Interesting hole I just realized in my philosophy

[Uriel999]

Alright so last night I was driving and was thinking about the nature of government. I started with the idea that it exists only to protect the property rights of its citizens, i.e. bad guy breaks into your home, causes you bodily harm, etc.

At first that sounds well and good, however, one could make the argument under this line of reasoning that because the government is supposed to protect your property rights and your own person counting as property the government must protect and nurse you from the cradle to the grave.

Discuss, debate.

[torchbearer]

Government is force.
The only legitimate use of force is in self-defense.
The defense of life liberty and property.


Did people create the government, or did government create the people?
Are we the masters or the slave?

If we created government, then how can we bestow on government power that we do not have.
Meaning, if i can't take money from you by force, how can the government?
If i can't force you to change your business policies, how can the government?

And if the government can do these things, then it is a power unto itself(because it didn't get that power from us)... and that makes us the slaves and it the master.

[krazy kaju]

In order to nurse you cradle-to-grave it must violate your property rights and the property rights for others. For example, it must ban drug usage "for your own safety," violating your property rights, and it must make sure you're never too poor by taking money from others, violating their property rights. So any such action is self-contradictory.

Not that there is anything like a government that truly protects property rights anyway.

[Josh_LA]

Alright so last night I was driving and was thinking about the nature of government. I started with the idea that it exists only to protect the property rights of its citizens, i.e. bad guy breaks into your home, causes you bodily harm, etc.

At first that sounds well and good, however, one could make the argument under this line of reasoning that because the government is supposed to protect your property rights and your own person counting as property the government must protect and nurse you from the cradle to the grave.

Discuss, debate.

that is not a hole, that's exactly the paradox every philosophy faces, none of them are perfect , and there is a price to pay for everything.

that's why some people separate positive rights from negative rights.

that's why I am an anarchist in that I don't believe you have any rights you can't fight for yourself.

[Josh_LA]

In order to nurse you cradle-to-grave it must violate your property rights and the property rights for others.

In other words, your right to drive your $50k car is more important than somebody's stupid right to life and health that God gave him.

[Uriel999]

that is not a hole, that's exactly the paradox every philosophy faces, none of them are perfect , and there is a price to pay for everything.

that's why some people separate positive rights from negative rights.

that's why I am an anarchist in that I don't believe you have any rights you can't fight for yourself.

could you explain positive and negative rights?

[Josh_LA]

could you explain positive and negative rights?

nobody owes you any priveleges or money or protection, but nobody can violate or hurt you.

positive rights are insurance and housing and food (they are nonexistent if people are neglecting of it)

negative rights are your life, what you had upon birth that people have to take away to take away (not take away by being indifferent)

I still personally believe this distinction is bogus, as no matter how you say "A is wrong", it does not stop a person from doing A unless he willingly agrees to it.

This is why I don't believe in minarchy or right to life or property rights or God given rights, none of them have exceeded "might makes right".

[Uriel999]

Gotcha. :)

[Josh_LA]

Gotcha. :)

that's why I don't like it when people claim they don't believe in government or they don't believe in force, NONSENSE, they believe in anything as long as it favors them.

[heavenlyboy34]

Alright so last night I was driving and was thinking about the nature of government. I started with the idea that it exists only to protect the property rights of its citizens, i.e. bad guy breaks into your home, causes you bodily harm, etc.

At first that sounds well and good, however, one could make the argument under this line of reasoning that because the government is supposed to protect your property rights and your own person counting as property the government must protect and nurse you from the cradle to the grave.

Discuss, debate.

I'm glad you've gotten your first dose of red pill reality. ;):):cool: Have a nice weekend!

[LibForestPaul]

My views of government is that it was e means of controlling peoples natural tendencies (beast, might makes right). Viewing countries where governing of the masses has broken down, one sees what anarchy, the beast.

Anarchy is the anathema of civilization.

Now governing can either be through edicts(dictator, king), laws from representatives (Greece), or through nobility/land holders/elites (England/Cuba). But its purpose is to control the beast.

[krazy kaju]

Or this (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf).

[LibForestPaul]

Or this (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf).

