RE: "Mixed Mental Arts" - Episode #346 - Getting to the Root of the Problem- Lawrence Lessig
We're all ideological, Finnian. Your ideology is thinking you can simply walk away from government and it will leave you alone. As the saying goes, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu." Part of how this problem has gotten as bad as it has is because decent people have disengaged.
The basic insight of The Founding Fathers was that whoever wields the ring will abuse the power. That's why all power must be checked. A disengaged public removes the most important check on the government (according to Madison). Your disengagement (and the disengagement of millions of Americans) is precisely what has helped create this corruption.
This is a long post, Finnian. You're clearly passionate. Don't pretend you don't care or that you really think walking away is a solution. And if you do think walking away is a solution, then how exactly do you think that works? Government is a universal feature of any group of humans. Accountable, transparent government is not. That's why Franklin said we have a republic if we can keep it.
Any form of government, defined as a group with special protections and double standards under the law, is tyrannical. When this nation state was formed, politicians were not paid. Government was local and community based. The people in charge were volunteers and quality leaders that the people voluntarily followed.
Sure, we can compromise. I'll settle for local government only. ;-) Even that is corrupted though, and even that can be tyrannical. With even that small amount of government, I should still be able to reject ideas being forced upon me as long as I am peaceful and doing no harm to my neighbors. That's not what people want though. Instead, they want government to control me, and they want me to abide by their beliefs based on religion, etc.
No thanks. I'll pass.
Also, to get back to your original point, the government should leave me alone... as long as I'm doing no harm to others or their property. That is how this nation was founded too. People minded their own business, and there were not books upon books of laws and taxes. We are VERY far from that today. We've already given plenty of ground too, so my idea of a compromise will probably be very far away from the average person's.
The original settlers of this nation did exactly what I am proposing. They walked away from their governments to go somewhere else where their individual liberty was maximized. There are currently multiple efforts ongoing to do the same in a modern sense too. You have free cities, private cities, sea steading, and organizations like Liberland. Yes, walking away is reasonable. Yes, being left alone when we do is also reasonable.
The main problem is getting the current governments of the world to respect our individual liberty and allows us to be free. The British certainly didn't like the idea 200 years ago, right? Sadly, we still have monarchies and dictatorships, so I'm not holding out hope that we'll see a quality solution any time soon. That doesn't mean we should give up though either. I will always fight for maximizing individual liberty. As long as I'm fighting for it, I'm doing right. Anyone else fighting for it is automatically my friend too.
Anyone fighting to stop it is my enemy.
I would only argue that although the British surely didn't like the idea of renegades leaving the old system to start a new one, I believe we are essentially in the SAME situation right now, and that it is becoming LESS possible to go off to some "new world" - although space travel would provide that option. The point is that with time LESS and less "new world" options become available (in the "real world" sense of the term) and so the main point that I am arguing is that we need to harness TECHNOLOGY (like blockchain) to chip away at the root cause which creates the situation where humans develop the need/desire to escape from other humans who are abusing their power. You make some great points, and I am merely pondering those points thinking out loud ...
There are already private cities and other autonomous regions. That's one option. I don't like isolated areas, so sea steading and even small islands seem impractical to me. Liberland is working on purchasing or leasing lands from already existing nation states as another option. You have fairly independent groups like the Cossacks in Russia to consider as well. For their services, they are pretty much left alone to govern themselves. We are definitely far away from leaving this planet, so I hope to solve the current problem with options like the ones I just listed. Perhaps there are other options as well that we just haven't figured out yet though.
