Well how do you theoretically move to some desolate place where government has no say over you?

One could live self-sufficiently somewhere? Maybe in a community?

But it might be easier than that. If stops paying taxes and has no permanent place of residence, you'd disappear off most government's radars as well.

It seems these options reject government without imposing anything on others, no?

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that article. I enjoy reading Kissinger, his book Diplomacy is one of - if not the greatest - work on the history of diplomacy ever written.

There's a lot I could respond to in your post. I'll just focus on the last question to keep things focused.

My point here is that I’m looking at the idea of power figures within a democratic process. Can they achieve things in that system, does it work against them, and can they destroy and usurp it?

Democracy can absolutely be destroyed and usurped. In the case of Hitler he took power through democratic means, but he used the Constitution to basically exploit a loophole and placed Germany in a state or emergency or a "state of exception" if we're going by the German translation from 1933-1945. There are plenty of other examples throughout history but this one strikes me probably the most blatant in modern memory. Hitler basically hacked Democracy.

There's plenty of other examples. If an activist judge doesn't consider or isn't concerned with legal precedent in establishing their rulings and instead pass down a ruling based on personal judgment or beliefs I think that's basically an act of power.

Putin and Medvedev switch on and off between President and Prime Minister because of some rule on term limits intended to curb the use of individual power but they've found a way to get around it and are now just working on changing that law.

I would generally say that "power" involves going outside of codified institutional norms and this can still be accomplished in a democracy because those rules can either be hacked or worked around or interpreted strangely so we always need to be on guard for this.

EDIT: In terms of declaring a "state of emergency" or a "state of exception" it's a difficult area because it seems to escape legal precedent or established procedures.... It's not a matter of whether there's "really" a threat facing us, only that a threat is perceived. Someone could declare a state of emergency on account of climate change if that clause was still in a Constitution. With Hitler, if it wasn't the Communists it could have been the Jews or bolshevist cosmopolitanism or whatever. If you don't recognize the threat that's on you.

Tricky subject, to me the common theme seems to be that more "legitimate" systems of government have some type of checks or balances to prevent power consolidation and abuse, while autocratic governments tend to be tyrannical and unrestrained by constitution or law, such as pre-Magna carta Britain.

And in practice, non-governmental social institutions can act in ways of this nature.

This OP has got me thinking about power figures and conformity. Power figures are individualists, maybe you could call them rebels, anyway they chose to work outside of orthodox practice. We rarely see this today. It’s like the individual has been smothered, as if there’s some perceived threat in their personality.

There seems to be an incredible conformity to things now. Individuals thrive where they’re allowed to, like sports or the arts, but they’re still performing within a system that controls the effects of their individuality. Theres no way they could actually transform the environment they perform in, and perform is the operative word, so maybe they’re not individuals just roll models.

I think there’s something very frightening about these power figures and I don’t think it’s just because of Hitler or Stalin. I’m beginning to think we’ve become a very homogenised culture, more so than ever before, and any sign of the individuals is jumped on. The last really powerful individual I can think of was Martin Luther King. I’d be interested if anyone can think of others.

This goes back to my point about consensus. Real change, progress, isn’t made by committees, it’s made by individuals who push through to their objectives. They might push the envelope as far as they can, they may break the rules, they may change the rules, but something will happen, and it seems to me that’s history itself. This was also my point about the gains of consensus. Are they real gains? Has our progress slowed down? Have we become fearful of risk?

The millennials have grown up under this homogenisation, this conformity. They believe they’re individuals but that’s just marketing. Sheeple is the right term for them. So someone like Trump us very frightening to them, they’ve never seen this before and they believe power figures are Hitler and Stalin, but Martin Luther King is not. Despite cries for diversity and the rights of the individual this could be the most conformist and fearful age we’ve ever had.

