The USE-CASE for GOVERNMENT - (GARF)

Isn't it always?  In any system, there are winners and losers.  The winners will purchase more land, and kick out anyone they dislike.  And then buy more land.

Whether or not its administered by a "private contractor" or not, it will inevitably become "an overly-centralized institution".

You're describing wage-slavery.

But it's even worse than that.

and in many cases their lands have been polluted by industrial waste, and now, stripped of their ability to provide for themselves as they have for literally thousands of years, they are forced to abandon these traditions and work for fiat.

Eh, I'm pretty sure the original intent, the original use-case for government was to adjudicate disputes between citizens and to provide public roads and protect public resources like water and to protect citizens from foreign invasion and to protect property rights so the powerful (ranchers and or railroads) can't simply take your land by force.

The government should act as a referee.

Now imagine if you had a sports league where the most powerful teams openly advocated eliminating referees.

wHY do you think they would do that??

Or if they promised referee's well paying jobs when they retired from being referees.

wHY do you think they would do that??

Or if they managed to get their former coaches and or other personnel and or their relatives installed as referees to officiate their own games.

wHY do you think they would do that??

THE "PROBLEM" ISN'T THE REFEREES THEMSELVES, OR EVEN THE IDEA OF REFEREES IN GENERAL.

THE "PROBLEM" IS CORRUPTION.

The solution to your 1st video is to institute a flat tax, essentially making 100% of the population lobbyists, instead of the 1% with skin in the game.

Isn't it always?  In any system, there are winners and losers.  The winners will purchase more land, and kick out anyone they dislike.  And then buy more land.

How do you suggest they "buy more land" if they're kicking out everyone they dislike? Where are they earning their income?

Because once people start paying taxes, they will stop voting for the corruption. As long as they don't have any skin in the game, there is no accountability.

Whether or not its administered by a "private contractor" or not, it will inevitably become "an overly-centralized institution".

No, because to be "private" is to not be "overly-centralized." How do you suppose they'd centralize without the coercive force of a centralized government?

You're describing wage-slavery.

But it's even worse than that.

No, I'm describing "debt-slavery." All governments accumulate debt which tax-paying citizens are obligated to service said debt. International bankers sell this debt using the tax payer's labor as collateral.

Eh, I'm pretty sure the original intent, the original use-case for government was to adjudicate disputes between citizens and to provide public roads and protect public resources like water and to protect citizens from foreign invasion and to protect property rights so the powerful (ranchers and or railroads) can't simply take your land by force.

Which government are we talking about? Tribal governments?

Feudal governments?

None of them fit your description.

Perhaps the closest thing was the United States during its first nine years when it had its own colonial script and operated under Articles of Confederation. But that's far too indulgent with your description.

Social interaction ought to reflect a pick-up game of basketball. Everyone who desires to participate either conceives a set of rules to mutual agreement, or adopt the ones which naturally come with the game. Each participant is free to accept or decline the rules suggested. Not only that, each participant is free to seek other arrangements which reflect their own values for rules setting without being deprived of that with which they came in. These games are usually self-regulated and in the event of disputes, codes of resolution are exercised (e.g. "miss on me.") Either that or resolution is brought about through concession. This works because each participant has an identical goal in mind: entertainment. And there's a plethora of considerations taken, consciously or subconsciously, before and during engagement.  Cheating is heavily discouraged because one risks getting alienated and/or ostracized in future games.

With the government acting as a referee, the "referee" proverbially puts a gun to your head, and forces you to play by his rules whether you agree with them or not. And in the event, you dissent, it will shoot you, detain you, or rob you of everything you have--including your socks.

If we were to entertain your statements in the other thread, and for the sake of argument, concede that in the absence of government, we'd live in a "wild west" because people cannot be trusted to be left to their own device, then how is that members of government can be left to their own devices? Isn't a corrupt government inevitable?

Answer: you won't stop trying, but the majority of the voters that pay taxes won't vote in a politician that can be purchased by the 1%.

If I own ten acres of real-estate that surround your 1, I can force you to pay tolls to cross my land.

I can charge people rent to live on my land.  I can charge companies a fee in order to conduct business on my land.  Land makes money.

More land = more money = more land.

There are lots of privately held corporations that are highly centralized.  The two concepts are not incompatible.

It's true that the system makes people complicit in the process that traps them, but that fact doesn't make it okay. It seems to me that the system is designed, whether consciously or not, specifically to get people locked into it.

In a tribal government, the leader of the tribe would organize hunts, make sure the people didn't starve and settled disputes among tribe members.

If the tribal leaders did a poor job of this, they would be killed or banished.

In a feudal government, the leader of the fiefdom would organize security and food supplies, make sure the people didn't starve and settled disputes among tribe members.

If the feudal leaders did a poor job of this, they would be killed or banished.

Is it now?

Great metaphor.  The only problem is if there's only ONE GAME IN TOWN

And how is that any different from a FREE-MARKET-WARLORD?

The idea of a referee is to mitigate bullying.  If you think people should NOT be forced to "play by the rules" then you essentially have no rules and people will act like MOBSTERS.

There are specific barriers and codes-of-conduct that insulate referees from corruption.

Professional sports and even professional auditors have proven over time that there can be effective and reasonably fair referees.

