Layers of Government
The world around us is just so absurd, that a sane philosopher can't understand the sheer madness that it brings. It's like looking at the Aztecs torturing sacrificing people religiously, there is no way a 21 century human can rationally understand and approve that, but the same way a 21 century human does other stupid things, that an alien in a spaceship looking at us, just simply cannot understand.
One of this is phenomena the voluntary enslavement of ourselves. Humans just love to be slaves. And this applies to everyone. We love comfort, so we love if other people tell us what to do. People think that slavery is an evil thing that humans do, but if you really look close, it's actually just a part of human nature, just like eating or reproducing.
Slavery is just part of the human life, and for most of the time, people voluntarily agree to being slaves. That is just how it is. Most slaves are not created by swords, but by words or perhaps ink.
In fact humans love slavery so much, that they would die to defend their slave-masters, instead of breaking free to live their own lives as free people. Of course every intelligent rational human knows that slavery is bad and unproductive, but somehow instinctually, humans prefer slavery instead of freedom.
It takes philosophy, rational thinking, and a basic intelligence to reject slavery, and most people just simply don't have these tools.
Layers of Government
When it comes to the Global Government NWO type of events, I have observed an interesting phenomena:
- Most people don't care, or actually approve of it.
It's only us who are in these libertarian, out-of-the-box communities that realize the evils of the NWO, but if you ask a random person on the street, it is highly likely that they would agree to a Global Government.
OK, they want a Global Government and the end of all Wars. OK, that is a good goal, but is that really what will happen when it gets established?
What is a Global Government?
Well first of all a Global Government, is not a 1 World Government. It's just the cherry on the top of the cake, or in other words, it's just another layer of Government. It's not that the other Governments have ceased to exist, it's just that you got another Government spawned into existence.
When the EU was created, it's not like Poland or France or Sweden have stopped to exist, it's just that you got another Government in Brussels, that supersedes it. And even if the EU gets federalized, like the USA, the national Governments won't cease to exist.
So whenever humans talk about establishing a Government, they imply that a new Government will be spawn, but the old one will still be in place. A new Government will never replace the old one, it will just add another one into the mix.
Humans really have a fetish for Governments, because more and more Governments are being created every single day, and it's not that their powers shrink, but it's that humans are actually becoming slaves to all of them, and freedom decreases exponentially.
Let me illustrate what I mean by this:
So it's not like when a new Government is created, the previous one dissolves. It's just that now 2 Governments will rule upon you and you will have to pay 2x more taxes and have 2x less freedom, in that domain.
This is just madness. How many more Governments humans need? Don't you realize that if Government doesn't work, you don't create 2 of it. Don't double-down on the madness, like Einstein said:
If your local Government can't fix the problems, then maybe you need to try it differently. How about fixing it yourself? How about making the individual sovereign, and dissolving all other Governments?
Madness
Because if 1 layer of Government is incompetent, then the rest of them will be only worse. It's only the self-Government that can succeed, because only you know what is good for you, and nobody else. And if you don't aggress against others then nobody will care if your own self-government is flawed, but if you try to extend your flaws to others, then it's really bad. The non-aggression principle should isolate the flaws of society to the individual.
But if you add layers and layers of Government, then the individual will be crushed below it:
Ex: Imagine 5 street Mafias, operating on the same street, and instead of warring with each other over the control of the territory, they actually cooperate:
- Richard owns a restaurant on that street
- Mafia 1 goes to visit him and extorts him of 15% of the profits
- Mafia 2 goes to visit him and extorts him of 15% of the profits
- Mafia 3 goes to visit him and extorts him of 15% of the profits
- Mafia 4 goes to visit him and extorts him of 15% of the profits
- Mafia 5 goes to visit him and extorts him of 15% of the profits
- Richard is extorted 75% of his profits in total, but if he goes to complain to one Mafia boss he is only extorted 15% by them so he can't really complain. Plus that Mafia boss doesn't have control over the other families so he can't do anything about it.
- If Richard disobeys 1 Mafia, he will be punished by them, but not too much because then the others would intervene since their profits are at stake too.
- A Mafia doesn't care if the other Mafias are extorting him since if they all get their 15%, and they are all happy, instead they will cooperate and keep each other in check.
- Richard is fucked, and there is nobody he can appeal too.
- What if a 6th Mafia appears?
This is the kind of analogy that I am talking about, instead of 1 Government ruling over you. Now you have all Governments ruling over you. Because in the EU, all other National Governments that you are not citizen of want a piece of your money, and so in the World Government, and above.
