Quote from: dinofelis on February 26, 2017, 05:59:43 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on February 26, 2017, 08:28:44 AM

@dinofelis, for as long as physical violence is effective, we will continue to have government (per Max Weber's canonical definition of government as a "monopoly on the use of violence"), because the primary reason government formed was to enable civilization to progress from warlords to investment in commerce via sea transport (Athenian Empire) and roads (Roman Empire) for the Agricultural (first and second) revolutions. Government was necessary to aggregate the capital and protection for large economy-of-scale fixed capital investments continuing into the First and Second Industrial Ages. We are now entering the Second Computer Revolution which my thesis posits is spawning the Knowledge Age due to network effects from the First Computer Revolution.

I don't fully agree with this analysis. I think cause and consequence are inverted here, although you do have a point. I don't think that government *was needed* ; rather that it was *unavoidably created*. To me, the "warlords" ARE the governments, and they arise BECAUSE there is wealth to steal ; not the other way around. It is not because one created governments, that wealth occured ; it is because there was wealth, that warlords became governments.

Incorrect.

Warlords (feudalism) is what you get when there is a power vacuum and thus nothing can be organized on any sufficient economies-of-scale. It is what the Western Roman Empire collapsed back to for a Dark Age, because we didn't have the Roman military guarding the road construction and commerce.

Quote from: dinofelis on February 26, 2017, 05:59:43 PM

That said, it is true that the monopoly of violence (the ultimate winner of the law of the strongest) DID have a positive side-effect: as there was no competition on the violence side any more (there was no incentive to do so, as the monopolist was so terribly strong that it was a waste of effort, and would lead to one's demise), it DID allow for the investment in violence to be left to the government, which, through economies of scale, could reduce the total expenditure for violence (and limit the total amount of capital destruction by violence).

Not only that, but it enabled protection for large scale infrastructure and commerce.

Competing Dark Age warlords means interstate commerce dies.

Quote from: dinofelis on February 26, 2017, 05:59:43 PM

I do not agree that the government permitted less violence: what was local small scale violence, was replaced by inter-governmental wars on large scale.

Agreed, but it did enable massive progress for mankind. You can't deny the Agricultural, Industrial, and now Computer revolutions of which the first two at least could not have happened without the nation-state as I explained above.

Quote from: dinofelis on February 26, 2017, 05:59:43 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on February 26, 2017, 08:28:44 AM

So to get rid of the natural demand for government, then we need to transition the economy away from fixed capital investments to non-fungible, decentralized creativity.

There is no natural demand for government in my opinion. There is a demand for a mutual agreement for non-violence but that doesn't need to go through the concentration of violence in the hands of warlords (states) that use this to fight each other in wars.

It requires a nation-state and it is a natural demand when the economies-of-scale of humans was in physically threatened work in the agricultural and industrial ages.

Quote from: dinofelis on February 26, 2017, 05:59:43 PM

However, there is a way to empower individuals with weapons of mass destruction. As such, the economies of scale on the level of warlords/states will lose its significance.

That is a non-sequitor. Chaos of physical security on the large scale would only send us back into a Dark Age with warlords.

Rather if human activity becomes sufficiently decentralized, then we no longer are threatened by physical attack. For example, it is impossible to attack the heartland of the USA with an army because there is a citizen's gun under every blade of grass. (the heartland can be attacked by isolating it from commerce and trade though, because we aren't 100% in the decentralized Knowledge Age yet)

Quote from: dinofelis on February 26, 2017, 05:59:43 PM

But the second, much more attractive weapon of mass destruction I see evolving, is what I'd call "DNA printers". If you have a DNA (or RNA) synthesizer - which will most probably be developed in the near future and will be of the size of less than table-top - you can synthesize about any known or artificial virus, and its antidote. Give it 20 or 30 years and I think this kind of technology will be available. The spread of a virus (eventually a triggerable virus, that you first let propagate without symptoms to get sufficient people contaminated, and that you can activate afterwards by a second infection that can be much more targetted) can then be done very very easily by just any individual who created or downloaded the right virus file and "printed" it, while giving himself and his kin the anti-dote.

When individuals can whipe out entire cities or continents, I don't see how the governments can keep their monopoly on violence based upon their economies of scale on warfare and killing.

In the decentralized Knowledge Age, the important people won't live in any concentrated area.

Sorry we can't move (within the next decade or two) to Monero's absolute anonymity. Sorry. We need a more pragmatic approach for Stage #5 of the global economic collapse because the State will still be strong in Asia and destructive in the West. I propose anonymity that is compatible with taxation, because Asia will have strong States not total collapse.

I sure hope you aren't throwing all caution to the wind and deciding to hell with it and you will break the law and hope the State collapses without consequences. If that is the Monero community's attitude, then the project will be doomed.