Then one can say "no" to it, and either go it alone or join a DIFFERENT group doing what needs to be done.

I'm pretty sure this situation currently exists within the U.S. It's not easy, but I've looked into it a little bit. I think it's possible.

competing "governments" that would surely make cooperative arrangements

That's what states are. That's what countries are.

ENFORCED MONOPOLY element

Setting a standard for money isn't really a monopoly. Since it's a real asset (we are talking about real asset money here) the "monopoly" part is just that a standard is set (legally setting silver as the "baseline" e.g.), and an infrastructure for accessing that baseline asset is in place. It doesn't mean there can be no competition in that baseline. It's just really a standard of measure set into code.

What other monopoly are you talking about?

I'm still talking about government as being minimal. I mean seriously minimal. We started with two pages of laws, most of it talking about the structure of the decision making teams. The behemoth that it became was because of those inherent flaws I mentioned that were put in in the beginning.

the legal ability to INITIATE force against people

This is a bit more tricky. The ability to initiate force against external people (go to war) is I agree problematic, and probably something that should not exist.

But if you are talking about arresting people, or punishing citizens, that must rely on the group (government) and not on an individual. You can't have a society without laws, and you can't have laws if you can't enforce them. The problem I have is not in a state police force, but in the laws. There really only needs to be one law with regards to limits on citizen behavior (with elaboration in the details for specific acts and a range of punishments for them):

Any direct infringement on another person's inalienable rights is illegal.

That's it. That's the only law that is necessary for a functioning society. That word "direct" is essential. It is where that isn't a part of one of our laws where all the fuckery happens.

This single law structure might get a little tricky when it comes to reckless endangerment, and I'm not sure what to do about that, because that is where all the fuckery in our laws happens (reckless endangerment is a "you might accidentally" infringe on another person's rights by your actions). For example, vaxx mandates would be a reckless endangerment law, but so is reckless driving, or shooting your gun off in town, etc.

I do believe its possible to figure that one out though. Maybe through education.

I don't know of a single government set up the way you describe

Our government was set up that way, prior to the Bill of Rights. Its only flaw (which was where all the exploitation happened) was that it stated citizen sovereignty implicitly not explicitly. It was a matter of wording. I could fix our constitution with a few words and close that loophole.

Then one can say "no" to it, and either go it alone or join a DIFFERENT group doing what needs to be done.

I'm pretty sure this situation currently exists within the U.S. It's not easy, but I've looked into it a little bit. I think it's possible.

competing "governments" that would surely make cooperative arrangements

That's what states are. That's what countries are.

ENFORCED MONOPOLY element

Setting a standard for money isn't really a monopoly. Since it's a real asset (we are talking about real asset money here) the "monopoly" part is just that a standard is set (legally setting silver as the "baseline" e.g.), and an infrastructure for accessing that baseline asset is in place. It doesn't mean there can be no competition in that baseline. It's just really a standard of measure set into code.

What other monopoly are you talking about?

I'm still talking about government as being minimal. I mean seriously minimal. We started with two pages of laws, most of it talking about the structure of the decision making teams. The behemoth that it became was because of those inherent flaws I mentioned that were put in in the beginning.

the legal ability to INITIATE force against people

This is a bit more tricky. The ability to initiate force against external people (go to war) is I agree problematic, and probably something that should not exist.

But if you are talking about arresting people, or punishing citizens, that must rely on the group (government) and not on an individual. You can't have a society without laws, and you can't have laws if you can't enforce them. The problem I have is not in a state police force, but in the laws. There really only needs to be one law with regards to limits on citizen behavior (with elaboration in the details for specific acts and a range of punishments for them):

Any direct infringement on another person's inalienable rights is illegal.

That's it. That's the only law that is necessary for a functioning society. That word "direct" is essential. It is where that isn't a part of one of our laws where all the fuckery happens.

This single law structure might get a little tricky when it comes to reckless endangerment, and I'm not sure what to do about that, because that is where all the fuckery in our laws happens. For example, vaxx mandates would be a reckless endangerment law, but so is reckless driving, or shooting your gun off in town, etc.

I do believe its possible to figure that one out though. Maybe through education.

I don't know of a single government set up the way you describe

Our government was set up that way, prior to the Bill of Rights. Its only flaw (which was where all the exploitation happened) was that it stated citizen sovereignty implicitly not explicitly. It was a matter of wording. I could fix our constitution with a few words and close that loophole.

Then one can say "no" to it, and either go it alone or join a DIFFERENT group doing what needs to be done.

I'm pretty sure this situation currently exists within the U.S. It's not easy, but I've looked into it a little bit. I think it's possible.

competing "governments" that would surely make cooperative arrangements

That's what states are. That's what countries are.

ENFORCED MONOPOLY element

Setting a standard for money isn't really a monopoly. Since it's a real asset (we are talking about real asset money here) the "monopoly" part is just that a standard is set (legally setting silver as the "baseline" e.g.), and an infrastructure for accessing that baseline asset is in place. It doesn't mean there can be no competition in that baseline. It's just really a standard of measure set into code.

What other monopoly are you talking about?