It is really a madness, humans have a fetish for Governments and slavery. It's undeniable.
Source:
http://www.organictalks.com/thoughts-mistakes
http://likesuccess.com/117
Upvote, ReSteem & 
Stefan Molyneux is fond of asking something to the effect of; "Will one more law make the society we want? Okay, if not just one, maybe two?"
Well the only thing a law does is to restrict freedom.
Freedom is there by default. Freedom is the default. The Sun shines by itself, The Planets move by themselves, they don't need a Law to do so.
However humans are fool enough to think, that by restricting freedom ,they somehow get more freedom.
Yes, because humans can easily take freedom away from others. For instance a murderer could take all freedoms away from many people, so we make murder illegal thus preserving the freedom of his potential victims.
Have no law against slavery, and people will keep actual slaves.
You're not a slave because you pay the government some of your earnings, and it's fucking insulting to actual slaves that you think so.
There are laws against slavery and people still keep slaves... I think the question being examined here is; what causes people to not want to enslave others (or commit other crimes) in the first place? Government? Laws? Self development? Philosophical or religious morality?
Am not sure who exactly equated actual slavery with paying taxes, so I'm confused by your statement.
The question Molyneux poses is meant to be simplistic. We have who knows how many laws active right now, and thousands more in the works. Do they really make things better? Will it be this one last law which finally fixes everything/everyone's behaviour?! Or as @profitgenerator might ask, will one more layer of government do it?
Most plantation owners in the south kept slaves. So many people did, in fact, that it was seen as normal.
Slavery was abolished, and now our society views slavery as among the most vile of practices.
I'd say the law to abolish slavery worked, and improved society and increased the freedom of many people by taking away the freedom to own other humans.
And you basically ignored my point about Molyneux's question. It's not about the number of laws, it's about the right laws. A thousand screwdrivers doesn't really help you assemble your Ikea dresser but an allen wrench works wonders.
How many of the "right laws" have we broken recently? Who gets to make them? How do I know if a law is "right?" Etc etc. Molyneux's simple question isn't about the number, which you seem to want to focus on. His point is that there has never been, an "always right" or universally applicable law/government. Will the next law be that law? I didn't ignore your point at all, I'm just not focused on the number per se...
Yes of course that is why now everyone is a slave to an ever increasing government.
The plantation didn't go away, it's just that it got so big that people can't see the walls of it. It covers the entire planet with a Global Government.
No, you just swap the murderer with the government. Most murders are committed by governments, through wars or genocides.
And have law against slavery and you become the slave of the government.
The point is that government doesn't solve any problems, it just substitutes 1 enemy with another.
The only way to solve a problem is if the individual deals with it:
Otherwise it's just a dog chasing it's own tail type of system.
Yes, sure. No one armed has ever died or been captured. That's why everyone survives through every war.
The amount of overconfidence anarchists display is literally overwhelming. You can't envision anyone hurting you if you're armed. I guess you never need to sleep, and never walk in front of a window. You were never a kid and will never be older and more frail, right?
Never mind mob justice or anything like that.
Government and laws are a response to problems in society. There may be better ways of dealing with them but no one has put forth any actual possibilities yet. And no, "individuals dealing with it" is not in any way an effective solution... it was the state we were in when we started making laws and government.
People don't roam around alone with guns, they are usually part of an armed group, and that is already a problem.
Individualism means that nobody submits to other people, and friendships occur like aliances between countries.
It's like substituting the nation state with individuals. Usually allied states dont attack eachother, and the "ganging up event" is just collectivism.
So individualism is the key.
Reply to the chain above and the comment you made 7 hours ago...
"But instead of campaigning for the necessary philosophical changes you guys are busy hyperbolically calling yourselves slaves and telling people the government is the root of all evil."
That's twice now that you've made this claim. I never said such a thing, or made the implication at all. I therefore think we are speaking at cross purposes.
You seem to have a vision that we/ or I am (insert some label, such as anarchist.) Recall how this conversation started, with a simple paraphrase from Molyneux, to which I never even stated if I agree or not.
In fact, ins't this very discussion "campaigning for the necessary philosophical changes" that you speak of?!
@profitgenerator made the claim several times in his post, which you appeared to be agreeing with in your comment.
Not really...
I think what you've just said is very much a part of Molyneux's pointed question.
Yes I sometimes listen to Molyneux, but I have came to this conclusion long before I've watched his podcasts.
