As I have often pointed out, we HAD a limited, Constitutional government in the United States and it has brought us to where we are now, under the Biden Administration.
Do you remember the definition of insanity attributed (falsely) to Einstein? Sure you do: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Civil society works; a restrained coercive government CAN work for awhile, to some extent, but always devolves into tyranny.
For that matter, even SMALL government IS a tyranny -- but I'm trying to keep this brief so I'll leave that alone.
Both civil society AND small, sort-of-workable government REQUIRE a population that is itself civil, meaning emotionally healthy.
Freedom + emotional health (remember Jesus' teachings about not offending children?) pretty much nails the basics; everything else follows -- IF there is no central Power that assumes the right to initiate coercion, including -- especially -- in regards to funding. Forcible taxation is the foot in the door that leads to ever-more tyranny.
An excerpt from Barnett's column:
What this boils down to concerning the State is this:
Most everything is a lie.
Most everything is propaganda.
Most everything detrimental is planned in advance, and intentionally executed.
Many if not most evil acts are false flags.
Most everything is criminal.
Most every action and adverse event is purposely staged and a scam.
The State is most assuredly nothing more than organized crime bent on total power, monopoly, and control.
Because of governments, we have perpetual war, and the so-called ‘exceptional’ U.S., has warred aggressively for approximately 93% of its existence, likely more, and has been responsible for the deaths of tens if not hundreds of millions of innocent people. Today alone, governments, mostly western governments, along with Zionist Israel, are plotting to commit genocide and world war in order to advance the globalist agenda of one world governance. We have had the fake ‘covid’ scam that has led to unbelievable deadly consequences, including the lockdown of humanity, poisonous, and in many cases, fatal bioweapon injections, economic destruction, insane inflation, and complete loss of freedom. There are intentionally structured wars in Syria, Ukraine, most of the Middle East, and around the world, all due to the existence of governments and rule. Famine, poverty, rioting, property confiscation and destruction, forced mass immigration meant only to divide and harm, and the perversion and murder of children worldwide is rampant.
Sound good?
Should we order up more of that, or should we try cutting government back not just until it is "restrained" (as those in power will define it) but until it is replaced with competitive, market-based, civil, non-coercive groups, structures, and the natural individual governance that sane, civil adults practice every day?
Yes, we'll have to do some of it in stages. Yes, there will be problems along the way.
But every single argument against freeing humanity from the tyranny of the State was made against freeing the Slaves from their Masters in the South.
Those arguments are bullshit, plain and simple. There IS no honest "good argument" against freedom.
The Cabal ONLY exists, and only CAN exist, because it USES the power of the State to force its evil upon the world. For God's sake, let us put an end to that.
/rant
This is absolutely wrong; completely backwards.
It is government's POWER that attracts corrupt individuals, psychopaths, and sociopaths running large corporations -- who then purchase, expand, and corrupt that Power, as we see all around us today.
Yes, that takes some time, if you're starting with a truly limited government.
No, it cannot be stopped.
Perhaps if we called a voluntaryist society's court, legislative, and executive branches a "government" we'd not be arguing here. We're talking about the difference between 95% free and 100% free, after all -- my stance is that the 5% does not NEED to involve forced taxation and other coercive power structures, and that only when that kernel of power to initiate coercion is REMOVED can people actually be free -- and stay that way.
With initiation of coercion FORBIDDEN instead of GRANTED to a small group, there IS no POWER to be bought, expanded, and corrupted.
Everyone has an incentive to keep things honest because, for one thing, people like having society run smoothly and safely and honestly, and for another, those attempting to add corruption (such as taxation and other staples of government Power) are seen and treated as criminals. And if you think that means "we'd need a government to deal with criminals" then you really need to read some more voluntaryist literature, or simply open yourself up to thinking about HOW an actually free society would handle such things.