Currently, many Eastern European blocks are forming this "anarcho" wonderland. (kleptocracies )
Many "security firms" are operating where one can "choose" to buy "justice" from. ;)
I prefer government. Representative government.:cool:

[AuH20]

Alright so last night I was driving and was thinking about the nature of government. I started with the idea that it exists only to protect the property rights of its citizens, i.e. bad guy breaks into your home, causes you bodily harm, etc.

At first that sounds well and good, however, one could make the argument under this line of reasoning that because the government is supposed to protect your property rights and your own person counting as property the government must protect and nurse you from the cradle to the grave.

Discuss, debate.

No. Our constitution and laws form a social contract. But the people reserve the right to terminate this contract at any time.

[idiom]

I so thought you were going to say you found your big toe sticking out of your philosophy.

Government exists to do whatever you want it to do. Its is there for you, you let it exist.

[TastyWheat]

Slavery in the name of safety? If you haven't seen I, Robot or read "The Evitable Conflict" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict) that should give you a fair perspective on this topic.

[Conza88]

No. Our constitution and laws form a social contract. But the people reserve the right to terminate this contract at any time.

No they don't. Fail.

No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner (http://jim.com/treason.htm)

[sailor]

Alright so last night I was driving and was thinking about the nature of government. I started with the idea that it exists only to protect the property rights of its citizens, i.e. bad guy breaks into your home, causes you bodily harm, etc.

A tax funded entity which exists only to protect your property is a contradiction in terms.

If it is supposed to protect your property, how come it does not protect it from the taxman? How come the police instead helps the taxman?!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Alright so last night I was driving and was thinking about the nature of government. I started with the idea that it exists only to protect the property rights of its citizens, i.e. bad guy breaks into your home, causes you bodily harm, etc.

At first that sounds well and good, however, one could make the argument under this line of reasoning that because the government is supposed to protect your property rights and your own person counting as property the government must protect and nurse you from the cradle to the grave.

Discuss, debate.

First off, never think and drive at the same time.
Secondly, the American system always reduces to unalienable truths and natural rights, irregardless, with this theory having been based not on the more modern theoretical sciences but on the more primitive science of "natural law."
In other words, the American system was based on the ideal that a partisan political conscience reduces down physically, much like DnA, to become the common conscience of every human-soul.
Americans have property because it makes us happy and not the other way around. Contentment is the goal and not the ownership of property. Get the idea backwards and one has the types of exploitation that we have today where the state and the banks end up owning a lot of empty houses.
The problem with the more modern theoretical science is how it has spawned the controversial "social" sciences. There is a read question as to whether these endeavors into reality are really sciences or whether they belong in the arts. Whatever the case, theoretical science has led politics away from viewing mankind as universal in purpose and, in the case of American politics, existential in regards to him and her being content.

[Josh_LA]

No they don't. Fail.

No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner (http://jim.com/treason.htm)

No they don't what?

They never agreed to the contract? Or they don't have the right to terminate it?

[idiom]

Conza reckons the Constitution doesn't exist. Ron Paul is delusional.

[danberkeley]

No state is better than minarchy and minarchy is better than a full-blown state.
We have a full-blown state now and having a minarchy would be better.

[NoMoreFed]

I don't think a person can in any way be defined as "property". That is only true with marxism and fascism where the state owns its populace.

[Conza88]

No they don't what?

They never agreed to the contract? Or they don't have the right to terminate it?

Both. ;)


Conza reckons the Constitution doesn't exist. Ron Paul is delusional.

Strawman. :)

[Conza88]

I don't think a person can in any way be defined as "property". That is only true with marxism and fascism where the state owns its populace.

The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)

Self ownership principle. Get with the times. :o

[idiom]

So you can put yourself up as collateral against a loan?

[sailor]

So you can put yourself up as collateral against a loan?

Of course you can. It`s called indentured servitude.

[idiom]

Just as long as we all know we are promoting the purchase and sale of other humans. Indentured Servitutde is only using a set amount of work as collateral. You don't actually own the person, just a set amount of output.

If we are working with self ownership then people are mere objects to be owned. Which is sort of at odds with the whole idea of 'rights' based on existence.

Even Indentured Servitude is a violation of human rights.

