Re: Voluntary Governments? (Oh, Poleece!)

[blancw@pylon.com]

Some hidden, subliminal messages which were missed in the reply 
to thoughts about the concept of governance (delete if you 
don't find this exciting):

> .  Who or what is to be governed?

i.e.:    Is it a 'what' which needs to be governed, or is it a 
'who'?
          Is it 'crime' which needs to be governed, or any and 
all of the members of that association who generally require  
regulation?  To simply enter into an association with strangers 
for the purpose of being governed is a strange thing to agree 
to do; it's like an admission of personal deficiency  
("SomeBody Stop Me!").  But of course, most people think that 
it will be 'others' who wil be governed, rather than 
themselves.
         
> .  What is inimical/destructive and to be 
regulated/prevented,
>     or what is sacred which is to be upheld?

i.e.:   Can the members of the association distinguish 
accurately between the good, the bad, and the merely ugly?  In 
the U.S. it is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness 
which are to be upheld, but who can say that these are truly 
appreciated & successfully defended?  The values are listed in 
the precious original documents, but the education and the 
behavior of the citizens contradicts them.

> .  Who is to do all the work of preventing or upholding
>    (how do they qualify for the job)?

i.e.:   What are the victims going to be doing while their 
values are being encroached upon, or ignored?  If the job of 
self-defense is given up to someone else,  their ability to 
distinguish  'criminal' behavior from otherwise 
innocent/ignorant mistakes, must be established -  and who will 
be the best judge of this, besides oneself? There is a danger 
in that an individual could become intellectually flabby, their 
ability to be of practical use in their own regard atrophying 
from inactivity.  And then who would know who is qualified to 
reason on the matter?  They could be fooled; they could be led 
down to the river to leap in.

> .  What is to be done about non-conformists to the rules
>    (without contradicting the rules?)

i.e.:    People who ask for rules (there oughta be a law) are 
the ones most inclided to break them.  Rules often substitute 
for active intelligence, for the need to think about what one 
is doing and the evaluation of the outcome.  But it really 
becomes absurd to speak of non-conformism in a voluntary 
system.   If it's voluntary, anybody who doesn't want to follow 
the rules can simply leave, they don't have to hang around 
waiting for the administration of a 'punishment' of any kind  
(anybody who stays doesn't have any self-esteem).

The most important question was overlooked:
.   What makes you such an authority on government?   

i.e.:   What makes someone think that it is alright to put any 
one person as an authority over the mind of another?  Authority 
should be earned through admiration.  It is Reality which 
should govern one's decisions, not the overshadowing or 
overwhelming of one's mental functions by another; it is what 
should be recognized as 'the' authority by which to regulate 
one's behavior.

Blanc