Start with the Amish, perhaps; they're a very small group (or set of groups) and of course they do exist inside the boundaries of unfree nations, but as a society, they handle things competently, firmly, and without Statist coercion. A nation needs more than what the Amish provide but -- just as even a relatively free market does a better job with, well, pretty much everything it does compared to government, a nation CAN do "government's work" with market solutions and organizations, and do it BETTER, safer, and cheaper than government does -- and WITHOUT the growing corruption that sneaks in everywhere government operates.
In an earlier America, a good deal of "government work" WAS done by the private sector. The vast growth of technology and wealth in the first 150 years of this country make direct comparisons difficult, but there is no question that every government service, from courts to national defense, CAN and to some extent HAS BEEN provided here (and elsewhere over the centuries) without the aid of government coercion.
I'm enjoying this conversation, bubble_bursts. You're an interesting thinker and writer.
I'm not young: My father was about five when the Great Depression began. During his childhood, Americans still used actual gold and silver coins, with $20 = an oz of gold and $1 an ounce of silver. Americans were patriotic, well educated, understood what the Founders did for this country, had a strong work ethic, and while there were plenty of people with emotional damage, there was none of the Woke nonsense we suffer from today.
It didn't take long for things to go to Hell from the early 1900s. (Yeah: 1913 was a BAD year, and so were plenty of others). And it took even less time, only a few decades, to go from the end of the Great Depression to Nixon's closing of the gold window and the serious acceleration of America's corruption.
I'd like to think the Great Awakening will birth something new, something better than just another "limited government" -- I'd like to think we'll begin a genuinely free society.
Maybe you're right that we'll NEED a small government, but I'm not seeing it. I'll keep thinking on the topic though.
I will break this up into 3 topics - "Voluntaryist Government", "Private Companies" and "Free Market."
I think when it comes to your idea of voluntaryism - we are both on same page. I think where we differ is what you think "Government" is.
Government is NOT taxation. Government is not tons of regulatory bodies. Government is not IRS, SEC, Fed, etc etc. They are all privately controlled entities, masquarading in various ways as being part of the government.
Income Tax is against God's law (thou shall not steal).
When I say government, I am actually referring to what you refer to as voluntaryist society. Its not at the level of Amish, but its very close. Bulk of the government will be at the local level. The state and federal level will have very specific roles and are disallowed from doing anything outside of that - this is what the Constitution was intended to be.
At the local level you will have elected Sheriff and elected Judges, and elected representatives for the local government as well as those representing state and federal levels.
If you privitize security, for instance, you are replacing a elected Sheriff with an unelected corporate entity. This means, the security entity will have no way to be held accountable by the people. Thats the difference at every level between private and small government. I will talk more about this in the "Private Companies" thread.
Infact, I always suggest people to go through the US Constitution and come up with which areas should be removed if they believe it represents too much government (or if they dont like government at all).
It'll be a day or three before I have a response to this; I haven't abandoned the conversation but have things going on.
We aren't really at odds then, at all.
I'm not conflating taxation with "government as we know it" -- I'm saying that "government as we have known it has the defacto unopposed power to INITIATE COERCION, and that makes it a criminal organization. Forcible taxation is only one of the symptoms, but I emphasize it because THAT's where the money comes from (until Fiat enters the picture) to do every OTHER coercive thing that government does.
In fact, private groups can be, and often are, democratic -- groups ranging from neighborhood associations to large corporations can utilize voting and elections to chose policies and personnel. Likewise, non-government groups can hold meetings to challenge elected officials and remove them if they so decide. I don't see this being any worse in terms of outcomes than the government elections we have now; if anything, the opposite seems true.
As for government powers in the Constitution that we could do without, my lodestar is always twofold: 1- Does it initiate coercion (force, threats, or fraud -- the last isn't always in definitions of coercion, but it belongs, in my opinion) against peaceful human beings, and 2- Are people willing to pay for it voluntarily. EDIT: Naturally, by "voluntarily" I mean that anyone does NOT feel an action is worth paying for, for whatever reason, is not forced to chip in. "Pay for your own damn wars", for an obvious example.