Once you have sold yourself, you no longer have rights, which sets the precedent that a human being can exist without rights and that you can alienate them at will.

If a human being can exist without rights, then how can they self-evidently be born with a set of rights?

[heavenlyboy34]

Just as long as we all know we are promoting the purchase and sale of other humans.

The matter at hand is purchase and sale of oneself. BIG difference. ;):)

[idiom]

The matter at hand is purchase and sale of oneself. BIG difference. ;):)

There are two sides to any trade... so somebody will be buying or selling someone who is not themselves.

[tremendoustie]

Alright so last night I was driving and was thinking about the nature of government. I started with the idea that it exists only to protect the property rights of its citizens, i.e. bad guy breaks into your home, causes you bodily harm, etc.

At first that sounds well and good, however, one could make the argument under this line of reasoning that because the government is supposed to protect your property rights and your own person counting as property the government must protect and nurse you from the cradle to the grave.

Discuss, debate.

The government can act as your proxy. If it would be ok to defend yourself against an attacker or a thief, the government can do the same. If it would not be ok for you to steal from your neighbor, it's not ok for the government to do it for you.

Just think, "If I personally did what I am proposing the government do, would it be moral?", and you have your answer.

[sailor]

Just as long as we all know we are promoting the purchase and sale of other humans. Indentured Servitutde is only using a set amount of work as collateral. You don't actually own the person, just a set amount of output.

If we are working with self ownership then people are mere objects to be owned. Which is sort of at odds with the whole idea of 'rights' based on existence.

Once you have sold yourself, you no longer have rights, which sets the precedent that a human being can exist without rights and that you can alienate them at will.

If a human being can exist without rights, then how can they self-evidently be born with a set of rights?

For that you would have to be able to sell yourself. But you can not because you can not stop owning yourself.


Even Indentured Servitude is a violation of human rights. Nonsense.

[Josh_LA]

Both. ;)



Strawman. :)

If you never agreed to the contract, you don't need to nullify or terminate it

But even if you did, wrongly or mistakenly, you can still terminate it, unless of course Conza is the dictator with his BS interpretation of natural laws.

[Josh_LA]

Of course you can. It`s called indentured servitude.

I agree, which I why I never spoke out against slavery.

[Josh_LA]

If a human being can exist without rights, then how can they self-evidently be born with a set of rights?

I agree, I believe a human can exist without rights, either by forfeiting or by force. Thus I don't agree with the religious doctrine that people are unconditionally absolutely automatically born with rights.

How is servitude any different than prostitution though? Or selling your labor? Aren't they all examples of a person voluntarily selling his choices away?

[Conza88]

If you never agreed to the contract, you don't need to nullify or terminate it.

This is exactly what was originally said.




Our constitution and laws form a social contract. But the people reserve the right to terminate this contract at any time.

No they don't. Fail.

Who signed the U.S Constitution? Social contract theory fails.

No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner (http://jim.com/treason.htm)


But even if you did, wrongly or mistakenly, you can still terminate it, unless of course Conza is the dictator with his BS interpretation of natural laws.

Do you ever stop controlling your body / property? i.e Can someone else take over and you stop existing within this plane of reality?

And don't go all trans-humanism retarded on me, hmmm k. :rolleyes:

I'm no dictator Josh. Don't describe yourself now. You've said it from your own finger tips. YOU'RE the want who wants to be dictator, not me champ. ;)

[idiom]

For that you would have to be able to sell yourself. But you can not because you can not stop owning yourself.

If you can't sell it, is it the same as regular property? Or have you made an error somewhere?


Nonsense [Re: Indentured Servitude being a human rights violation]


Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.



(3) Work with the Customs Service to assist the People’s Republic of China and other foreign governments in monitoring the sale of goods mined, produced, or manufactured by convict labor, forced labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions to ensure that such goods are not exported to the United States.

Now I like the idea of bond servants, I think it would sort out bankruptcies and such, plus it will be a great way to fund future Mars colonisation. However it is not compatible with any sort of inalienable or natural right.


How is servitude any different than prostitution though? Or selling your labor? Aren't they all examples of a person voluntarily selling his choices away?

