**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 nostr:nprofile1qqs0nt9skq6vfsgh06v979rrnuchau87mmnk2lqxpv2xaeusqfp30mqpzamhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skctcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctc9ad278?
Government is an organization of criminals. We already live in the condition you fear, and they aren't here to help you.
"No government" is precisely the problem with Palestine. The IDF "administers" the region by doing whatever-the-fuck-they-want with Palestinians who have no rights, no government to protect them, no "real" legal recourses against abuse, torture, murder, theft, and all the other shit we hear about.
If anybody thinks government is always the problem and offers no solutions in return , then prove it to me. Go move to Gaza where there is no government. It ought to be the libertarian mecca you've always dreamed of.
It would be magical if there were some other deeply indoctrinated system by which people came to the defense of each other when needed, such that this positive function of government were fully distributed among the people and there was no central government. But AFAIK nobody has figured out the magic necessary for a large group of people to have this property. The property that large groups of people have instead is belief in and respect of a hierarchy of power. And according to some psychologists like Jordan Peterson, that hierarchy idea goes all the way back to lobsters, so not easy to replace with a better idea among humans. Maybe A.I. could do it.
Correction: I should have said "Go move to the West Bank"
The IDF is clearly the state in this description.
nostr:nevent1qgsrhuxx8l9ex335q7he0f09aej04zpazpl0ne2cgukyawd24mayt8gpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uq3kamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwajhxar9wfhxyarr9e3k7mf0qqsf8czewcmdcty2gxnz9zha6y5nfk6xhl459j49qf9tcpx6xu4r6wcl6fsyt
I realize that just saying that the IDF is the State doesn't provide us with any immediate solutions, but at least it is correct and we ought to start from that.
In any case I have no knowledge of what the IDF is doing, who is who or how is life in that place, I was just going from your description.
I can see that perspective. This is probably why Amnesty International and B'Tselem see Greater Israel as an aparteid state, because clearly Israel is the only effective state via militant power, but it has two classes of subjects.
Whether a country is an anarchy or a state isn't my point, its that someone will develop a protectorate, whether democratically agreed upon or not, and its better to have a formal mechanism than none at all for the people under this system to influence that institution. A kingdom is total tyrrany, this is the definiton of tyrrany, yet the populace defends the king and the monarchy in word, in heart and deed. A mob controlling a territory is not much more than an informal fiefdom. An anarchy does not guarantee the populace will be dominated by a tyrant, but absent a harmonious, homogenous and highly cohesive society, its highly likely.
But gaza has government. It caled hamas… They has been elected in past and became dictatorship later.
For example, police is under Gaza Interior Ministry.
Just because you do not have a state, it doesn't mean you do not have government.
Making anarchy is tricky because government are like ebola. Highly contagious…
Irrespective of these details and semantics... it is much preferable to have a state that is effective in its ability to protect it's citizens rights from foreigners and from each other. In that point I am agreeing with the OP, or in my words that effective governments provide a valuable service that you can hardly get otherwise.
Usualy worst entity, from which you need protection is a state…
Only difference between the hamas controled teritory and regular state is other statets did not give them title of state.
Thay have international diplomacy, military, police,…
And look what protection they get. They live in dictatorship and foreign government commit genocide because their government attacked civilians so netanyahu get justification so he can kill them and get their land.
Government is in principle evil because it has monopoly in teritory. It's not dominant player on market, but real monopoly.
Multiple competing security agencies on free market is beter method how to protect itself from mafias including governments.
an otherwise reasonable guy but he likes Rust language and governments... i have to smile
"Sovereign Citizen" is an oxymoron term invented by the same gov agents to ridicule the real sovereign individuals.
Read one of the Lux daily pills on SN about this: https://stacker.news/items/665318
To reply to your note I will reply with a simple meme:
https://m.primal.net/HtHn.jpg
I agree with you, the government is no moral right to rule over you; even if the majority agree to form a representative government. No matter how a government is formed, it only exists as long as the majority continue to believe it is legitimate. However, the utopic vision of anarcho-capitalist ostracism, DROs and defense insurance providers also requires the majority concede to the immorality of government by force of the majority.
Governments don’t exist in reality. Only on paper. Alls anyone has to do is choose to opt out. The only limits to us that exist in reality are the laws of physics
Oddbean new post about login | logout 
