But if enough good people with good ideas were to work together and come up with solutions to problems for which there could be no reasonable dissent, how could they not be granted the authority to act upon them?

There is no way ever for evolution to avoid conflict. That would be like asking entropy to become homeostasis.

I hate absolutes because change is the only thing that exists. So our species can only seek to gain. We all seek to gain. So we should not avoid that. The question becomes to what cost and to how many? I do not think pretending that boarders or labels or ideology will cure evolution. Evolution does not pick winners. But between our selfishness and self interest, as a species. We can chose to pick our common interests which is also a part of evolution.

Nothing you said has anything to do with anything I said. > >

yeah, that's brian's way of being able to weigh in on almost any ideological topic or current event, even when he's completely ignorant about it.  he just parrots, "well, it all goes back to evolution," as if that's some sort of profound observation.

LOL, you forgot labels too.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that...

 Great idea except the government you tried to form it within would eventually send in police to shut it down, in which case you either shut down or you use force to protect yourself. Government's don't cede authority without putting up a heck of a fight. The US will tolerate communes and such provided they pay taxes but if one was to attempt to say set up their own schools, roads, power plants, water pipelines, businesses etc. they either have to comply with all the regulations or will face legal penalties. It is illegal for example for me to build a windmill or a solar power plant that provides significantly more power than personal use without going through the current government to get the permits.

If my "crazy" ideas went into effect and government stopped regulating all that shit and gave people freedom to use their resources as they see fit, you could create whatever kind of local government you desired as long as everyone involved in it was voluntary. 

I saw on the Nightly News where the White House had issued a statement "denying" all of those petitions that were signed a few months ago from the states that wanted to secede from the Union.

(Which of course, I think was more of just a protest over the re-election than anything and I don't believe that anyone signing those petitions ever had any intention of seceding).

But anyway, I don't know who it was that released the statement, but it said that democracy gave citizens the right to vote and change the system from within and not the right to walk away from it.

These were not the exact words verbatim, but I do remember clearly hearing the vote and change from within and not walk away.

I am sure that whomever released and signed that response statement could be looked up easily and I am rather surprised that the White House responded after all of this time.

I had thought that all of that stuff had died down.

Well, I did consider those things, which is where the biggest problem lies: until power was transitioned through popular vote, the new government couldn't do anything, and therefore would be ineffective in every sense but the popular one. It would be extremely expensive with no guarantee on a return. And it would be anything but easy even if you had infinite resources.

This should be considered a thought experiment, as there's very little chance it ever would or even could happen.

I actually find it to be an interesting idea and have wondered about something along those lines before.

I am not sure how a group of people would be able to unify and actually make that a reality, but I actually think something like that could be accomplished.

 The protest states and their whole idea of "seceding" was a bit of a joke, since no one was really planning on actually doing it and it was mainly a bunch of people just wanting to make their voices heard. Plus, the people that were shouting for a secession from the Union did not have any sort of viable alternative or plan of action if the White House HAD granted them that right.

In order for an independent government to be formed, the alternatives and solutions would have to actually be hammered out.

I don't think we'll ever see it happen again either, but I do think that it is an interesting thought experiment.

Government is using deadly force. Government laws are just guidlines for when to use deadly force. If you're going to start your own government, you have to use deadly force to impose your will and rules on others.

Bullshit. Government operates without using deadly force on a daily basis. Globally.

Which government doesn't use deadly force to enforce its laws and determine its borders? Even the super friendly Canadian police will kill you if you resist arrest. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/11/25/bc-civil-liberties-meeting.html 

At the behest of the people. Get a people who don't want people killed and you'll have a government which never authorises killing.

All of which is another subject. The point I made is that government does not soley operate under threat of force.

And my point is that in reality all governments operate using deadly force or the threat of deadly force on a daily basis. A government which never authorized killings would be called anarchy. By definition a law is only a law because it is backed up by the threat of force. Whether that threat of force is "at the behest of the people" or the whim of a random dictator is irrelevant, it is the threat of force and ability to back it up that give governments their power. 

You might have a point except that if the government didn't exist, the people would create and enforce the laws themselves, so the government is irrelevant to the process.
And the vast majority cooperate regardless of threat, so your whole argument is a red herring.

Hence why I am not an anarchist, in an anarchy someone will use force to impose their will and effectively become a government. We need some kind of government to protect us from a worse government. If someone could devise a way that anarchy could be sustained I could easily be convinced to become an anarchist. 

Laws generally are not meant to control the majority, they are meant to control the minority, especially in democracies. My whole philosophy on everything is based on my belief that we don't need government to impose laws because most people do cooperate voluntarily. Unfortunately, most people seem to disagree with me and believe that government is needed to force people to do (or not do) a number of things. I much prefer a government that only uses force in extreme circumstances, a position that makes me a political radical. 

If laws are for the minority, then threat of or use of force only happens when those minorities act contrary to the desires of the majority, which means it isn't a standard practice, hence the government doesn't depend on it to function.

Beyond that I agree with everything you said. > >