Heheh, sounds good to me. "Government service corporations" is an interesting term. I wonder how long it will be before we start shaming companies which take contracts from governments who back them with violent force.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Luke. I'm saying what you think of as a government isn't a government. Canada. USA. Russia. Those aren't governments. They are corporations. They are listed on the SEC. Dunn and Bradstreet have business IDS for them. They are literally companies. When you elect a president you're electing a CEO. You're not electing a de jure president. It's weird, but it goes back to the civil war. There wasn't a quorum when the south left so the government couldn't operate. So, they formed a corporation and made it sound almost exactly the same, but legally it changed from being a Constitutional Republic to a government services corporation that "represents" the Republic. You won't find that in history books because it's been purposefully hidden. And it's like that for a million things. Your strawman (you are a corporation), the police, universities, commissions, just about everything is actually a corporation pretending to be something different.
I've used way too many hours going down the sovereign citizen route to spend any more time on it right now, but know that we both ultimately want the same thing. Regardless of the terms used, the current "government" is clearly not looking out for the best interests of its citizens (or, some might say, its product). One of my favorite ways of thinking about this comes from the concept of human farming and the story of your enslavement.
Peace.
Now that my friend is the proper use of quotes around government and I feel very much aligned with your work.
I love your work! I'm embarrassed to say I just started following today. I see your posts in my feed so much I thought I was already following! Corrected that tonight. Namaste bud and looking forward to the next one!
The reason I used quotes in my post is because I don't think the word "government" will even apply to what we do in the future. Again, I recognize that comes from my current definition of the word (monopoly on the use of force within a geographic region). What we'll have in the future will be completely voluntary controlled by smart contracts and our shared desire for wellbeing. The current thing we call "government" won't apply at all, if all goes well.
Thanks for the follow. Much appreciated. :)
What would you call that? I think it's a stake weighted constitutional libertarian republic.
That's a really good question. We can't have something unless we're first able to imagine and define it so we can build it.
I'd call it peaceful coexistence.
I'd call it voluntaryism.
I'd call it the natural order of conscious beings high enough Maslow's Hierarchy to use technologies to achieve wellbeing.
I'd call it rational living.
The words we use are so important because they shape our thoughts which shape our actions. So many government words like "republic" have negative connotations for me because they imply the use of violence as every government has always done throughout history. If we take that key component away, it becomes something more like a club or a home owners association which is defined by voluntary agreements between adults. I think the current language fails us here, and we should look to new words to describe the future we want.
Collective? Intentional Community?