I would generally say that "power" involves going outside of codified institutional norms and this can still be accomplished in a democracy because those rules can either be hacked or worked around or interpreted strangely so we always need to be on guard for this. — BitconnectCarlos

It is a risky business, and in some ways a democracy is the only place to give power figures a bit of free reign because of those checks and balances. American society, for instance, is nothing like Germany and The USSR. America has always been a democratic state. It’s never been riddled with the same tensions that existed in the USSR or Germany. It’s the very environment that can handle power figures because the individual is the cornerstone of that success, it can and has absorbed the shock of the new.

I'm generally not in favor of giving power figures "free reign" even inside a functioning democracy like the US, and I think things generally work better if everyone just stays in their lane. I'm personally more a small government, classical liberal kind of guy. That said, at critical events in US history like the Civil War or the Depression/WWII these "power figures" (in a more modified American sense) or "centralizers" did step up and expand the state and we generally look upon Lincoln and FDR favorably even though they were undoubtedly centralizers who took considerable executive privilege.

Interesting, that could be something which naturally tends to happen when there is a major war.

Interesting, that could be something which naturally tends to happen when there is a major war. — IvoryBlackBishop

Or it could happen in a moment of history when a dynamic action moving forward is required to avoid degeneration.

Edit: degeneration; I don’t think that’s the best word choice.

Use vegetate.

That said, at critical events in US history like the Civil War or the Depression/WWII these "power figures" (in a more modified American sense) or "centralizers" did step up and expand the state and we generally look upon Lincoln and FDR favorably even though they were undoubtedly centralizers who took considerable executive privilege. — BitconnectCarlos

Does that suggest they are essential figures in history or culturally?

That said, at critical events in US history like the Civil War or the Depression/WWII these "power figures" (in a more modified American sense) or "centralizers" did step up and expand the state and we generally look upon Lincoln and FDR favorably even though they were undoubtedly centralizers who took considerable executive privilege. — BitconnectCarlos

And you have a standing army, btw. Not just basically an enlarged National Guard. The point of defense is typically the issue which even the most hardcore libertarian big-government hater accepts that in this 'special' case centralization works.

If the military is the example that small-government libertarians are OK with, then it opens a door to many issues. How about infrastructure? If the question is the legitimacy of power, the first question is how centralized power ought to be: when are things decided by the individual, when by the collective and when, to make matters function well, by a single person?

How about building something like the interstate highway system? People might take care of the road leading to their house with a neighbor, but how do you organize the planning, funding and building of a system of that proportions? Especially when it genuinely is a life and death decisions for towns and small cities just where the junctions of an interstate highway system are? The vast majority of city mayors would definitely want that their city to be linked in the most convenient way to other cities by highways. Yet you can't please everyone.

This comes back to power. The question isn't just about worrying that some evil guy will take power. The issue is that when there isn't centralized power, the lack of this can have a lot of consequences. And the military isn't the only example. The people who decide just where the highway close hold a lot of power in their field. And simply assuming that "anybody can build an interstate highway system and the best option wins by market mechanism" is the wrong utopian answer. In reality that won't happen. Without a central authority the most prosperous cities will have some form of fast highways/motorways, but on some point when the highway comes too far from the big city to a poor community, it will turn into a normal two lane road. And the result is that the prosperity simply won't appear: the lagging infrastructure will decrease economic growth.

Or just take zoning and city planning. At first, you might argue that in a free country, anybody ought to have the right to build anything they want on their land. Or who cares who owns it, it's problematic. Again the end result is quite a mush. The anarchic way some Third World countries grow is the perfect example how things go without central planning, without functioning institutions.

(Streets and roads, who needs them?)

Interesting, that could be something which naturally tends to happen when there is a major war.

Yes, especially in the case of a war which poses an existential risk to the state.

Does that suggest they are essential figures in history or culturally?

I'm not entire sure what you mean by that, but Lincoln and FDR are among the most influential and favored Presidents in the US.

The issue is that when there isn't centralized power, the lack of this can have a lot of consequences.

Yes, and a lot of more small-gov't types are fine with the roads and some of that major infrastructure being left to the government. Of course centralization has played a huge role in the development of this country, but in modern times we're at a unique point where technology has developed to potentially give us better solutions.

