You'll never have the number of willing bodies to throw at everyone, everywhere...
Discussion
I don't want to. I want a strong government with few rules so people don't mind being governed.
Just maintain a few sensible rules around property rights, violence, and washing your car in your driveway.
We have many strong governments. They all become despotic. All. Every time.
I do not need to be governed. I would like some decent neighbors, way off in the distance and that's about it. There are quite a lot of areas that are largely self-governing. I wish to grow those areas so that all that wish to live without every thing done or acquired is taxed to death.
No one needs to be governed as long as all their neighbors are "decent" which I think means "don't behave in a way that impinges on what I want" But that is never the case. Most often decent enough people want to have the freedom to behave in ways that make it impossible for other people to behave in the same way. For instance if everyone wanted to subsistence hunt, we'd run out of game.
The problem isn't that governments exist it is that they don't die. Colonies of cells collaborating to make a human do better than single cells, but eventually things go haywire and the human dies. This is super important to allow the next generation to try to do better. We need more space for people to try new ideas without being smothered by 200 years of law.
Your first sentence should have stopped at this point:
"No one needs to be governed."
It is the case in many places. Your assertion of never is really overbearing and quite a statement about your own views of fellow humans than it says anything about fellow humans.
How do you propose to not have a state become tyrannical?
"How do you propose to not have a state become tyrannical?"
To be frank, I believe this to be an impossibility.
Yes, but so is not having a state. We need to be able to iterate. Personally I'd like to try limiting the size of the corpus of law. The consistion should say something like all laws on the books must fit within 10kB zipped, and 100kB unzipped and be comprehensible to a median 10th grader.
That at least limits how invasive a government can be. You'd need some additional protections so the law can't be "we can do what we want."
They already tried that, the lawyers ignored it...
Who tried it? I considered having the limit include case law as well, but I haven't thought it through as well as I should since I am not in charge of anything.
I can live perfectly well without the state. Just because others can't doesn't mean I should have to suffer.
My legislation limitation would be that any bill longer than 3 pages of 12 point type double spaced would need to be made public for a minimum of 14 days plus another two per page over 3.
Yes, this would make most budget bills impossible to pass. 😎
I don't have a solution to states becoming tyrannical. Things that exist for other purposes eventually evolve to behave in a way that is self-serving. This is why political parties don't actually make political progress. All the power of the party eventually gets spent maintaining the power of the party. Any party that doesn't play that game falls out of power and disappears.
Same with unions. They now exist to maintain the union and any benefit they give to workers is only a side-effect of maintaining power.
This happens with species as well they exist to maintain their lineage. Only humans have gone through enough game theory to develop altruism as the next tier of evolutionary advantage. That step is still incomplete. Governments as a higher layer organism are still behaving like brutes. I am not sure how long it will take for states to evolve a sense of selflessness. Maybe a million years? Until then we need to iterate.
The trouble is that earth is only big enough for a few hundred governments, they become old and brutish and people suffer under their thumbs. To the stars!
Your premise is flawed: The state is people. People is the state. The state cannot and never will be anything other than a shared delusion of weak people who wish to use the monopoly of violence to secure what they wish. Any proposal of any state organizational methods will always fail if it involves humans.
Govern yourself, first and foremost. Then, you might be able to work with others in a consensual fashion.
Respectfully, this sounds a touch delusional. Governments don't have to start out as large organizations. That's not what matters. What matters is that their influence never ceases spreading. It's in human nature to become addicted to power.
Strong doesn't mean large. I just mean has the ability to act decisively on behalf of its constituents. But yes. They will always corrupt. Positions of power rarely attract good people. My position is that governments cannot be kept out since they have strategic advantages, so how do we work with them while they still hold to some ideals? How do we help them maintain those ideals for as long as possible? And how do we throw off the yoke when they become despotic?
I don't really believe that there is a long-term method of forming a harmonizing relationship with the state. Every time we have, it has been short-lived and always ends up imploding on itself. Bitcoin may play a role in ridding ourselves of the state... or at least assist in the formation of a completely new one. Also, why should we help them? I see no reason to do so. They lie to us regarding their ideals from the very beginning.
Strong states = means of control backed by threats of violence, if not an outright monopoly on violence. A strong state is what an individual should be, not a weak minded collective of humans that aren't capable of behaving themselves without threat of jail or bodily harm
You're wrong about everything, by the way. A government HAS to be sizable. That's not an option. Many of the recurring issues that we face are largely due to the people's unrelenting laziness and reluctance to take action against our leaders when corruption begins to become widespread. Which is what we're witnessing now, on a global scale. The first step that needs to be taken is a call for the riddance of WMDs. Everything you have suggested is impossible, as long as those exist. Although I doubt that will ever happen in our lifetime.
You don't use WMDs to strike a handful of people & if you did you'd just create a whole lot more new enemies.
WMDs are used against .govs.
Have you never read about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
That was an attack on an enemy .gov by attacking their tax cattle...
Lol. There were still plenty of civilians.
That's what the civilians are, tax cattle the source for the .gov parasites, they can't exist without them. 🤣
It is an attack on an enemy .govs "supply chain" "resources" etc. 😂
It's not attacking your own peasants & getting yourself offed for it...
They have to eat, they have to sleep, they have to shit, they have to travel at some point, not everyone is as worthless as that 20 year old or as limited in thought. 🤣
How do you think the central banks & military industrial complex cowed the puppets that didn't respond to bribes... 😂
Okay. Well, you enjoy yourself, mate. I feel like you took some things out of context or perhaps missed the point i was trying to make. Perhaps, you missed my previous comment? Idk. 🤷♂️
Meh, it's all irrelevant because the system will collapse before anyone gets antsy enough anyway. 🤣
I was just pointing out that they couldn't win if most humans still acted like humans... which they don't...
I have a busy day, mate. Gonna type this up quick and we'll chat later if you wish.
When did I say strike? And I figured we were referring to larger populations. Hence my reference regarding government influence never ceasing to spread. The more it spreads the larger both governing and civilian bodies become.
I meant WMDs strictly as a means to threaten. I'm aware you'd make more enemies but trust me, nuclear powers have threatened foreign nations with nuclear force far more often than anyone believes. And it's worked. Obviously they won't advertise such a thing across the bloody media outlets. Also, I meant having WMDs, in general, should be prohibited if they wish to be in a position of power. That's what I meant by leverage. They can threaten anyone. Doesn't mean it will be their own people. Probably won't be. But, they might threaten others. And we don't want that either.