Brunswick on Nostr: **The Illusion of Sovereignty Without Government** There's a growing narrative in ...
**The Illusion of Sovereignty Without Government**
There's a growing narrative in some circles, particularly within the Sovereign Citizen Movement, that by renouncing U.S. citizenship and declaring oneself a “state citizen,” one can access hidden funds or evade certain legal obligations. These beliefs rest on the idea that using certain legalistic phrases will protect individuals from government overreach or entitle them to special privileges. This mindset seems to stem from a magical view of language—that somehow, the right words can shield someone from the coercive forces of the state.
In reality, the existence of a government is not solely to infringe upon individual freedoms but to reduce the amount of harm one must tolerate in everyday life. It’s a form of a protection racket, but with the crucial distinction that it offers certain freedoms and mechanisms—such as voting, free speech, and the ability to run for office—that give citizens some influence over the system. Even though government may be filled with nepotism, cronyism, and a power elite that largely serves its own interests, it still contains elements that restrain absolute chaos.
The presence of a government, flawed though it may be, is a bulwark against the full-fledged anarchy where no rule of law exists, only the law of the strongest. Absent government, organized crime and mob rule would likely fill the vacuum, where the only form of protection is through membership in a gang or syndicate. The theory behind centralizing authority, whether through government or other power structures, is that the larger the governing entity, the more stable life becomes because there’s less crime and unpredictability to endure.
The choice between government and no government is essentially a choice between *some* theft and *complete* theft. In a world with no government, the only limit to how much a mob can steal is how much they can take before the system collapses under its own weight. In a functioning democratic republic, however imperfect, the people theoretically have the ability to limit how much is taken from them, through checks, balances, and representation.
Thus, under a representative government, you endure a limited amount of coercion and theft. It’s far from perfect, but it’s a more stable and equitable alternative to the unlimited, unregulated theft that would result from the collapse of government altogether.
What say ye DarthCoin (nprofile…d278)?
There's a growing narrative in some circles, particularly within the Sovereign Citizen Movement, that by renouncing U.S. citizenship and declaring oneself a “state citizen,” one can access hidden funds or evade certain legal obligations. These beliefs rest on the idea that using certain legalistic phrases will protect individuals from government overreach or entitle them to special privileges. This mindset seems to stem from a magical view of language—that somehow, the right words can shield someone from the coercive forces of the state.
In reality, the existence of a government is not solely to infringe upon individual freedoms but to reduce the amount of harm one must tolerate in everyday life. It’s a form of a protection racket, but with the crucial distinction that it offers certain freedoms and mechanisms—such as voting, free speech, and the ability to run for office—that give citizens some influence over the system. Even though government may be filled with nepotism, cronyism, and a power elite that largely serves its own interests, it still contains elements that restrain absolute chaos.
The presence of a government, flawed though it may be, is a bulwark against the full-fledged anarchy where no rule of law exists, only the law of the strongest. Absent government, organized crime and mob rule would likely fill the vacuum, where the only form of protection is through membership in a gang or syndicate. The theory behind centralizing authority, whether through government or other power structures, is that the larger the governing entity, the more stable life becomes because there’s less crime and unpredictability to endure.
The choice between government and no government is essentially a choice between *some* theft and *complete* theft. In a world with no government, the only limit to how much a mob can steal is how much they can take before the system collapses under its own weight. In a functioning democratic republic, however imperfect, the people theoretically have the ability to limit how much is taken from them, through checks, balances, and representation.
Thus, under a representative government, you endure a limited amount of coercion and theft. It’s far from perfect, but it’s a more stable and equitable alternative to the unlimited, unregulated theft that would result from the collapse of government altogether.
What say ye DarthCoin (nprofile…d278)?