It was just so obvious to me that society today is leaning towards collectivism, whereas more and more governments are spawning into existance, and I don't see any reversal or resistance to this.
It would be nice to see a 180 degree reversal of getting back to more local communities.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was Molyneux's original thought, I just like simple phrases or questions which might induce cognitive dissonance.
And I agree. It would be nice if people in true freedom, could develop their skills, wealth, and desires, to the point that they themselves see the benefit of choosing charitable behaviours to help others, rather than being forced into a false collective...
Absolutely, and if everyone would freely choose their destinies, they would make less mistakes than if others would force them. And this includes parents too.
Whereas parents usually force kids to have the same profession as they do, whereas the kid might only be 50% as efficient in that profession, compared to the profession he would choose voluntarily.
Because collectivism works.
Look what happens when you try to run a company with Randian philosophy: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys_his_empire_partner/
Groups compete against and sabotage each other rather than cooperating, and it harms the company holding everyone back.
The problem with the current model of globalism is that it's being implemented by a few wealthy elite to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.
Do you think there's ever a time when murder, rape or slavery should be allowed? Because I'd start there for laws that are "always right."
Moreover laws don't have to be always right, they can be right for the time and then be changed or abandoned later. Speed limits are a good example of this, as cars have gotten safer speed limits have increased from 55mph to 65mph to 75mph in some places. With the advent of self-driving cars they may be able to be abolished altogether.
The next law is where you're talking about the number, rather than the content. No one law will make society perfect, but laws against things like murder certainly make society better.
Those actual crimes, murder, rape, assault, theft, slavery are common law crimes. If I witness someone doing these crimes, I have the right and duty (if circumstances provide) to hinder the criminal's success, and protect the victim(s) or property. I need no government sanction or badge to do this. Can I "citizen's arrest" those who break any other laws on the slippery slope of the next (statutory) laws?" No!, because there is a legal distinction. It's "illegal," so do I have the right to take the property of someone's marijuana joint? Isn't it theft to take another's property? So I don't have that right, yet comes some "authorized person" with flashing lights and a nice costume, and we commit actual theft, a true crime, to "prevent" some potential future harm on the part of the smoker, or worse, do we remove his freedom entirely, cause it's his "3rd time," or some other arbitrary measure.
The cliche so far has not been brought up; "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely..." How many times have you witnessed seemingly moral laws being enforced in horrendous, completely immoral fashion?
Since laws get their "popular validity" from their moral purpose, we must ask for example; what if they don't increase the speed limits, when they know they could, in order to continue collecting fines? What if science says marijuana is good for some people, but private prison corporations like high inmate populations?
What law prevents people or governments from seeking more and more power? Will there ever be a law that changes this behaviour, or a will it be more of a philosophy that slowly slowly does the trick...?
I don't think anyone here is saying, "let's dismantle government today," the question is about if they inherently (like laws) change anything...
Frankly I think it's the same argument as with; "If there were no taxes or government, who would build the roads?" Simply put, it's not government who builds roads, it's people, and it's not governments that make morality, it's the people who teach and inspire it. (By teach I certainly don't mean they just write down something that I shouldn't do, attaching some usually arbitrary punishment or threat...)
That's the beauty of our democracy in the United States. Marijuana is being legalized. Speed limits went up because of public pressure.
Absolute power may corrupt absolutely, but our government was specifically designed to prevent anyone from having absolute power. It's not a perfect system, but it's far better than the alternatives of mob rule, vigilantism or private security (aka mafia.)
Well, like I said our government was set up to help prevent that behavior. It's an uphill battle to keep it that way, sure... but when you see pot legalization, gay marriage legalization and other things it seems that some things are trending in the right direction. There's another thing too, how many people think gay marriage should be illegal? And would feel justified in stopping such things as a vigilante in your ideal individualistic society? Far too many if you ask me...
Look at my earlier example of slavery. It was abolished and now most people see it as a great evil. But the way some anarchists talk it really does seem like they want to dismantle government today, and again it's fighting the wrong battle. Like you said above a "change of philosophy that slowly slowly does the trick" would eventually render government obsolete. But instead of campaigning for the necessary philosophical changes you guys are busy hyperbolically calling yourselves slaves and telling people the government is the root of all evil. It isn't. The government is, at worst, a symptom of the evil in man.
Very insightful perspective. Thanks for sharing that @profitgenerator.
