3RU7AL

There must be a moral framework which guides social interaction--preferably individualism.

What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do. 

And is that specified somewhere in your old book?

The Ten Commandments, which Jesus summarized in two. 

Would you rather live in a country with a functioning government or in a country with no functioning government.

No functioning government of course. I'll make this clear: I'm not an anarchist for the sake of anarchy. Anarchy--particularly autarchy--is the logical extension of my sustaining the moral philosophy of individualism. I do not presume a mere removal of government would solve all problems. There must be a moral framework which guides social interaction--preferably individualism. Just like in your reference to the panopticon, I'd rather have the discretion to weigh my own decisions and act accordingly than to have them dictated to me out of fear of the spectre of a "Wild West."

So, problem solved.

Did that solve the problem, or was that a mere reaction to public pressure? What about the incentives that facilitated the bribery in the first place?

Private citizens would have an iron-clad right to privacy, but public-servants (referees) would have every action placed in a permanent and public record.

Public servants would have their rights diminished? With the predisposition to mobster mentalities, wouldn't this lead to an insurrection?

First, what is playing fair? Second, why are your mentions the example, and not the exception especially considering that these cartels are backed by the Mexican government, which in turn is subsidized by the C.I.A? Not to mention that Diamond trade and the resulting conflict is likely sponsored by the Rothschild bank.

So I ask you, (IFF) "cartoonishly wealthy banking families" are running rampant (THEN) how is shrinking or eliminating government (referees) going to SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?

Because government enforcement is their sword, and government regulations are their shields.

Because this is the true and primary CAUSE OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION.

I don't think corruption is the biggest issue out there and both sides do it.  Coal companies lobby Republicans, and planned parenthood lobbies democrats.  I think eliminating national poverty, guns, immigration, abortion, military, and getting rid of the income tax are all comparably prominent issues.  I side with libertarians on most of these.

What informs your primary AXIOMS regarding "societal justice" (if-not-love)?

What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do. 

Mentally disabled people can still do construction work and physically disabled people can still get a job in the link above.

Can you and I agree to make this priority #1?

Why is this issue the first priority?

Then we ban welfare for the poor, disabled, and CHILDREN

One at a time.  Poor people can get a better paying job that only requires a HS degree.  Such jobs do exist, are very common, and some examples are in the sheet below:

If we ban all welfare, let's start with corporate subsidies please.

I would end all subsidies to private companies.  If they want federal funds, they can´t be for profit.

According to the World Bank ease of doing business index, America is 6 th in the world, while Mexico is 60.

That would be where protectionism comes into play.

The government is corrupt af and gangs own most of the territories, so I would prefer not to do business from down there. Hardly Heaven on Earth.

Screw the free market. I'm for Americans. I do like freer markets in terms of smaller regulations, less taxes, and no subsidies. I do not believe in letting people in who will destroy the livelihood of American citizens.

..smaller regulations, less taxes, and no subsidies.

If we ban welfare, any immigrant who is here for welfare would leave.

...the sectors they work in begin paying less and having worse work conditions, which disincentivizes natives from working in those sectors.

Sweden is a parliamentary democratic with a constitutional monarchy. This country globally known for its high quality life, equality, human development, education and health. The government system of Sweden is also transparent and stable. The government agencies of Sweden considered the corruption as ‘abuse of power’. There is also a efficient anti-corruption unit in Sweden to investigate and prosecute corruption.

The company is now pulling out of business in Central Asia,

The idea of a referee is to mitigate bullying.  If you think people should NOT be forced to "play by the rules" then you essentially have no rules and people will act like MOBSTERS.

Then what's the point of any organized social interaction? If people are predisposed to acting like mobsters, then all government action would reflect his mobster mentality because government members consist of people.

There are specific barriers and codes-of-conduct that insulate referees from corruption.

How? Who maintains/sustains these codes of conduct if not the very people who you claim are predisposed to mobster mentalities? The rules are only as good as the people who follow them. And according to your rationale, the rules are mobster rules.

And how is that any different from a FREE-MARKET-WARLORD?

To what extent is this person acting as a "war-lord"? If the "war-lord" merely participates in free exchanges and dissemination of products and services, why would it matter that he or she is a "war-lord"?

Great metaphor.  The only problem is if there's only ONE GAME IN TOWN

Why would there be a single rent-seeking monopoly dictating a single game in town?

It's true that the system makes people complicit in the process that traps them, but that fact doesn't make it okay. It seems to me that the system is designed, whether consciously or not, specifically to get people locked into it.

I'm not at all suggesting that this is okay. But with cartoonishly wealthy banking families who operate on trapping the populace in their debt schemes, governments are mere tools (along with mass media) to cajole the unwitting into political activism which facilitates said scheme.

There are lots of privately held corporations that are highly centralized.  The two concepts are not incompatible.

Give an example.

If I own ten acres of real-estate that surround your 1, I can force you to pay tolls to cross my land.

I can charge people rent to live on my land.  I can charge companies a fee in order to conduct business on my land.  Land makes money.

More land = more money = more land.

Exactly; therefore it's far more lucrative and incentivizing to charge for use of your land rather than to kick one off simply because you dislike them.

