Been out at a gig and got back to find mudcat was down. Nonetheless, I responded to your posting as follows (just to stay in character)
Spaw, you're doing it too. I am not reasonable and I deeply resent being labeled so. Even troll has failed to come forth to correct this demeaning misconception.
First you, then Little Hawk. And even Mav. I have to assume some deep conspiracy, replete with passwords, secret handshakes, private chat rooms and your own blazers and rings. You've already got the endearing nicknames and misleading cult name. "Catters" indeed!
To clarify things for the last time: I am not reasonable or rational or logical. I am simply and consistently right. You are all consistently deluded and wrong. Once you all acknowledge that, the quality of your lives will dramatically improve. Well, the quality of mine will, which is what counts, of course.
Please conduct yourselves accordingly.
Spaw and others.
Government denotes the perennial lie, "of the people" which is used to mislead those who should know better
Lies?. Only if you assume "of the people", implies the dynamic and scope of your forth grade election for class president. It is the keystone of your utopian nonsense and is meaning is vital. It works if "of the people" is taken as a literal statement of practical government as opposed to a belief used to establish power flow/
All governments are oligarchies, which means rule by the few
No they aren't. All governments are a means of mediating power within a group. And that means that voluntarily or not, some limited group are designated to run things within the defined rules. The issue is whether power is irrevocably concentrated in the hands of a defined few, or concentrated by structural definition. And whether the structure is open or closed.
Some oligarchies have facades, such as the Congress and the Senate. Dictatorships are, in reality, oligarchies (rule by the few). The modern oligarchy, which refers to itself as a democracy, is the most deceptive. That is because democracy is a fraud today, just as it has been throughout history; remember, the Trojan Horse or the Great Oz.
Which means very little unless you are deeply into paranoia. All oligarchies have facades. All forms of government have a facade. Any ongoing group of more than three has a facade, written or implied. That does not mean all governments are oligarchies. Democracy tends to abstract ownership of power more than most forms. In the West, capitalism provides a strong oligarchical overlay since its current logic requires an oligarchy to maximize profit. There are more elements to an oligarchy than those given.
Even the best of states are a protection racket. For example, the state takes $1.00 in tax, and you are lucky to receive 20% of that in services. These services are then usually redirected
A curious assertion. Say rather that "you are lucky to receive 20% in services that you approve of" and it comes closer to the truth. When you live in a group, the adult thing to do is look at the overall benefits. It really isn't all about you, personally. If you don't want the benefits, passive or active, of the group (government) you're in, then either leave or expect to be accused of Randite self interest, which wouldn't work in the ultimate fantasy proposed..
The hold-up man, on the street, takes all that you have at the time. The burglar carries off, all that he can, from your house. However, rarely do these men make regular demands upon you, such as the state does, by robbing you and always claiming to be doing it "for your own good" or "for your general welfare"
No. That isn't the claim. And it might be noted that one of the reasons the bad guy doesn't keep coming back is the evil government. You may rob and kill, without worry of punishment, if you are licensed by the state. The state police kill quite regularly, as do the military, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A
Sometimes with justification (in their minds) sometimes without. Methinks we approach the crux of the issue. (Spaw, are you in some sort of trouble? Would you like to talk about it? I need to tell you up front. I don't do bail or character references.)
Most of us travel through life unlicenced, unless it is perhaps a license to drive or to run a business. Should we attempt to operate anything without the proper license, we are sent to jail
Jail? Please. A fine maybe. I, personally, don't want an un-licensed driver on the road with me. Or some guy who claims to be a doctor performing surgery. As society grows complex, some form of assuring safety is needed. We use (and also over use) the idea of the license but it provides some assurance of a minimal level of competency in a field (as opposed to so called occupational licenses, which are, in fact, a form of tax).
National states are gangs, no less, no more
They are either oligarchies or gangs. The two aren't interchanable terms. The first implies an dinstyitutioonalized concentration of power with little means of "breaking in". The second implies the ability to rise to the top through personal effort, usually by beating your fellow gang member.
Gangs, by their nature, strive to become larger by gobbling up smaller gangs (smaller states)
Some do it. "By their nature" is an unproven assertion and not normally seen as "normal" to the dynamic of gangs.
on their way to becoming syndicates (or as we know them to be now, transnational corporations).
I missed the leap from government to transnationals. They really are different as one is a promary an economic entity.