For the past 10 years we've had a decentralized currency not tied to any state. The average lifespan of a currency is something like 27 years. It is immune from hyper-inflation (or even inflation) and it is impossible to seize/confiscate (of course you can always hold a gun to someone's head and do it but you can't just close their account like you could a bank and cut them off from their money.) You can send it to anyone else in the world and it's immune from interception.

We're seeing more tech like this. Our economy is increasingly becoming peer to peer with the rise of Uber and Airbnb, and with this tech we're pushing the envelope even further with the possibility of cutting out the company entirely and going directly peer to peer with basically no fees going to the middleman. We're really seeing a boom in this space and it's exciting.

I understand that in the 1950s we needed a centralizer to build the highways. But it's 2020 now. The world is increasingly digital, and governments and intelligence agencies are well aware of this and have used to it further centralize power and keep tabs on their citizens like never before. The banks and the intelligence communities here in the US work hand in hand so any debit or credit card you use has a data trail which does not belong to you, the user. Your own internet use belongs to your internet service provider which, again, is not yours.

We're just at a neat point in history where the pendulum is starting to swing the other way towards decentralization after around 150 years of it swinging towards centralization beginning with the industrial revolution.

Why desperately cling for the old ways?

pushing the envelope even further with the possibility of cutting out the company entirely and going directly peer to peer with basically no fees going to the middleman — BitconnectCarlos

Actually, the middlemen are there. They aren't just so visibile. For example, you still need:

a) secure and reliable internet connections
b) a working global payment system
c) all agreements between sovereign states and laws that make the above possible.

In the 15th Century the Medici's and the Fuggers could handle international transactions simply by sending a family member to foreign countries to serve as the trustworthy banker there.

I understand that in the 1950s we needed a centralizer to build the highways. But it's 2020 now. The world is increasingly digital, and governments and intelligence agencies are well aware of this and have used to it further centralize power and keep tabs on their citizens like never before. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, you think there aren't equivalent investments anymore of need of similar centralization? Or think that the financial system will take care of it by itself?

How about tackling climate change?

Centralization of power isn't only about control and supervision of the citizens. It is to make otherwise extremely costly investments. It is to create an emphasis on certain issues. And many of them even international endeavours: the ISS, CERN, ITER etc.

Would there have been an interested billionaire that would have made them?

We're just at a neat point in history where the pendulum is starting to swing the other way towards decentralization after around 150 years of it swinging towards centralization beginning with the industrial revolution.

Why desperately cling for the old ways? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure we are swinging into decentralization. Might be the opposite.

Surveillance of the masses is now totally possible with ever more detail that was unheard of earlier. Control is getting easier. The great film Lives of Others depicts quite well the fundamental problem that police states have had in history: to survey just few people you have had to have also a few people that listened or observed, at least looked through vast amounts of useless data when surveying people when defining them to be an "enemy of the state" or not. With more intelligent AI's, that limiting personnel problem won't be a problem anymore. A computer can listen to all the telephone calls, read through all emails, tweets and text messages and every word you ever have put to facebook or this forum. I gather that from all 'big data' on you specifically a cunning computer program can answer questions of "yes" or "no" to questions the government (or an employer) will want to ask of you.

That of course leads to a society where you simply don't talk politics to anyone. Or perhaps only to your friends in a safe environment. Which is more or less the way it was in the Soviet Union.

Actually, the middlemen are there. They aren't just so visibile. For example, you still need:

a) secure and reliable internet connections
b) a working global payment system
c) all agreements between sovereign states and laws that make the above possible.

In the 15th Century the Medici's and the Fuggers could handle international transactions simply by sending a family member to foreign countries to serve as the trustworthy banker there.

It actually is possible to send bitcoin without an internet connection. The technical side of it is beyond me, but people have sent bitcoin transactions through high frequency radios, mesh networks, and satellite. Bitcoin is the global payment system. It is a currency and a network. There is no agreement between governments that needs to make this possible.

Oh, you think there aren't equivalent investments anymore of need of similar centralization? Or think that the financial system will take care of it by itself?

