No, really, that's not just the official story. The reality is that tens of millions of people were killed in wars and genocides in just the 20th century. The most basic role of government is to protect its own citizens against that, and it is not an abstract threat. And despite their many flaws, and the many wrong things that they have done, the US and its allies remain the most open, free societies and a positive, stabilizing force in the world.

It's entirely legitimate to question whether the NSA has been going too far -- there's been debate about it for years. However, there is zero evidence that any of the data being collected had even been used in any way that impacted or threatened the freedom of people in the US -- it's all possibilities and abstract paranoia. It's difficult to have a serious debate when people put on tin-foil hats, plug their ears, and refuse to even acknowledge the broader realities. It's not all just a conspiracy to monitor Facebook and take away our bitcoins. All of these issues demand a dynamic balancing of risks and benefits, and of the rights of individuals against society. Any extreme philosophical positions are dangerous.

How many of those genocides were carried on by a government against some segment of its population? How justified is it to look at the tens of millions who have been killed by their governments and conclude that if the governments are to protect us from war and genocide, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Well, actually all genocides were carried on by people (part of a government or not), so maybe we should eliminate people.

Either that or not make broad generalizations.

Indeed. Imagine if we just killed everyone how many social problems we'd solve....

But my broader point was, larger government surveillance and national security powers won't stop genocides or wars between governments. This isn't what they are there for. They are there to prevent groups which are deemed politically dangerous ("terrorists" which evidently include nuclear protesters, environmentalists, and states' rights advocates).

It's one thing to have spy agencies. However widespread spying on one's own people is never a good sign.

Most people cannot fund a military via taxation. That's unique to government.

Even governments cannot rely on taxation to fund armies or anything else they do. For centuries, they have relied instead on seizing monopoly control of money and then debasing it. This has the effect of stealing people's savings and the benefits they would otherwise obtain by increased productivity, and it is much harder to detect than blatant taxation.

(By all means read "Creature from Jekyll Island" to learn the details of that deliciously evil story. :)

Yes, that's very true, although I still think that a large part of the reason the USD is still trusted internationally is that a large group of wealthy people (Americans) have to pay their taxes in the USD. Another large part is the US military, of course.

"Although" is not the right word here -- you're supporting my point. :)

The requirement to pay taxes in USD is the primary "inherent value" which makes that particular commodity circulate as money. The "inherent value" is to increase the odds that one may continue living outside of a cage.

When I call that value "inherent", I am obviously speaking very loosely and tongue-in-cheek. Remove the threat of force, and USD paper cash has no significant value -- it's too rough to use as toilet paper and doesn't even burn particularly well in the winter. It is durable enough to function as wallpaper, though with a rather busy and avant garde retro design.

Combine that dynamic with the Mandrake Mechanism described in "Creature", and you have a very powerful monopoly fiat money, consisting of cash and bank "deposits", useful for financing horrors like World War I, the Marxist overthrow of the Kerensky government, endless bailouts of banks and corporations throughout the '70s, '80s, '90s, and '00s, and a litany of other ridiculous, juvenile schemes.

It is the monetary inflation, produced by the central bank buying government debt (i.e. a promise to tax), which gives governments most of their "spending money". Taxation itself merely gives people a reason to accept the USD in the first place, and also serves as the principal means of social engineering.

When you look at it that way, taxation and inflation are seen as two mutually recursive functions, whose fixed point is the gun.

That's a tautology, since a tax is by definition imposed by a government. Bullets bought with private money kill just as well, though, and can and have been used to create new governments.

> The most basic role of government is to protect its own citizens against that

Or perhaps it's to bring wars and genocide to people in other countries.

The reality is that approximately 200 million people were killed by people in government in the 20th century. If the basic role of government is to protect "its" own citizens against that, then not only have they utterly failed in that role, they have actively opposed it.

I do have an extreme philosophical position: that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It is compromise that is dangerous.

So you thing all the guns in the US revolutionary war were superfluous?