| VAMatt said: I don't know what to say, man. As near as I can tell, you're just hearing what you want to hear. I said unequivocally that I am cool with collective action. I said that I want the US out of the UN, and you say that I'm talking about destroying government from the bottom up (which, in fairness, I do support). My "plan" (which I am not obligated to have before I express an opinion on something), is to get dissolve the UN, have the USA lead by example, and to support efforts to shrink government anytime, anywhere. I do not have a plan to topple any dictators, just the same as you don't (at least, not that you have shared). |
There are some really disruptive technologies in the pipeline that could become the institutions I describe. Blockchain is one. It has more potential than just disrupting banks. It could disrupt the entire market and the way we exchange goods, maybe even a way to verify truth and defeat fake news. 3D printing is another, as it could democratize manufacturing. Mesh networks could create an alternate internet free from ISPs and make net neutrality secured forever, and make the internet free like it used to be, freer even, because it could never be tied down again. If it sounds fantastical, that's because it's science fiction at this point. But the beginnings of these technologies are already here, and the trends are promising. Free exchange of ideas on a free internet with the ability to verify the truth of information independent of governments, churches, corporations, or any institution that you'd have to merely trust the authority of, and you'd have an informed populace immune to propaganda. 3D printing allows them to make what they need and want without need of governments, corporations, or charity. Blockchain, applied correctly, eliminates all middlemen and creates more efficient ways of distributing goods than even the freest market would unaided. Add a few technologies of abundance, such as some upcoming farming technologies that could let us grow 5 acres worth of food in a space smaller than your living room with a fraction of the water and non of the pesticides, or expanding the 3D printing technology with advanced enough nanotechnology to allow for 3D printing entire buildings in weeks to months for a fraction of the cost, and all of humanities basic needs could be met without the need for large concentrations of power, government, church, corporation, or otherwise. It's a more than optimistic outlook I know, more a utopian one, and I don't think it's guaranteed, just very much possible. The right mix of powerful technologies could obsolete government and completely reorganize society, and give billions the power to act collectively and democratically with enough disruptive power to overturn any government or other corrupt concentration of power.
Right now though, there are just too many ways that everything could be ruined forever and either an apocalypse or a horrific, eternal dystopia would result, and I don't want that to happen before technology can advance enough to free us. I don't know how long that might take, and technology can also work against us. If the autocratic states can master the right technology before us, the rest of human existence will be lived at the hands and under the thumbs of immortal, unstoppable, all-controlling regimes. They will conquer everything just because they can. Lacking organization on a grand scale, we cannot resist them, we just lack the power. So while I do genuinely understand your desire for freedom, I consider it frustratingly naive to think you could destroy concentrated power from the bottom up. You have this notion that if the United States dissolved all government tomorrow, that the rest of the democratic world would just follow suit and not get conquered by the autocratic world. You have this seeming insistence on equating all governments as equally unfree and equally unresponsive to their peoples, and seem blind to the danger you would put the world into if all of the responsive governments dissolved and all of the autocratic governments remained. We'd just be a bunch of people, regular joe schmoes, unorganized, unable to resist. Sure, some would try, but there would be nothing left powerful enough to oppose them. I don't love the UN, but I think it holds the tyrants at bay, and with the right action and leadership from the right governments, the balance of power within it could be shifted such that it could be reformed to be more democratic, responsive, and supportive of a democratic world. I wouldn't want to keep it forever, just as long as it served the purpose of being the only thing staving off tyranny. I would hope to replace it and all institutions of concentrated power with something like what I described above.
If I misrepresent you, it is because I don't understand your viewpoint. I apologize for the shortcuts I've taken thus far. I've tried to use words like "seem" when describing your viewpoint unless I'm fairly sure you actually believe something. The comments about voluntary support shed some light, though. I understand that we will never see eye to eye, of course, as I view government as a sometimes democratically responsive necessary stepping stone to a better world, and you view it as worthless and inherently evil.