Or perhaps we could follow these real-world examples

Sweden is a parliamentary democratic with a constitutional monarchy. This country globally known for its high quality life, equality, human development, education and health. The government system of Sweden is also transparent and stable. The government agencies of Sweden considered the corruption as ‘abuse of power’. There is also a efficient anti-corruption unit in Sweden to investigate and prosecute corruption.

But just because a country has a clean public sector at home, doesn’t mean it isn’t linked to corruption elsewhere.

Take Sweden for instance. It comes fourth in the index, yet the Swedish-Finnish firm TeliaSonera – 37 per cent owned by the Swedish state – is facing allegations that it paid millions of dollars in bribes to secure business in Uzbekistan, which comes in at 153rd in the index.

The company is now pulling out of business in Central Asia, but Sweden isn’t the only “clean” country to be linked to dodgy behaviour overseas. As our research shows, half of all OECD countries are violating their international obligations to crack down on bribery by their companies abroad.

If I own ten acres of real-estate that surround your 1, I can force you to pay tolls to cross my land.

I can charge people rent to live on my land.  I can charge companies a fee in order to conduct business on my land.  Land makes money.

More land = more money = more land.

Exactly; therefore it's far more lucrative and incentivizing to charge for use of your land rather than to kick one off simply because you dislike them.

There are lots of privately held corporations that are highly centralized.  The two concepts are not incompatible.

Give an example.

It's true that the system makes people complicit in the process that traps them, but that fact doesn't make it okay. It seems to me that the system is designed, whether consciously or not, specifically to get people locked into it.

I'm not at all suggesting that this is okay. But with cartoonishly wealthy banking families who operate on trapping the populace in their debt schemes, governments are mere tools (along with mass media) to cajole the unwitting into political activism which facilitates said scheme.

Great metaphor.  The only problem is if there's only ONE GAME IN TOWN

Why would there be a single rent-seeking monopoly dictating a single game in town?

And how is that any different from a FREE-MARKET-WARLORD?

To what extent is this person acting as a "war-lord"? If the "war-lord" merely participates in free exchanges and dissemination of products and services, why would it matter that he or she is a "war-lord"?

The idea of a referee is to mitigate bullying.  If you think people should NOT be forced to "play by the rules" then you essentially have no rules and people will act like MOBSTERS.

Then what's the point of any organized social interaction? If people are predisposed to acting like mobsters, then all government action would reflect his mobster mentality because government members consist of people.

There are specific barriers and codes-of-conduct that insulate referees from corruption.

How? Who maintains/sustains these codes of conduct if not the very people who you claim are predisposed to mobster mentalities? The rules are only as good as the people who follow them. And according to your rationale, the rules are mobster rules.

Sweden is a parliamentary democratic with a constitutional monarchy. This country globally known for its high quality life, equality, human development, education and health. The government system of Sweden is also transparent and stable. The government agencies of Sweden considered the corruption as ‘abuse of power’. There is also a efficient anti-corruption unit in Sweden to investigate and prosecute corruption.

The company is now pulling out of business in Central Asia,

You don't kick-off EVERYBODY, just the people you personally DON'T LIKE.  You know, like weirdos and cult members and people who don't speak your language...

Have you ever heard of Koch Industries?

So I ask you, (IFF) "cartoonishly wealthy banking families" are running rampant (THEN) how is shrinking or eliminating government (referees) going to SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?

Let's examine a few examples of dominant industries operating in countries with very weak and or effectively zero government oversight.

Avocado cartels in Mexico.

Diamond cartels in Africa.

Rubber and Bananas and Chocolate are all valuable commodities that have frozen-out the land-owner-farmers by MANIPULATING THE MARKET (in the absence of effective government referees).

Are you familiar with panopticon? [LINK]

Private citizens would have an iron-clad right to privacy, but public-servants (referees) would have every action placed in a permanent and public record.

So, problem solved.

Would you rather live in a country with a functioning government or in a country with no functioning government.

So I ask you, (IFF) "cartoonishly wealthy banking families" are running rampant (THEN) how is shrinking or eliminating government (referees) going to SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?

Because government enforcement is their sword, and government regulations are their shields.

First, what is playing fair? Second, why are your mentions the example, and not the exception especially considering that these cartels are backed by the Mexican government, which in turn is subsidized by the C.I.A? Not to mention that Diamond trade and the resulting conflict is likely sponsored by the Rothschild bank.

Private citizens would have an iron-clad right to privacy, but public-servants (referees) would have every action placed in a permanent and public record.

Public servants would have their rights diminished? With the predisposition to mobster mentalities, wouldn't this lead to an insurrection?

So, problem solved.

Did that solve the problem, or was that a mere reaction to public pressure? What about the incentives that facilitated the bribery in the first place?

Would you rather live in a country with a functioning government or in a country with no functioning government.

No functioning government of course. I'll make this clear: I'm not an anarchist for the sake of anarchy. Anarchy--particularly autarchy--is the logical extension of my sustaining the moral philosophy of individualism. I do not presume a mere removal of government would solve all problems. There must be a moral framework which guides social interaction--preferably individualism. Just like in your reference to the panopticon, I'd rather have the discretion to weigh my own decisions and act accordingly than to have them dictated to me out of fear of the spectre of a "Wild West."