Remember, the goal of International Socialism and International Capitalism, was to destroy smaller states, or to absorb them into the "Super Gang"
Well, technically the communsists believed that the "destruction" was inherent in capitalism and that all they had to do was wait for the historic imperative. Gobbling up is an inhereent implication of capitalism. It is not a good "steady state" system.
Soviet Russia was a good example
Of an oligarchy. No kidding.
and the term "the West" as opposed to "the East", was another. The result, in that case, was the "Cold War". The "Cold War" gobbled up nations into the specter of the "one big fight". Using this as an excuse, the natural resources of the world were squandered, along with the death of millions. All in the name of peace, brotherhood and national defense
You realize this is overgeneralized, grossly incomplete and silly?
Street gangs are the lowest common denominator, and in reality, the most sensible of all gang activity
Actually, the family is the lowest common denominator. But who am I to stand in the path of a tidal wave of nonsense?
Most street gangs today are satisfied with control of a few blocks of turf, and a financial cut.
What happened to the "natural tendency" of gangs outlined above?
These gangs are somewhat beneficial since they, in some ways, erode the confidence in the "Big Gang." However, the "Big Gang" tries to use this as a method of gaining tighter control.
These gangs are arbitrary, narcissistic to the extreme and parasitical by definition and intent. There enduring social value is questionable, except as it relates to providing a simplistic support structure for those alienated by or too dysfunctional for the large society. Hey, I may be on to something here.
Enters: drunk driving, road blocks, helmet laws and seat belt enforcement, as an example of seemingly "good" plans. These so-called "good" plans guide the sheep (that's you), to a more total control, by the "Big Gang" in Washington D.C.
Or keeps me from getting killed because you are too stupid not to drink and drive. Imposes a burden of care on others due to more extensive injuries. Although I suppose the sick and injured could just be abandoned. Or if their belief in the good of the group triumphed over the good for themselves, there's always voluntary euthanasia.
The international style state is inefficient, to the maximum.
The goal of the "international style state" doesn't generally have efficiency as a goal. Exceptions would include most dictatorships. Nazi Germany, for example, made efficiency a virtue. The gaol of most states is efficacy. Either for the few or the many, depending on the mediating structures.
Perhaps we are moving towards a time of city states. City states would be desirable and efficient, plus they would be culturally strong
Efficient versus efffacious. Culturally strong? Because Athens was? Or the Italian States (and that for a brief period of the renaissance)? Both were "culturally strong" only in comparison to some geographically close neighbors. They were also fairly bellicose and tried to dominate their fellow city states. In Athens, if you weren't a citizen, you were considered less than human. And treated accordingly. In Italy, the City States were usually at war, devoting considerable effort and expense to dominating their neighbors. And both had governments, with Italy being an example of a fairly typical oligarchy. Status was based on wealth and family. If you were a member of the right family, it wasn't too bad, otherwise, it was pretty miserable.
As an example, the greatest time of culture and art, on the Italian Boot, were in the time of the city states. Italy has not since demonstrated anything that comes close. Greece, at its peak, was comprised of city states. Why not city states with satellite village states? By effective immigration, this is a reachable goal
Because it doesn't answer any of the earlier objections. It doesn't get around the grave concerns about oligarchy and may, in fact, promote same, as political, social and economic power is more concentrated, hence easier to concentrate. It would encourage a lacl of diversity of viewpoint and type. Provincialism in the extreme. And would still have to have the dreaded "government" if for nothing else to settle inter city-state issues.
I think "immigrations: is a key word. Absolutely. Each little group can have their own little city state and live in perfect agreement and splendid isolation. The saving grace is that in achieving commonality of viewpoint and belief, these states would achieve (ultimately) unrelenting blandness. It would be safe and secure and everyone would feel empowered and you'd be perfectly free to do whatever you wanted as long as everyone more or less agreed with you. And if not, well, there's always exile.
All in all, I'd say that as a utopian ideal, it's as ill conceived, impractical and unviable as any I've come across. And not as well argued.
Unless, of course, your agenda is to develop the commonality mentioned above. In which case it's a bigot's wet dream come true and would ultimately (as history as amply demonstrated) lead to the kind of "freedom" found in cloistered communities or any petty dictatorship. I would find the city state to be limiting in the extreme, but them I think life should be embraced, not constrained.