Are you saying that we can’t live in peace so we might as well give permission to psychopaths to enslave us? I’m not sure what conclusion you’re leading me toward.
Discussion
I am not leading you to a conclusion, I am questioning what’s coming into fill the vacuum?
I am hearing there will be peace?
No there won’t be. But the solution is not violent government.
I am still not hearing what the solution that replaces the existing “constitution”.
What the solution is*
The constitution is a piece of paper with ink on it and it isn’t even doing what it claims to do. Because it’s a piece of paper and can’t do anything. This is equivalent to saying we need to replace an idol with something else. It won’t fix anything but you insist that it needs to be replaced with something.
The piece of paper can’t do anything, but the army that’s pledged allegiance to it can.
Then the piece of paper is irrelevant. The people choose to act this way.
Yes, it’s a collaboration.
A “tribe” of its own.
Is this not sufficient? Couldn’t people work together to fix their own problems then? Because if you accept the premise that the constitution is just a piece of paper with no real power, then all we really have left is a group of individuals acting.
Instead of this strange example you gave where a government is overthrown, let’s try another scenario. What would happen in this same “country” if all the people stopped paying taxes?
If you don’t like the terms “government” and “country”, then substitute all of it for “tribe”. I am good with that.
That's the view from behind the rosy glasses, indeed. Not reality.
Constitutions are trampled by emergency powers, and the US has been in a constant state of emergency for over half a century. You could say the constitution is "temporarily"® suspended, until the emergency ends™. Not a new game, same happens to every babylonian state.
Voting for change is a meaningless practice as the unfavorable result to the status quo gets discarded or a re-do forced. Voting to legitimize a corrupt oligarchy however is not meaningless - that's the reason elections get massive publicity. Without your vote, which wont lead to positive change for you, they would have to resort to more obvious authoritarian methods. That's bad for bizz and grifting so voting is heavily encouraged.
The alternative to a bad practice is not doing it. The alternative to stealing and killing is not doing it. So the alternative to voting for masters is not to vote. If you insist voting is the only meaningful activity to your community I encourage you to think if you are in a good place and if not - move (vote with your feet).
When you remove a parasite from your body, what do you replace it with?
This sounds like an over simplification, but I think we understand each other.
Suppose we take any nation state leader, suppose they are a parasite. We forcefully remove them, we leave, are we saying no one will step in to take their place? If we stay and enforce this new peace, are we not the parasite?
Hobbes call this entity the “Leviathan”.
This new peace you’re suggesting we enforce is an oxymoron. Using theft and violence to enforce “peace” is not peace at all.
Removing the leader doesn’t make all the other government institutions disappear.
So you’re suggesting the other option, overthrow the existing parasite and leave. See if another parasite doesn’t take its place.
I didn’t suggest anything. You made up this weird scenario where a government overthrows another government and just leaves. As if a government would make a selfless act like that lol
Whether another parasite takes its place doesn’t make it right. The question is, do you think people are capable of ruling themselves and fixing their own problems without having a slave master?
Do I think some people are capable of ruling themselves? Of course.
Do I think there will psychopaths that want to rule them? Also of course.
Will there be war? Of course.
Do you believe that violence is necessary for human civilization?
Yes
Do you believe that only a select number of people should have the right to use violence in anyway they see fit?
I only speak for myself and the right to use violence.
I think defense and violence are different things. Do you mean right to defend yourself?
Defense is a sub component of violence.
I don’t see it that way. A fence isn’t used violently for example.
I can zap you with an electric fence ⚡️
You wouldn’t really be zapping me as much as I’d be zapping myself if I touch the fence