> Government leaders will never give up their pipeline of knowing everything about everyone.

Then let us hire different leaders into government. Public servants, not overlords.

If you have noticed, every independent candidate almost never gets elected. Vast majority of those who say they will "change the country to the better" either never get elected or are ousted early on. And those who stay change their tune.

I fear that only blackmail-able people with the potential to win elections, get the support, so that they are beholden to someone who ultimately gives them the job (e.g. funding their campaign) and has to return the favor x10 when elected, so promises go out the window and new reality sets in.

Someone tried to create an entirely new country with minimal governance by dumping sand on a submerged reef until it became an island[]. Even then it was quickly co-opted by the nearing statist powers (Tonga) with the blessing of western powers.

So it's not just that the primary process will crush anyone who will seriously roll back government powers. They won't even let anyone peacefully create an entirely new fucking island to try and get away from the tyrants and do it while leaving everyone else alone and not messing with the powers that be.

[] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva

Isn't that the libertarian paradox in a nutshell, the entire reason why "government" exists? Because in reality, the alternative is "might makes right" and a larger, stronger group will band together and steamroll the smaller and uncoordinated individuals?

Government is might makes right, just with a nice name slapped on it. Minerva was minarchist, not anarchist, but for whatever reason they chose not to defend their country by force. Somaliland and the remains of Rojava come to mind as present-day ~minarchist governments that defended their territory by force and ~succeeded. The point being is these kind of changes won't be allowed by election or peacefully. The primaries stop the election process and the militaries stop the peaceful separation process.

America did have a period of relatively small government intervention at the beginning, but that took a war with Britain. It also had some periods of it during the pre-founding (some of 1600s Pennsylvania and Rhode Island while Britain was occupied elsewhere). Pennsylvania (before it was a state) in particular was basically straight up anarchist for I want to say, about 20 years.

> relatively small government intervention at the beginning,

Yes, the women, slaves, non-land-owners and native Americans all loved that phase! It was paradise on earth and the embodiment of the eternal liberty to which all (*) humans are entitled.

(*) your experience may vary, depending on your membership of various demographics. Some restrictions apply. Please see package for details.

Thank god you mentioned that. You foiled my diabolical plan of introducing slavery as utopia, as clearly imposing slavery is a way to shrink government intervention. No mention of early USA is complete without damning any experiences drawn on it because muh racism/sexism. Nevermind that whittling down to even that point took a war with Britain, which was relatively more free than before when yet still slavery and Indian slaughter was still happening.

Thank god you responded. You have effectively disarmed my diabolical plan of refuting the idea that early American history was some sort of libertarian paradise, by pointing out that I have used the old canard of slavery as if it, by itself, could invalidate the many good things that came from the early, limited form of government.

I have no option other than to lay down my intellectual tools before you and declare you the winner of this battle of the ages. I am humbled by my idiocy in even bringing up the fundamental economic engine of the early American republic, as if it actually mattered at all in the face of the noble, if perhaps a little selfish, goals of those proud young Americans.

I would say relatively true of the southern colonies. New England, slavery import was banned rapidly, slavery itself banned fairly early (some states almost immediately) and it was arguably never a load bearing pillar. Virginia in particular and the southern colonies only avoided starvation by stumbling on tobacco.

I'd also note slavery was also influenced by how land distribution happened in the colonial era. Lands dispersed under more feudal models lent themselves more to slavery and indentured servitude. Lands that for various reasons that were rapidly sold were more likely to end in the hands of small holders without slaves or fewer slaves.

I've read Graeber/Wengrow. Any new recommendations?

> but for whatever reason they chose not to defend their country by force

When forced off the reef, the founders went back to places like Australia, Manhattan, and London with considerable wealth. Pretty easy to see why that was preferable to possibly dying by firing on the armed forces of another country.

Somaliland and Rojava don't have that option.

Hierarchical power conflicts with servitude

I guess we'll just sit on our hands and do nothing, then.