I think the main reason for a "representative government"
The main reason to have a large government at all was because the Cabal set up such governments to rule people. As far as I can tell, there has never been a time in recorded history where there was any government large enough to have been heard of that was not created by, and run by, the Cabal (or maybe in a couple cases created to fight against them?). Whatever, in every case they've always been a part of the scam.
We only needed "representatives" because we "needed" large government. We only needed large government because THEY had large governments. We needed "national defense" to defend against the Cabal. This isn't about "speed of communications," this is about the Cabal.
That doesn't mean I disagree with your assessment, I just like to put things into their proper scope. Our government was at best the choice of a lesser evil because the Cabal ruled the world. At worst it was their design, specifically to create Controlled Opposition, with the intent to create a One World Government 250 years later. "The Great Experiment" may have been their experiment to finally unite everyone, under a singular ever-lasting rule in their Utopia.
It would have worked too, if not for those meddling Qids.
the "need" to have somebody else make decisions for us no longer exist
Government doesn't have to mean "somebody making decisions for us." Originally it meant to steer the ship. The helmsman doesn't have to be the captain.
If people want to live in a town they are going to need laws to maintain cohesion. They don't have to be overreaching laws, but some sort of laws must exist on some level for any group. On someone's land, those laws should not apply (must not apply). If they do, then they are not legitimate laws, but illegitimate overreach. Government can't reach over onto your domain or it is fraudulent.
But still, there must be laws of cohesion. For example, you can't go around killing anyone. But that's just a Natural Law. I mean, you can go around killing whoever you want according to Natural Law, but there will be consequences BY Natural Law (you will get killed right back). But beyond the laws of "no direct infringement on another's inalienable Rights," there must be laws against endangerment.
For example, "you aren't allowed to come into town and start shooting off your gun because you might harm someone else." That's a perfectly reasonable law, but it also sets a precedence.. Such a law can easily turn into, "you aren't allowed to come into town unless you are vaccinated and are wearing four masks because you might harm someone else."
The necessity of such community laws (and the need for debate within those laws) shows why there must be some sort of "governance," even if that governance is purely democratic, or representative, or dictatorial, or oligarchic, etc.
In a truly Free Market of city planning, with a truly free market economy, any of those would be allowed, and the Market would decide. A free market provides options. If a dictator takes control, and they shut down the free market, but there exists a free market next door, the dictator loses the ability to shut down the free market.
You can't have a free market if you have a Centralized Authority and you can't have a Centralized Authority if you have a free market. They are diametrically opposed ideas. But their must be laws (i.e. rules with consequences) in town (or any other grouping of people), or people won't just feel unsafe, but they will die unnecessarily due to people shooting off their guns after tossing back a few too many Takillya shots.
Ok heres what you are missing, in any situation involving government you have people that are being governed. Change a bit of my post to "The main reason why people might go along with a", instead of "I think the main reason for a", and I think you'll get the meaning I was going for far better. I was talking much more about the reasoning of people going along with such a system then who might create and promote such a system and their reasons behind doing so. My point is that the reason that people had for going along with such a system no longer exist, and yet here we are still going along with things. You read way the hell too far into my post such that the meaning of my words went completely over your head.
You read way the hell too far into my post such that the meaning of my words went completely over your head.
I got that you were talking about that it was no longer necessary. I think you may have missed my meaning. I was talking about not just how we got here from a larger scope than you were talking about, but what we can do about it above and beyond just "not having representatives because they aren't necessary anymore".
I'm not sure why you felt the need to be insulting, but it doesn't help advance the conversation at all. Just because I expanded from your thoughts, doesn't mean I was attacking you. There was no reason to attack back, because I wasn't attacking you, or your thoughts, in any way. I even stated explicitly that I agreed with you, but was expanding the scope.
Perhaps "you read way the hell too far into my post such that the meaning of my words went completely over your head."
My response went over your head, so I pointed that out. I don't find it insulting whatsoever what I said, I don't get what you are trying to even say you are just rambling at this point. I didn't even disagree with your original post just added to it that the way the world is now we don't have any need to have somebody "represent" us, we can do it ourselves. I even said that some sort of government is likely to form no matter what! I was literally agreeing with you and adding to what you said and for some reason that went totally over your head man. No reason to get upset over it, reply if you want I don't have anything else to add because fundamentally we dont seem to disagree, just my original point went so far over your head I can't seem to place where it went.
My response went over your head, so I pointed that out
There is literally nothing in "my response went so far over your head.." etc. that is not insulting. Even if it were true, which I assure you, it was not, it would still be intentionally inflammatory rhetoric.
Since it didn't "go over my head" but I understood exactly what you were saying, what you pointed out was incorrect. Your response was fundamentally flawed in the premise, and thus the conclusion.
I didn't even disagree with your original post just added to it that the way the world is now we don't have any need to have somebody "represent" us, we can do it ourselves.
I KNOW that. I stated it in my original response, AND my follow up response. You are obviously not even reading what I'm writing.
