[mindcrime]

and the authority of governments everywhere is crumbling.

Good.

potentially undermining trust in incumbent governments for the foreseeable future

Even better. Trusting government is a fool's errand.

But, the document says, this should not be seen as defeatism, but rather a “wakeup call”. If nothing is done to adapt to this “post-primacy” environment, the complexity and speed of world events will “increasingly defy [DoD’s] current strategy, planning, and risk assessment conventions and biases.”

IOW, it's not the Department of Defense at all. It's more like the Department of World Domination.

[Analemma_]

And what is your proposed replacement? I've seen a lot of libertarian/ancap complaining about governments, but never any suggestions where the cure isn't worse than the disease.

FFS, look at history. When governments collapse, what springs up is never a wonderful, harmonious, anarchist collective. What actually happens is this: a short period of chaos, followed by the public willfully putting a strongman authoritarian into power when they're sufficiently sick of the instability and just want peace and quiet back. This is a constant pattern throughout history and it is ridiculous to think "this time will be different".

[alexandercrohde]

You really can't think of any middle-ground between what we have now and anarchy/libertarianism?

How about just this as starters: 1. Legalize marijuana 2. End civil asset forfeiture 3. Stronger anti-trust on the internet and wireless spectrum 4. Improve the legal system to prevent civil cases from stifling free speech (perhaps by offering pro-bono lawyers to individuals sued by corporations for acts of speech only) 5. Work to end corporate influence over government.

It's not an all-or-nothing thing, we just need to decide what we care about, talk about it, and it will happen (but slowly).

[Analemma_]

I am in favor of all four (EDIT: five, my bad). But none of those are related to the GP's comment.

[mindcrime]

But none of those are related to the GP's comment.

Actually they kinda are. When I say "don't trust government" you can take that as "grant government ZERO authority which can be abused" (the anarchist position, and, by happenstance, pretty much my actual position), but you can also read it as "trust the government with less authority which can be abused."

And even as an anarchist, I'd take any developments in regards to the latter half of that as progress in a generally positive direction. I mean, I'm an anarchist, but I'm also a pragmatist. We won't get an ancap society in my lifetime, but if we could scale back the size and scope of government just a bit, I would be happy(er).

[alexandercrohde]

Okay, so people should not trust their government. Ways they can not trust their government are by

1. Separation of powers

2. Accountability via body-cams

3. Freedom of speech to protect political progress that threatens incumbents

4. Making voting systems that have auditibility

etc. These are all good practical ways to reduce trust in government with no downside. Why ask for "trust" instead of offering proof?

It is our role in a democracy not to trust our government, but to guide it (by selecting the correct representatives) to represent us on the things we agree on.

[mindcrime]

That's a great point. And to the extent that we do allow "government" and grant it some authority, transparency is - to my mind - absolutely essential. That is, if we're going to give a subset of people some privileged degree of power over others, then it is extremely incumbent upon us to ensure that that position isn't abused. And personally I feel like our current (US) government is far, far away from being properly transparent, or accountable to the people.

So anything that moves towards less secrecy, and more transparency, is compatible with my "don't trust government" position. Of course one can argue about just how far to take it, but I think most of us agree that we've gone too far in the secrecy and obfuscation direction as of late.

[mindcrime]

There's a first time for everything. And things do change. I'd say we, collectively, have a better understanding of how self-government can work now, than we did in the past. Are we "there yet"? I don't know. But I know that what we're doing now isn't working so great.

[ivcha]

potentially undermining trust in incumbent governments for the foreseeable future

Even better. Trusting government is a fool's errand.

wow, great... what do you suggest -- remove governments and go back to clan wars? or perhaps we should be asking the question of how did we end up with governments that cannot be trusted...

[sharemywin]

Then who do you trust no one? computers? corporations? religious leaders? scientists?

How do you run society without trust?

[mindcrime]

Wait, what?? Where did I say anything remotely like "trust no one"?

Trusting governments has worked out so well historically though. That got us many wars, untold numbers of people killed, incarcerated and/or experimented on. It got us untold numbers of people inhibited from creating wealth and a better future for themselves, so the existing elite power base could preserve itself. It got us civil asset forfeiture, the "War on Drugs" (aka, war on civil liberties), horrible nutritional advice promulgated by the USDA and their ilk, which has ruined people's health (hey, eat lots of carbs, fat is evil!). It's got us entrenched systems which promote the morality of one religious group (Christians, in the US) regardless of one's personal beliefs. It's got us MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, Room 641a, etc., etc.

[lightbyte]

Are you suggesting any alternate ideas here, or just ranting about "muh gubment"?

[thatswrong0]

All they're suggesting is that trusting the government is a silly idea, and then provided examples of it. I don't think they're suggesting necessarily that we need a brand new kind of government - just that we should for good reason be wary of the one we currently have.

[irickt]

"Government" is governance of humans by humans. It has never been "good" because the past is so dismal and because humans collectively have not come to make it good.

The challenge for those who critize government generically is that they design a good governance ... whether we call some part of it government or not.

[candiodari]

> Trusting governments has worked out so well historically though.

The absence of government, on the other hand, was even better. We have such incredible highlights as the dark ages, the Mongol conquest, islam's spread, ... each of which killed far more people than 40-45 including Japan and the Holocaust, when the total human population was a fraction of what it was during WWII. Collapses of government which are more recent, but on a smaller scale are currently used as laughingstocks for anarchists and ... sorry to say ... rightly so. Among such examples are Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan as recent examples.

Without the government, can you really vouch for all 7 billion humans alive, even for basic things, such as that no group of them would commit mass murder, just because it would provide a better meal tomorrow evening ? How about all 300 million Americans ? I don't think so. How about 10 million New Yorkers ? I wouldn't take that bet.

The bet that they wouldn't band together and steal whatever they can is so ridiculous it's barely worth thinking about.

[krapp]

>Trusting governments has worked out so well historically though.

On balance, though, for most people, it actually has. Which creates a bit of a messaging problem for anarchy in the general case.

[RUG3Y]

I for one don't trust anyone in that list (maybe computers?). But, I think I can trust my neighbor. Maybe that's where it starts.

[nnfy]

>how do you run a society without trust?

You distribute trust and power among actors in a way that is secure and relatively equitable (compared to current power structures). Enter bitcoin and other more versatile cryptocurrencies like Etherium.

Cryptos may form the foundations of a healthier globalism and a new era for the human race, in that we will be less bound to and reliant on government as a separate, opaque power structure. However, there is a long way to go regarding development and adoption, and, let's be real, the overwhelming majority of private citizens may never understand the function or power of cryptos, while government entities will see it as the power threat that it is and may legislate it away while the populace remains ignorant.

[madamelic]

I especially enjoy the fact they seem to be deeming their own citizens as enemies.

Great job guys!

[mindcrime]

To governments, their own citizens are the enemy. We are a potential uprising just waiting to happen.