If 'labour' and 'services' don't actually exist as property as PowerofReason's school of thought suggests then there is no difference. All physical things can be bought and sold, although Humans magically get to start out owning themselves, commiting theft against their parents.

However, Prostitution, labour and other services are distinct from indentured servitude by definition in that the former can be annulled at any time, the persons freedom and right to self determination is always immediately available. Servitutde and Slavery are not renegotiable and you have no rights except privelleges granted by the contract owner or rights restricting the scontract owner detailed in clause wither in the contract or in statute law.


Do you ever stop controlling your body / property? i.e Can someone else take over and you stop existing within this plane of reality?

On a quick note, my government has no constitution to speak of, I am quite happy with it however. If I was unhappy with it I would take steps to change it. I think the taxes I pay are fair and reasonable, and are generally well managed. So it is easy for me to say that inaction and lack of reasonable protest is the equivalent of consent. Your Government is a seriously out of control and unresponsive to the electorate, or the electorate is failling. One or the other, but seriously unpopular representatives keep getting re-elected.

On the quote, if your body is property, it must be a different sort of property from, say, a gold bar. You can't sell it (that is stop owning it) and it can't be stolen. It produces no new property, yet it manages to create value. Also, this particular object you seemingly 'emancipate' from your parents or state on a flimsy idea of 'greater claim'. As a slave or indentured servant, you do lose a lot of things commonly associated with Ownership.

[Conza88]

On a quick note, my government has no constitution to speak of, I am quite happy with it however. If I was unhappy with it I would take steps to change it. I think the taxes I pay are fair and reasonable, and are generally well managed. So it is easy for me to say that inaction and lack of reasonable protest is the equivalent of consent. Your Government is a seriously out of control and unresponsive to the electorate, or the electorate is failling. One or the other, but seriously unpopular representatives keep getting re-elected.

You didn't read that I'm from down under? Where's your Constitutionless country?


On the quote, if your body is property, it must be a different sort of property from, say, a gold bar. You can't sell it (that is stop owning it) and it can't be stolen. It produces no new property, yet it manages to create value. Also, this particular object you seemingly 'emancipate' from your parents or state on a flimsy idea of 'greater claim'. As a slave or indentured servant, you do lose a lot of things commonly associated with Ownership.

You can sell it. You can sell your liver, arms, legs, basically anything you want. Lol. Except the cerebrum... haha. Your property (body) can be stolen. Say you have a car accident and whilst operating on you, they thought it said on your slip that you said it would be ok to donate your kidney... but they screwed up. Wrong person. Too late... you just got your kidney stolen. lol

Tragedy of Organ Theft Ongoing in China, Investigator Says
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-12-15/49360.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_theft

But if you sell it voluntary, that's your choice - you still own the rest of your body (property) and function.

On the Ethics of Paying Organ Donors: An Economics Perspective by David Kaserman. (http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/bb05/Kaserman.mp3) Mises Brown Bag Seminar.

You can also argue it creates new property. Sperm being one. lol :eek:

It creates property by transforming things. Mixing your labor with something. That's where value is created, which ends up being subjective.

[paulim]

My views of government is that it was e means of controlling peoples natural tendencies (beast, might makes right). Viewing countries where governing of the masses has broken down, one sees what anarchy, the beast.
Anarchy is the anathema of civilization.
Now governing can either be through edicts(dictator, king), laws from representatives (Greece), or through nobility/land holders/elites (England/Cuba). But its purpose is to control the beast.

Big government is the friend of anarchy. For the beast to really come to power it needs a government in the first place to destroy all local human relationships. A government to unsettle people, get them moving. Even if the government doesn't survive this, then the people lost their (you can call it natural or cultural) normal way of life, and then they start looking for food from the neighbor.

So a local government is the opposite of anarchy/big government.

And to the OP: A small government mainly provides jurisdiction. Jurisdiction uses force only if something already happened. There is no protection before someone did something wrong. This additional protection/insurance you have to give yourself if necessary.

[tremendoustie]

Currently, many Eastern European blocks are forming this "anarcho" wonderland. (kleptocracies )
Many "security firms" are operating where one can "choose" to buy "justice" from. ;)
I prefer government. Representative government.:cool:

Sounds great. Will these people you vote for be stealing other people's money, even if they don't want to participate?



