We'd have to return to self-government by communities of about 250 for that to be different, and even then, it will be different solely because members can make their influence felt as individuals.
That's not far from my wishes. I don't know if there's a proper label, but I am generally unhappy about the large scale nature of...well, just about everything in the modern world. I think humans need to have communities and that's only possible if you aren't walking by hundreds of mysterious strangers in the street every day. No, I do not know how this could be accomplished now, short of extreme scenarios.
I don't think you need an example, but I'll point out that you aren't even american yet you have to deal with our ridiculous cultural exports. It makes life more difficult for you (even if only an irritation) and it should not be your burden.
Your prosperity is in direct competition with their funding. So it most certainly is not in their interests to promote prosperity, at least directly
I hadn't considered this. It's a good point especially when denying personhood to bodies of power. The individual people operating the government have needs just like us, but the government does not have needs like us. This should make it possible to coexist peacefully - even symbiotically.
So you suggest that governments are taking as much as they can. What about the things they can't use? Is the expectation that they will gladly let citizens have the leftovers? Or is the expectation that they will work hard to find a way to use things they weren't using already?
Taxation is already a poor precedent there, as it assumes that citizens can't spend their money effectively on societal needs like infrastructure.
That's not far from my wishes. I don't know if there's a proper label, but I am generally unhappy about the large scale nature of...well, just about everything in the modern world. I think humans need to have communities and that's only possible if you aren't walking by hundreds of mysterious strangers in the street every day. No, I do not know how this could be accomplished now, short of extreme scenarios.
For the brief time that this did work, people had something in common with these mysterious strangers. Even if you had nothing else in common, you were all Christians, or you were all French. But now, religion and patriotism are passe. And it seems that the powers that be are intending to use people's differences against them.
I don't think you need an example, but I'll point out that you aren't even american yet you have to deal with our ridiculous cultural exports. It makes life more difficult for you (even if only an irritation) and it should not be your burden.
Precisely. Any sort of virus or societal poison invented anywhere spreads rapidly to the entire rest of the world, whether it's within 1 year or within 10 years. I have predicted to people I know that we will probably have large-scale arson and looting within 10 years, same as the US.
So you suggest that governments are taking as much as they can. What about the things they can't use?
I mean what they can use. If you have something that they cannot use, then it is only counterproductive to take it from you, since it does them no good while inciting you against them.
Taxation is already a poor precedent there, as it assumes that citizens can't spend their money effectively on societal needs like infrastructure.
I do not think they can. But the actual reason for say, police protection of civilians, may not be that the government wants to keep you safe, but that the government does not want someone else getting a share of the pie. If you go back to our stationary robbers example, if another robber tries to get in on the act, then your stationary robber may protect you against him.
That's not far from my wishes. I don't know if there's a proper label, but I am generally unhappy about the large scale nature of...well, just about everything in the modern world. I think humans need to have communities and that's only possible if you aren't walking by hundreds of mysterious strangers in the street every day. No, I do not know how this could be accomplished now, short of extreme scenarios.
I don't think you need an example, but I'll point out that you aren't even american yet you have to deal with our ridiculous cultural exports. It makes life more difficult for you (even if only an irritation) and it should not be your burden.
I hadn't considered this. It's a good point especially when denying personhood to bodies of power. The individual people operating the government have needs just like us, but the government does not have needs like us. This should make it possible to coexist peacefully - even symbiotically.
So you suggest that governments are taking as much as they can. What about the things they can't use? Is the expectation that they will gladly let citizens have the leftovers? Or is the expectation that they will work hard to find a way to use things they weren't using already?
Taxation is already a poor precedent there, as it assumes that citizens can't spend their money effectively on societal needs like infrastructure.
For the brief time that this did work, people had something in common with these mysterious strangers. Even if you had nothing else in common, you were all Christians, or you were all French. But now, religion and patriotism are passe. And it seems that the powers that be are intending to use people's differences against them.
Precisely. Any sort of virus or societal poison invented anywhere spreads rapidly to the entire rest of the world, whether it's within 1 year or within 10 years. I have predicted to people I know that we will probably have large-scale arson and looting within 10 years, same as the US.
I mean what they can use. If you have something that they cannot use, then it is only counterproductive to take it from you, since it does them no good while inciting you against them.
I do not think they can. But the actual reason for say, police protection of civilians, may not be that the government wants to keep you safe, but that the government does not want someone else getting a share of the pie. If you go back to our stationary robbers example, if another robber tries to get in on the act, then your stationary robber may protect you against him.