That's utterly simplistic. It's not about the number of laws, it's about having the right ones.
No. It's about having the "laws" enforced by individuals, instead of a collective.
So the only jurisdiction you have is your own body and property, and going beyond that is a violation of NAP.
Oh that sounds wonderful. I'm sure no one would ever accuse anyone of a "crime" and summarily execute them because individuals should enforce crime.
You are watching too many movies. 99.9999% of people don't behave like they are portrayed on TV.
The only way to make people equal, is to restore the sovereignity of the individual.
How many mass shootings were there this year in America? How many people are still kidnapped and forced into slavery? Oh many regular murders were there this year? How many thefts?
Individuals? Individuals come up with things like mob justice, stoning people to death for petty crimes or beating people over accidents: http://www.dw.com/en/mob-justice-in-africa-why-people-take-the-law-into-their-own-hands/a-19238120
I think you may be the one watching TV if you think humans can't be vicious.
Mass shootings happen because the other idiots are unarmed. Besides the terrorist group is just another violent government in the making.
Don't tell me that Napoleon or Caesar or Hitler haven't massacred people. It's the same thing but in the 21 century.
Bullshit. You say "mob justice", that is not individualism, but a group of people.
1 Individual can hardly do any big harm agaist another individual, because they can both be equally armed and protected.
The only way to level the playing field is to restore individualism, and then violence will shrink -99.9999%, that I can guarantee you.
Life should be simple, there is no reason why we need to complicate it so much.
"Should be" and "are" are two wildly different things.
Life is not simple, and won't be until we advance both technologically and, for lack of a better word, spiritually.
Here's the thing, government is a symptom rather than the problem. Government exists to try and limit humans negative effects (both intentional and accidental) on each other. Every evil you can state about government is an evil that exists within humanity, because government is just people. If government disappeared, you'd have the same people trying to do the same things anyway and/or setting up new governments immediately. Governments collapse, and what happens? Does the region stay without a government? No, a new one crops up.
When people stop having the desire to visit evil upon others, government will melt away because it either won't be needed, or the people that use government authority to do bad things won't exist.
I should probably go to sleep, that last sentence was terribly written... :(
They can, but if they act individually, then it's a mutually assured destruction situation.
If it's a 1v1 fight, they would rather not fight, since they both lose.
Wars only happen when a strong nation attacks a weak one, or an alliance gangs up on 1 weak nation.
That is why I am saying that individualism is the key, because that is the basic element, where people can be equal, and not fight.
Ok but that is not the topic here.
Exactly, so why would people surrender it to a collective instead of keeping it to themselves?
Life is very simple, it's humans that complicate it with their ideologies.
You gather resources,eat, you drink, you reproduce and that all.
How you do that is another issue.
I agree, government is the sympthom, of the aggression from within. That is why I emphasize that individualism is the key.
If individualism will prevail then no new government will come into existence. Governments form due to a power vacuum. But if the individuals hold power in an equal matter, then there is no power vacuum.
Comment limit on the other thread so replying quick here:
You don't think nation-states fight? Betray each other? Seriously? I suck at history and even I know better. Go do some reading about feudal china or something. Hint: Lots of warlords fighting over territory.
Limited resources and how to obtain them is a very big part of why things are complicated. Glossing over the complicated part to say things are simple is seriously disingenuous.
They don't and won't. Wealth is power, resources is power.
Make this meme go viral please, share it on all social media :D
Good insight.
I think the fetishes that people have with being enslaved largely comes from lack of maturity due to programming and indoctrination we receive on so many fronts. Everything from "education," TV "programming," advertisements etc. The state loves immature dupes who are all to happy to accept big daddy Gov. as a substitute.
Good point.
Wow.
I just learned about layers of government that I didn't even know existed!
I'm even more insignificant than I thought I was just five seconds ago :(
Well the world government and things above that doesnt exist yet, if you would count the UN as one.
But if this madness continues as it is, trust me, Government would keep piling up like stacks of hay after a harvest season.
It's up to critical thinkers and libertarians to stop this madness.
Well, as far as we know, anyway.
That does seem to be the nature of the business, so you get no arguments from me there.
Yeah, either that...or superman ;)
Well if a civilization is advanced enough to colonize other Galaxies, they won't be dumb enough to setup a Galactic Government.
It won't be NASA nor the EU Space Agency that will get us across the Milky way. Heck they can barely put together a Mars Expedition in 2030 whereas they supposedly went to the moon 50 years ago.