And the issue is that the other side of the aisle seems intent on increasing all types of spending.

Speaking of a person (I - first-person singular pronoun - within the context) forgiving others for a wrong against them, not about societal justice.

...Social Security and Medicare deficits that will come over the next three...

And she said many benefits counted in the study are going to U.S.-born children of immigrants, skewing the findings even more.

The center's report is based on 2012 data from the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation. It includes immigrants who have become naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, those on short-term visas and undocumented immigrants.

Immigrants are more likely to be working than their native-born neighbors. The report found that 87% of immigrant households had at least one worker, compared to 76% for native households.

Answer: you won't stop trying, but the majority of the voters that pay taxes won't vote in a politician that can be purchased by the 1%.

If we were to entertain your statements in the other thread, and for the sake of argument, concede that in the absence of government, we'd live in a "wild west" because people cannot be trusted to be left to their own device, then how is that members of government can be left to their own devices? Isn't a corrupt government inevitable?

Social interaction ought to reflect a pick-up game of basketball. Everyone who desires to participate either conceives a set of rules to mutual agreement, or adopt the ones which naturally come with the game. Each participant is free to accept or decline the rules suggested. Not only that, each participant is free to seek other arrangements which reflect their own values for rules setting without being deprived of that with which they came in. These games are usually self-regulated and in the event of disputes, codes of resolution are exercised (e.g. "miss on me.") Either that or resolution is brought about through concession. This works because each participant has an identical goal in mind: entertainment. And there's a plethora of considerations taken, consciously or subconsciously, before and during engagement.  Cheating is heavily discouraged because one risks getting alienated and/or ostracized in future games.

With the government acting as a referee, the "referee" proverbially puts a gun to your head, and forces you to play by his rules whether you agree with them or not. And in the event, you dissent, it will shoot you, detain you, or rob you of everything you have--including your socks.

Eh, I'm pretty sure the original intent, the original use-case for government was to adjudicate disputes between citizens and to provide public roads and protect public resources like water and to protect citizens from foreign invasion and to protect property rights so the powerful (ranchers and or railroads) can't simply take your land by force.

Which government are we talking about? Tribal governments?

Feudal governments?

None of them fit your description.

Perhaps the closest thing was the United States during its first nine years when it had its own colonial script and operated under Articles of Confederation. But that's far too indulgent with your description.

You're describing wage-slavery.

But it's even worse than that.

No, I'm describing "debt-slavery." All governments accumulate debt which tax-paying citizens are obligated to service said debt. International bankers sell this debt using the tax payer's labor as collateral.

Whether or not its administered by a "private contractor" or not, it will inevitably become "an overly-centralized institution".

No, because to be "private" is to not be "overly-centralized." How do you suppose they'd centralize without the coercive force of a centralized government?

Because once people start paying taxes, they will stop voting for the corruption. As long as they don't have any skin in the game, there is no accountability.

Isn't it always?  In any system, there are winners and losers.  The winners will purchase more land, and kick out anyone they dislike.  And then buy more land.

How do you suggest they "buy more land" if they're kicking out everyone they dislike? Where are they earning their income?

The solution to your 1st video is to institute a flat tax, essentially making 100% of the population lobbyists, instead of the 1% with skin in the game.

But we borrow carnival tickets from other nations and have to pay interest on these ticket loans.

When we continuously borrow tickets, the payments start snowballing and eventually we cannot pay back our ticket interest at all.

Then the other carnivals are going to be very upset and might war with our carnival to get it back.

Or we can print tons of tickets and everyone will lose faith in our ticket's value. 

So we need to invent hoola hoops?

Yes, insurance does rob the healthy to pay the sick, and I would like to be able to opt out of some insurance.

Car insurance is to pay for the other person's car in the case of a wreck, though.

Health insurance is for yourself, and Obama made it illegal not to have health insurance. Kind of insane. And I can't opt out of many of those services anyway.

If we didn't have insurance, costs would be much lower.

Lasik eye surgery isn't covered by insurance and the price is driven down by competition.

The bill for our debt will come eventually, likely in my lifetime, and it will be a very unpleasant one. I care about it, so I want to cut spending quite a bit and maybe raise taxes a little bit temporarily until we pay it off.

It is only one of the reasons. Another is that it depresses the wages of native workers, destroys our culture, they cost us tons in welfare. I can get a full list of the reasons, but it will take a while.

Talking into your laptop camera while having the option to show reference material (or so you can read something while looking into a camera) on your computer screen is much more compelling than a medium-shot of you in a basically empty room talking to an empty chair.

And does God ever go back on, or change His word?

No, His word is eternal and unchanging.

I'm saying that someone who murders someone else does not receive the same recompense he/she gave without the court system taking their life also. Many times those left behind feel that justice is not equal. Their loved one is no longer alive while the perpetrator of the crime is. 

I'm not seeing anything in there that would justify killing felons or protesting abortion.

That would be something the government did for it is not for a citizen to take revenge but for the state to apply justice (except in cases of self-defence or protecting others from wrong). And love is just. A good judge will not wink at wrongs. He will punish them or else there would be no justice. Without the state/government applying justice there would be anarchy. People would do whatever evil they liked without any consequences.