It appears that ONE crux-point of the issue is that HUMANS, by NATURE of their cultural nature (which, of course, does NOT exclude the cultural nature of NON-humans) AUTOMATICALLY create the "organic" institution called "government" which arises NATURALLY out of being alive. Hence, the fact that humans in more "primitive" societies, and/or those which has "fallen back" to a primitvie state through destructive processes such as war, natural disaster, etc. STILL naturally create social structures which are essentially GOVERNMENT-LIKE. The whole idea of the "nasty, brutish" existence of Thojmas Hobbes actually APPEARS to not be so accurate, as even under the WORST conditions, human tend to organize themselves into small groups with a BASIC social organization which can be called "government". This begs the question, could the ONLY "more effective" solution to the "inherent government" conundrum be the need for NON-human automation (for instance, in the form of various applications of blockchain technology - ex. the recent blockchain voting trial conducted in West Virginia : https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-west-virginia-completes-first-blockchain-supported-state-elections ) to be implemented as a SAFEGUARD? I believe such a solution IS viable, and BETTER than the current solutions - or LACK of them - which we currently have. It's an interesting question - and one which I am SURE that the GROWING number of "Mixed Mental Artists" here on Steemit (such as : @michaelgarfield ) can definitely add some JUICY GEMS of philosophical speculation to ...
In many regards, the numerous more advanced applications of blockchain will provide a significant remedy to these types of issues. For instance, one relevant recent example is the new effort by IBM and various high-level NGOs to apply blockchain technology to the charity (and aid) industries : https://cointelegraph.com/news/ibm-and-ngo-global-citizen-announce-contest-for-blockchain-charity-platform One of the notorious problems in the charity/aid/development industries is corruption/negligence which results in funds not getting to where they are supposed to (often into the pockets of corrupt politicians and criminals, instead of the people who most need the aid. Applying the non-human, transparent blockchain technology to this use case will make almost surely make a significant improvement throughout every level of the supply chain in this specific industry - and this is just one use case.
Decentralize everything. Power certainly should be. Control should be as well. The more we reverse the centralization of power over others, the more individual liberty we will have. This is one reason I strongly support decentralized platforms such as steemit and crypto in general. Kill the beast by a thousand cuts to its roots!
The more local and small the governance is, the better off people are. Let's agree on some basic definitions though first please.
Government, as defined by me at least, is not governance. Government implies monopolies, double standards, and special protections. Humans do not seek those things and never would if they were properly informed. Therefore, I'm all for governance, leadership, and organization by humans. We'll always have those things.
What I don't want and reject is rulers. Rulers have those special protections and double standards. They have monopolies too. As humans we should be equal under the law, and the law should be simple and based on damage done to property and harm done to humans. You would also have contract law (keeping your word).
I agree with the general idea of non-rulership. However, on a philosophical level 9and through life experience) I find it a bit difficult to conceptualize a state void of rulers. I don't mean in the sense of formal rulers (ex. monarchy, technocrats, etc.) I mean that human nature is such that SOME people REQUIRE a certain degree of "rulership" - not so much in the NEGATIVE sense of the term, but in the practical one. For instance, disabled people (depending on the nature of the disability) often NEED other people to "rule" over them - or perhaps "manage" basic tasks in their lives. Also think of the whole "power of attorney" concept. If there was no "rulership" for these people they would be WORSE OFF. In other words, I believe that the natural state of human nature is one of INEQUALITY. However, I DO agree with you that corrupted human POWER is major factor in the problem, and object to it as well. This is why I am arguing that technologies like blockchain - which TAKE OUT a significant amount of the corruptable human factor are a step forward in SIGNIFICANTLY MINIMIZING the destructive results of corruted human power abuse.
Disabled people don't have people assisting them forced upon them. If they don't want the help, they don't have to have it. They are not harming me by taking that help either unless I'm being forced to pay for it.
Signing over your rights to another is a voluntary action. Setting up a living will is too.
There will always be leaders for our species. I have no problem with leaders. They should not be protected by double standards and should be equal to me under the law. That's all I'm really asking for. When they are not, that is what makes them a ruler and not a leader. :)
I'm talking about VERY disabled people, who are so disabled that they CAN'T take care of themselves. You know that those type of people exist right? If not, then there is no need to continue the dialogue...
You think those people were simply left to die in the past? They were not. People voluntarily took care of them.