You keep believing you understand everything though, I'm ok with that. I'm sure you are too.
The main reason to have a large government at all was because the Cabal set up such governments to rule people. As far as I can tell, there has never been a time in recorded history where there was any government large enough to have been heard of that was not created by, and run by, the Cabal (or maybe in a couple cases created to fight against them?). Whatever, in every case they've always been a part of the scam.
We only needed "representatives" because we "needed" large government. We only needed large government because THEY had large governments. We needed "national defense" to defend against the Cabal. This isn't about "speed of communications," this is about the Cabal.
That doesn't mean I disagree with your assessment, I just like to put things into their proper scope. Our government was at best the choice of a lesser evil because the Cabal ruled the world. At worst it was their design, specifically to create Controlled Opposition, with the intent to create a One World Government 250 years later. "The Great Experiment" may have been their experiment to finally unite everyone, under a singular ever-lasting rule in their Utopia.
It would have worked too, if not for those meddling Qids.
Government doesn't have to mean "somebody making decisions for us." Originally it meant to steer the ship. The helmsman doesn't have to be the captain.
If people want to live in a town they are going to need laws to maintain cohesion. They don't have to be overreaching laws, but some sort of laws must exist on some level for any group. On someone's land, those laws should not apply (must not apply). If they do, then they are not legitimate laws, but illegitimate overreach. Government can't reach over onto your domain or it is fraudulent.
But still, there must be laws of cohesion. For example, you can't go around killing anyone. But that's just a Natural Law. I mean, you can go around killing whoever you want according to Natural Law, but there will be consequences BY Natural Law (you will get killed right back). But beyond the laws of "no direct infringement on another's inalienable Rights," there must be laws against endangerment.
For example, "you aren't allowed to come into town and start shooting off your gun because you might harm someone else." That's a perfectly reasonable law, but it also sets a precedence.. Such a law can easily turn into, "you aren't allowed to come into town unless you are vaccinated and are wearing four masks because you might harm someone else."
The necessity of such community laws (and the need for debate within those laws) shows why there must be some sort of "governance," even if that governance is purely democratic, or representative, or dictatorial, or oligarchic, etc.
In a truly Free Market of city planning, with a truly free market economy, any of those would be allowed, and the Market would decide. A free market provides options. If a dictator takes control, and they shut down the free market, but there exists a free market next door, the dictator loses the ability to shut down the free market.
You can't have a free market if you have a Centralized Authority and you can't have a Centralized Authority if you have a free market. They are diametrically opposed ideas. But their must be laws (i.e. rules with consequences) in town (or any other grouping of people), or people won't just feel unsafe, but they will die unnecessarily due to people shooting off their guns after tossing back a few too many Takillya shots.
Ok heres what you are missing, in any situation involving government you have people that are being governed. Change a bit of my post to "The main reason why people might go along with a", instead of "I think the main reason for a", and I think you'll get the meaning I was going for far better. I was talking much more about the reasoning of people going along with such a system then who might create and promote such a system and their reasons behind doing so. My point is that the reason that people had for going along with such a system no longer exist, and yet here we are still going along with things. You read way the hell too far into my post such that the meaning of my words went completely over your head.
I got that you were talking about that it was no longer necessary. I think you may have missed my meaning. I was talking about not just how we got here from a larger scope than you were talking about, but what we can do about it above and beyond just "not having representatives because they aren't necessary anymore".
I'm not sure why you felt the need to be insulting, but it doesn't help advance the conversation at all. Just because I expanded from your thoughts, doesn't mean I was attacking you. There was no reason to attack back, because I wasn't attacking you, or your thoughts, in any way. I even stated explicitly that I agreed with you, but was expanding the scope.
Perhaps "you read way the hell too far into my post such that the meaning of my words went completely over your head."
Just a thought. Not sure where I got it from.
You guys engaged in violent agreement created a thread that would make for its own kick ass post.
We have the BEST ANONS!!
My response went over your head, so I pointed that out. I don't find it insulting whatsoever what I said, I don't get what you are trying to even say you are just rambling at this point. I didn't even disagree with your original post just added to it that the way the world is now we don't have any need to have somebody "represent" us, we can do it ourselves. I even said that some sort of government is likely to form no matter what! I was literally agreeing with you and adding to what you said and for some reason that went totally over your head man. No reason to get upset over it, reply if you want I don't have anything else to add because fundamentally we dont seem to disagree, just my original point went so far over your head I can't seem to place where it went.
There is literally nothing in "my response went so far over your head.." etc. that is not insulting. Even if it were true, which I assure you, it was not, it would still be intentionally inflammatory rhetoric.
Since it didn't "go over my head" but I understood exactly what you were saying, what you pointed out was incorrect. Your response was fundamentally flawed in the premise, and thus the conclusion.
I KNOW that. I stated it in my original response, AND my follow up response. You are obviously not even reading what I'm writing.
You keep believing you understand everything though, I'm ok with that. I'm sure you are too.