Big government is the friend of anarchy. For the beast to really come to power it needs a government in the first place to destroy all local human relationships. A government to unsettle people, get them moving. Even if the government doesn't survive this, then the people lost their (you can call it natural or cultural) normal way of life, and then they start looking for food from the neighbor.

So a local government is the opposite of anarchy/big government.


Anarchy just means no government. So, how is big government the friend of no government? Are you sure, when you say "anarchy" that you don't really mean "chaos" or "widespread violence", because that seems to be how you're using the term.

[paulim]

Anarchy just means no government. So, how is big government the friend of no government? Are you sure, when you say "anarchy" that you don't really mean "chaos" or "widespread violence", because that seems to be how you're using the term.

You're right. I used the definition of libforest.

Although I think that anarchy in your definition (no government at all) is hardly to find even 5000 years ago. A local culture governs itself pretty good. The desire for law and order (my opinion) will lead to a kind of government, even between man and woman. (And based upon that to more complex ones, but always changeable, not determined by an unreachable government)

[Kraig]

So if government is there to protect your property right, wouldn't that also mean they hold a monopoly on protection services? If you know of a better way to protect or retrieve your property, is it right for government to prevent you from using an alternate method? Is it right for government to use force to maintain there monopoly?

[gilliganscorner]

You're right. I used the definition of libforest.

Although I think that anarchy in your definition (no government at all) is hardly to find even 5000 years ago. A local culture governs itself pretty good. The desire for law and order (my opinion) will lead to a kind of government, even between man and woman. (And based upon that to more complex ones, but always changeable, not determined by an unreachable government)

How did this notion of requiring a government to rule us get started? What is government?

I think there is 4 characteristics defining government.

1) A monopoly on violence. A group of people who want to control or exert their wills on others is obtained by force over a given geographical area, call it a nation, province, state, or whatever. This group of people must eliminate all competition from other groups seeking the same control. There can be only one. Somalia is falsely labelled as anarchistic when in reality, you have various groups competing against each other to become the NEW government. Whether they use fists, stones, spears, machine guns or nuclear weapons, to exert their force or implied threat of force, a monopoly of force is required at first. How that force is obtained (i.e. a military junta, a dictatorship, fascism, communism, aristocracy, plutocracy, democracy, or a republic) is an academic exercise. The requirement for control is basic.

Once that monopoly on violence (MoV) is obtained, I argue we still don't have a government. We need the second point.

2) The sanction of the victim. I can think of no better phrase than to coin Ayn Rand's phrase from Atlas Shrugged. People living under a military dictatorship will not produce willingly unless they consent. The economic construct is such that people will only produce if they are forced to. What do they produce? Whatever the monopoly on violence forces them to do and nothing more, other than squabbling for the essentials of food, water, and shelter. Normally, I would add safety, but if people were expected to produce only to have it confiscated by the ruling MoV, they would make no effort to improve productivity. This is why some areas under control of an MoV without sanction of the victim are so destitute. No one will produce very much under constant threat of having the fruits of their labour stolen.

Think of the difference between a prisoner and a slave. A prisoner is an economic liability whereas the slave is an economic asset to the owner. The variable here is the degree of submission. A prisoner is a prisoner because he refuses to submit. A slave submits instead of refusing to work at all for their owners. Now we can certainly make the case that a slave will do the bare minimum of work as directed in fear of receiving punishment, or have sustenance withheld, but they still submit. I read somewhere that during the slave trade era, there was a particular tribe that refused to submit at all. There resistance was so stoic, they would opt to die than to submit. Consequently, the slave traders stopped trying to capture members of that tribe or clan.

You cannot have economic output with prisoners if the prisoner refuses to submit. Once any degree of submission is obtained from the prisoner, they begin the transition from prisoner to slave. Certainly slaves would not look for productivity improvements in the task at hand to benefit their owners, but probably would to alleviate their workload.

3) Point of contact with government. This is the next requirement. Government secures agents to enforce their edicts. If they did not, the controlled would ignore them eventually. This happened in recent years (well, relatively recent) when the US was being colonized. They paid no tax to the King of England for 100+ years. If government moved into the area, they simply moved further out west. What is interesting is, of the literature I read, they were a peaceful lot by in large. It was amazing how many of them became "criminals" when the State muscled in to try and collect tribute or confiscate the fruits of their labour via taxation.