But we already have private companies looking into space expeditions and stuff like that.
Outstanding narrative. Thank you for sharing! ☆☆☆☆☆😎
Thank you.
If you live in the USA just swap the EU Commission with your Federal Government, it's the same thing.
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Jan 02. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $6.61 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 02 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
It is striking how people crave [slavery|following|being sheep]. I think there are a spectrum of reasons for this. The most significant is that Homo Sapiens have evolved behavioral traits and instincts that promote following behavior which is an important driver of society formation. Quite simply, a few leaders + many followers has out competed rival groups of mostly leaders. That is probably due to stability. The groups where most members seek to follow are more stable under a wider ranges of stressors than groups of mostly leaders. The groups with submissive, following behavior are able to grow larger and dominate the low follower groups.
Wishing this inconvenient fact wasn't present doesn't aid finding a solution. Look at China. It has been around in some form for 5000+ years. Its gene pool has 'benefited' from countless applications of Darwin's razor excising individualism in favor of sheep. At this point, a typical Chinese person can't even experience real meaning unless they are performing the role of a cog in their machine. Take them out of that framework and give them freedom from it and they have no purpose/meaning.
That is a clearer picture of individualism vs slavery, and why governments keep forming. It is strongly gene warfare, and the sheep have evolved a dangerous survival mechanism that threatens individualism. Any attempts by the individualists cause to treat it as just a behavioral concern (mnemonic evolution) will fail because it is primarily driven by genetic backed instincts. Trying to push the sheep into individualism will fail - to them it is a perversion of the instincts of submission that they have evolved.
Here is some bitter truth: As gene warfare continues to play out, it isn't clear that the genes supporting individualism are even more evolutionarily fit than the genes that drive docile submission.
Finally a higher quality argument. Thanks. Let me share you my thoughts on it.
Yes I know about the gene warfare and the natural selection phenomena. But I don't really think it's always the "fittest that survives", I think there is also a random component, and a component of decay.
I come from statistics background so I know that there is always a random variable in the equation, and there is always an entropy variable (for decay of the order).
Well I think individualism vs collectivism, is exactly like a quality vs quantity debate. You either have many low quality units herded together by a leader, or you have fewer higher quality units that think individually.
I think by all means fewer high quality individuals is much more efficient, not just evolutionarily speaking but also by reproduction.
Now there is no question that an individualist humanity would be greater for our limited resources. We cant colonize other planets for probably the next 100-200 years but the world population is increasing, because low IQ people are having too many children and they only teach them to make more children.
In the past survival was harsh, Ice Ages, economic disasters, famines, and plagues made survival hard, so the only way in a pre-industrial society was to herd together collectively.
But in the current age where we have high technology, we no longer need to herd together. Technology will literally make the government obsolete, so individualism is inevitable at some point.
Either socialism takes over, which will mean and end of civilization, because socialism doesnt care about quality people, they provide resources to everyone, and the planet will severely be overpopulated, and we will die in nuclear civil wars.
If individualism takes over, then humans will realize that the individual will be empowered by technology, even the low IQ people, and they will adapt to the circumstances.
For example if we successfully create AI robots, even the dumbest person on the planet will be empowered, since the robots will do all the thinking.
I think when the first commercial AI will be born, government and taxes will just simply cease to exist, since by then every government service will pretty much be available in the private sector for much much cheaper cost.
Hmmm... Technology is certainly going to have an impact on collectivism vs individualism. It is complex to model. I agree that technology reduces the need to herd together, yet we observe people herding together more than ever, as a proportion. There must be some interesting things driving that contradiction. Quantity vs quality is not new to nature and they both have merit as survival traits. Nature seems to be ok with ridiculous rates of replication - it certainly has enough examples of it. As an entire system, it also seems to be ok with the result of that often being the destruction of habitat and the pruning of that branch. Lol, it seems kind of irresponsible of nature to proceed so blindly.
I am concerned that war (synthetic cataclysm) might be part of the rational resolution between individualism and collectivism. Barring natural cataclysm, the individualists will continue to be out-bred by the collectivists. The boiling frog will occur with resource exhaustion and synthetic/natural cataclysm will occur by destruction of habitat for both individualists and collectivists alike. Am I missing something?
Taxes insofar as they represent value contributed by individuals for achievements above the individual scale will continue to exist because it is beneficial to move mountains sometimes and not always molehills. Emergent behavior is a rather random force to be dependent on for affecting things above the individual scale.