A Word on Governance
Thanks for dantheman's and dana-edwards' insightful posts about governance.
Evolution of Current Governments
You can change how people think, but current governments have evolved naturally from human interaction, culture and society. We must build on the past. As our thinking changes, we can go from where we are to where we want to go. William Wilberforce did this—changing popular thought--, as did Gandhi and others.
For the most part we cannot rely on macro revolution, but must peacefully evolve changes from our current situations. Besides, governments are better now than they've ever been, for the most part.
US Constitution and Citizenship
The only issue I have is with a slight manipulation of constitutional principles. Since the creation of the US constitution, powers have been kept in check, but due to the impossibliity of predicting every situation, presidents and others in government have expanded their powers when they felt it necessary for the greater good. Some of this has possibly positively impacted the US, like recovery actions taken to rebound from the Great Depression, but presently many fear the power this government now has, and how it interprets its own powers.
So the US government acquired extra power having popular support. It did this to solve a problem perhaps caused by the citizens themselves to large extent. We did not govern ourselves well, so beginning in the 30s the government stepped in and did it for us. We were guilty of over-speculating, dishonesty, breaking trust, reveling in disrespect, misuse of wealth, disobeying principles and bad governing.
Local Governments
What Dana says about local government is insightful. Perhaps many solutions to good government will stem from more localized governing and citizen involvement, but we cannot overlook the possibility of technology bringing government to us.
How to Achieve Dan's Vision
I believe that what can be done from a technology point of view is something I've stated before. We must focus on revolutionizing money not government.
A currency may have its own governing system, which if accepted by the people, takes some power out of the hands of government, exerted through money. I've attempted to create a currency governing system myself.
No government wants to outlaw a technology that it depends on, such as an awesome currency. This is why in the future freedom my increase, if we all begin using a wisely-created superior currency.
In Venezuela the government is failing to run the country well, for whatever reason. But if money is the issue, this can be solved by blockchain and technology.
Here are the links to sited articles:
Some related history:
I like your take on the issue. The Cooperative Agorism that I am a proponent of (an Anarcho-Capitalist strategy, a "gradualism" for capitalists) is all about outbuilding the State, rather than just looking for it to collapse and leave society in rubbles.
The combination of blockchain technology and other examples of recent experimental finance is an immense step forward in our project to create a better society.
awesome comment and i like the idea of 'outbuilding'. I see it being a competition, but lets remember the government represents us, or should.
Thanks. Unfortunately, it doesn't at this time. And ultimately (although it's not that I consider minarchism deeply immoral "if done right") I would like to replace the state entirely.
"Government" in such a case would rely on volountary interactions and agreements, not on any kind of state having a monopoly on governance. It's a radical idea and it might seem scary but it's possible and, since it would beneficial for us to have more and more peacefull competition in "governance", it should --- of course, very carefully and intelligently --- be planned out and fully executed.
Until that last day -- that last piece -- though, we need to focus more on the basics of the infrastructure. If we are to get the empoverished on our side, then can we really win just by arguing that "it's immoral" that they support the very system that clothes and feeds them? I'm an optimistic person... but I don't think so.
And there is still going to be some unemloyment and some crisises arising from time to time, even after the state is gone. We are going to need an organisation to deal with that. (not a state, but any kind of systematic yet volountary approach)
Those truly aware of reality know that problems will arise no matter the system.