You need to read what I was actually saying earlier. I never said that the era of all that is centralized is over. I didn't make that claim. I just said that in the past decade exciting opportunities involving decentralization are in development and some are in active use. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution society has been geared towards centralization, how could you not be excited for a new paradigm potentially emerging? I'm not saying everything is going to be decentralized, but lets just keep our minds open. Decentralization offers many advantages and acts as a hedge against totalitarianism.

I'm not sure we are swinging into decentralization. Might be the opposite.

We are potentially swinging into decentralization, but this is an ongoing battle as governments and corporations attempt to further centralize power and use technology to monitor citizens. I don't know who will win: maybe government, maybe corporations, or maybe the people.

Surveillance of the masses is now totally possible with ever more detail that was unheard of earlier.

Absolutely.

That of course leads to a society where you simply don't talk politics to anyone. Or perhaps only to your friends in a safe environment. Which is more or less the way it was in the Soviet Union.

I agree.

There is no agreement between governments that needs to make this possible. — BitconnectCarlos

Except they allow bitcoin to be used. And there's a multitude of laws and regulations on it.

For example, The EU and bitcoin:

The European Union has passed no specific legislation relative to the status of bitcoin as a currency, but has stated that VAT/GST is not applicable to the conversion between traditional (fiat) currency and bitcoin.In October 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that "The exchange of traditional currencies for units of the 'bitcoin' virtual currency is exempt from VAT" and that "Member States must exempt, inter alia, transactions relating to 'currency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender'", making bitcoin a currency as opposed to being a commodity. According to judges, the tax should not be charged because bitcoins should be treated as a means of payment. The European Central Bank classifies bitcoin as a convertible decentralized virtual currency.

And some countries view it as illegal: Algeria, Egypt, Bolivia, Nepal, Pakistan for starters. Others have banking bans on bitcoin.

Just as with alcohol, drugs or automatic weapons, you can surely have them and use them, but is it legal or illegal depends on the sovereign state you are in. And that will have consequences.

We are potentially swinging into decentralization, but this is an ongoing battle as governments and corporations attempt to further centralize power and use technology to monitor citizens. I don't know who will win: maybe government, maybe corporations, or maybe the people. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, that may be a too simplified juxtaposition of people being on the one side and governments and corporations being on the other. Governments and corporations are made of people too. The real power of a government institutions comes from the fact that people also support them and obey the rules. And then "the people" aren't as unified as many want to depict them.

I'd say that there are worrying phenomena, these kinds of vicious circles in society going around without a clear culprit or a designer / mastermind behind them. We can blame some actor for them and create this elaborate nefarious plan they have, but very seldom is there any kind of true conspiracy.

Just as with alcohol, drugs or automatic weapons, you can surely have them and use them, but is it legal or illegal depends on the sovereign state you are in. And that will have consequences.

I understand countries have policies towards bitcoin, but enforcement is an entirely different issue. Strictly speaking, bitcoin doesn't require governments to sign off on it. Someone can send a transaction from Pakistan to Nepal (despite both countries banning it) because the transaction never relies on the governments or banks or anything to "approve" or sign off on it. This is huge. The transaction cannot be reversed or intercepted either.

Governments can shut down bank accounts. They can de-bank you or limit where your money is allowed to flow. They can reverse transactions between bank accounts even if the transaction somehow went through. Governments can also shut down brokerage accounts and go after companies that provide these services.

Governments and corporations are made of people too. The real power of a government institutions comes from the fact that people also support them and obey the rules. And then "the people" aren't as unified as many want to depict them.

I am talking about the common good of humanity. If you support 24/7 surveillance and believe that "only wrong-doers need to be worried" then you're just not on the side of 'the people.' I understand that governments are made of people, but this isn't the sense that I mean it. I'm not speaking strictly literally.

I'd say that there are worrying phenomena, these kinds of vicious circles in society going around without a clear culprit or a designer / mastermind behind them. We can blame some actor for them and create this elaborate nefarious plan they have, but very seldom is there any kind of true conspiracy.

You're going to need to be a little more specific because I'm not sure what you're talking about here.