I'm still talking about government as being minimal. I mean seriously minimal. We started with two pages of laws, most of it talking about the structure of the decision making teams. The behemoth that it became was because of those inherent flaws I mentioned that were put in in the beginning.

the legal ability to INITIATE force against people

This is a bit more tricky. The ability to initiate force against external people (go to war) is I agree problematic, and probably something that should not exist.

But if you are talking about arresting people, or punishing citizens, that must rely on the group (government) and not on an individual. You can't have a society without laws, and you can't have laws if you can't enforce them. The problem I have is not in a state police force, but in the laws. There really only needs to be one law with regards to limits on citizen behavior (with elaboration in the details for specific acts and a range of punishments for them):

Any direct infringement on another person's inalienable rights is illegal.

That's it. That's the only law that is necessary for a functioning society. That word "direct" is essential. It is where that isn't a part of one of our laws where all the fuckery happens.

This single law structure might get a little tricky when it comes to reckless endangerment, and I'm not sure what to do about that, because that is where all the fuckery in our laws happens. I do believe its possible to figure that one out though. Maybe through teaching.

I don't know of a single government set up the way you describe

Our government was set up that way, prior to the Bill of Rights. Its only flaw (which was where all the exploitation happened) was that it stated citizen sovereignty implicitly not explicitly. It was a matter of wording. I could fix our constitution with a few words and close that loophole.

Then one can say "no" to it, and either go it alone or join a DIFFERENT group doing what needs to be done.

I'm pretty sure this situation currently exists within the U.S. It's not easy, but I've looked into it a little bit. I think it's possible.

competing "governments" that would surely make cooperative arrangements

That's what states are. That's what countries are.

ENFORCED MONOPOLY element

Setting a standard for money isn't really a monopoly. Since it's a real asset (we are talking about real asset money here) the "monopoly" part is just that a standard is set (legally setting silver as the "baseline" e.g.), and an infrastructure for accessing that baseline asset is in place. It doesn't mean there can be no competition in that baseline. It's just really a standard of measure set into code.

What other monopoly are you talking about?

I'm still talking about government as being minimal. I mean seriously minimal. We started with two pages of laws, most of it talking about the structure of the decision making teams. The behemoth that it became was because of those inherent flaws I mentioned that were put in in the beginning.

the legal ability to INITIATE force against people

This is a bit more tricky. The ability to initiate force against external people (go to war) is I agree problematic, and probably something that should not exist.

But if you are talking about arresting people, or punishing citizens, that must rely on the group (government) and not on an individual. You can't have a society without laws, and you can't have laws if you can't enforce them. The problem I have is not in a state police force, but in the laws. There really only needs to be one law with regards to limits on citizen behavior (with elaboration in the details for specific acts and a range of punishments for them):

Any direct infringement on another person's inalienable rights is illegal.

That's it. That's the only law that is necessary for a functioning society. That word direct is essential. It is where that isn't a part of one of our laws where all the fuckery happens.

This single law structure might get a little tricky when it comes to reckless endangerment, and I'm not sure what to do about that, because that is where all the fuckery in our laws happens. I do believe its possible to figure that one out though. Maybe through teaching.

I don't know of a single government set up the way you describe

Our government was set up that way, prior to the Bill of Rights. Its only flaw (which was where all the exploitation happened) was that it stated citizen sovereignty implicitly not explicitly. It was a matter of wording. I could fix our constitution with a few words and close that loophole.

Then one can say "no" to it, and either go it alone or join a DIFFERENT group doing what needs to be done.

I'm pretty sure this situation currently exists within the U.S. It's not easy, but I've looked into it a little bit. I think it's possible.

competing "governments" that would surely make cooperative arrangements

That's what states are. That's what countries are.

ENFORCED MONOPOLY element

Setting a standard for money isn't really a monopoly. Since it's a real asset (we are talking about real asset money here) the "monopoly" part is just that a standard is set (legally setting silver as the "baseline" e.g.), and an infrastructure for accessing that baseline asset is in place. It doesn't mean there can be no competition in that baseline. It's just really a standard of measure set into code.

What other monopoly are you talking about?

I'm still talking about government as being minimal. I mean seriously minimal. We started with two pages of laws, most of it talking about the structure of the decision making teams. The behemoth that it became was because of those inherent flaws I mentioned that were put in in the beginning.

the legal ability to INITIATE force against people

This is a bit more tricky. The ability to initiate force against external people (go to war) is I agree problematic, and probably something that should not exist.

But if you are talking about arresting people, or punishing citizens, that must rely on the group (government) and not on an individual. You can't have a society without laws, and you can't have laws if you can't enforce them. The problem I have is not in a state police force, but in the laws. There really only needs to be one law with regards to limits on citizen behavior (with elaboration in the details):

Any direct infringement on another person's inalienable rights is illegal.

That's it. That's the only law that is necessary for a functioning society. It might get a little tricky when it comes to reckless endangerment, and I'm not sure what to do about that, because that is where all the fuckery in our laws happens. I do believe its possible to figure that one out though. Maybe through teaching.

I don't know of a single government set up the way you describe

Our government was set up that way, prior to the Bill of Rights. Its only flaw (which was where all the exploitation happened) was that it stated citizen sovereignty implicitly not explicitly. It was a matter of wording. I could fix our constitution with a few words and close that loophole.