You might want to reference these books:

The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance) (Hardcover)
by Terry L. Anderson (Author), Peter J. Hill (Author)


“Far from being an anarchic free-for-all, the American West was a ferment of social innovation, a place where men and women strove to invent co-operative arrangements they could trust. Anderson and Hill powerfully undermine the pervasive idea that social order and property rights are imposed from above by the state, and reveal instead that they are usually achieved from below by free negotiation between individuals.”—Matt Ridley, Author of The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation and Nature via Nurture

and:

Frontier Violence: Another Look (Galaxy Books) (Paperback)
by W. Eugene Hollon (Author)

4) Economic surplus. A group of non-productive people removed from the economy to rule over its constituents must be able to siphon off economic wealth to sustain them. This is not to say the political parasitic class isn't busy; it is.

The other tool the political parasitic class uses to ensure that you cannot escape its rule is to abolish free market money, whatever it might be, and force usage of government scrip (i.e. Federal Reserve Points) by demanding said scrip in the form of taxes. This way, they can also steal via inflation.

In closing, the State first obtained its power by exploiting our superstitions at first, believing their power descended from deity, a witch doctor, a cleric, (i.e. a King or Pope received their powers from divinity.

The United States experiment began with the notion that this was poppycock, and the concept of representative government was formed. It was one of the first establishments of State that did NOT have its power connected to some sort of supernatural being, and instead thought of men as created equally, holding some rights as self-evident. It purported that a man had property rights and should keep the fruits of their labour. The benefit? The United States became the most productive wealthy nation ever known.

Too bad the State is hell-bent on destroying that.

[gilliganscorner]

Forgot something.

I don't think there is too much debate that law and order are required for us to operate together in a social context. The problem is that we think law and order must be provided by the State - a monopoly on violence.

Stefan Molyneaux makes a cogent argument to how law and order might be obtained in a free market. I encourage all to read these:

The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html)
and
Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html)

Cheers.

[Kraig]

Good post gilligan! I am definitely going to pick up some of those books you recommend.

[acptulsa]

Property rights? I thought the original purpose of government was to protect preagnant women and children, and the rest is just window dressing.

[gilliganscorner]

Property rights? I thought the original purpose of government was to protect preagnant women and children, and the rest is just window dressing.

LOL. The purpose of government is to loot and pillage the citizens. Any group with a monopoly on violence is corrupt. It is in its nature. As soon as it is established, it will accept bribes and bestow favours on connected insiders.

[paulim]

How did this notion of requiring a government to rule us get started?
If you think only of a local government, its not us vs. them; Every individual takes part in establishing a ruleset which most likely is very basic.

A group of people who want to control or exert their wills on others
Thats very likely for big governments, local governments consist of the people the rules are made for. Simply made that you don't have to invent the wheel every day anew.

Somalia
is a very good example how a culture can be destroyed through foreign nations.

monopoly on violence (MoV) mustn't be part of a ruleset; self-defence is even today still an option

No one will produce very much under constant threat of having the fruits of their labour stolen. That are all very good points, but I can hardly agree that governments in general, even local ones fit this description. The desire for some common laws is (if its basic) a win-win, not a transfer of power.

Consequently, the slave traders stopped trying to capture members of that tribe or clan. Should everyone keep in mind.

The United States experiment began with the notion that this was poppycock, and the concept of representative government was formed. It was one of the first establishments of State that did NOT have its power connected to some sort of supernatural being, and instead thought of men as created equally, holding some rights as self-evident. It purported that a man had property rights and should keep the fruits of their labour. The benefit? The United States became the most productive wealthy nation ever known.
Too bad the State is hell-bent on destroying that.
The bill of rights are a good ruleset, and you can't have it with anarchy. If governments were local, the control over them would never allow them to become totalitarian. Of course I still don't understand why it is so easy for the power-grabbers to transfer powers and to dissolve/overwrite local rulesets. Maybe we do not remember often enough the tribespeople you mentioned above.