979 13y ago
    Do you want to be ruled by Google? By Walmart? Why is the default assumption by Statists that if the government won't rule us, corporations will? A novel concept that people may want to attempt to grasp is that there could be no rulers, and as such, there's no need to make up a fictitious "new ruler".
    - unimpressive 13y ago
      >A novel concept that people may want to attempt to grasp is that there could be no rulers It seems to me that the fastest way to evaluate this idea is to look at how an organization is propelled to statehood in the first place. If incentive structures support states, they will exist.
anovikov 13y ago
I just meant that in a personal way. That is: if you get into trouble, don't rely on the government to help you, for it is not too much willing to help, and pretty soon will be unable to. If you are in your 20s, no way you should hope the government will pay you pension once you grow old, for example.
- pron 13y ago
  I see. In that case, if you're in your 20s maybe you should try to get into politics and change government so that it would work better.
  - stelonix 13y ago
    That's a nice view. What sucks is that you need money in order to get elected. And if you're not a millionaire already, chances are corporations won't be willing to lobby for someone proposing to change the status quo.
iuguy 13y ago
As someone who does research and builds infrastructure, it's not all government funded stuff. In fact, I'd say that governments indirectly fund a very small part of my research and none of my infrastructure.