Why do nearly all sci-fi settings feature extremely powerful governments...

You can have conflict in a story with a small government. For example, MC's business needs to expand, and his competitors might just be willing to go so low as to hire the mafia to keep his business small.

>implying that a business would never sign you up for a service you didn't want or need and then try to stop you leaving.

Government & businesses make good antagonists in scifi because it's depressingly easy to see ways they'd abuse advances in tech.

you can discontinue- you move to another country and become a citizen there.

small governments can't throw away hordes of resources/people at a problem.

If the past is any indicator, most things like crypto currency and free information will end up getting subverted by state supported actors eventually.

>plot revolves around expanding business

Way to waste a setting. You are in fucking space.

>>implying that a business would never sign you up for a service you didn't want or need and then try to stop you leaving.
At that point, they're governments.
There's only so much land. What if I wanted to discontinue and keep all of my property, from my own body, to my toothbrush, to my land? What's wrong with that? What's morally wrong with that?

>sci-fi setting ruled by competing churches instead of govt/zaibatsu

Space business. Think Spice & Wolf, in space.

Goodness, you actually believe you own that land? No, only people with private armies can begin to approach that luxury. But let them convince you that every human has the right to do what you described. I'm sure they'll help you out when you cede.

>Spice & Wolf

So, might makes right?
You are just a bootlicker, huh?

ahhhh, you mean full on disassociation. there's nothing wrong with the concept, but I doubt you've fully considered the ramifications of essentially "declaring independence".

just off the top of my head:
>you're limited to the resources found within your borders for manufacturing EVERYTHING you need. if the resources aren't there, you need to pay another country to import the raw materials.
>if you can't make something yourself, you need to purchase the product from a foreign nation, meaning you need to pay taxes and tariffs from the import of the goods yet again.
>unless you are minting your own currency, you can't make money for goods and services appear from nowhere, and therefore need to get a working visa for another country.
>you need to secure and patrol your own borders, which detracts from all other forms of production, meaning to secure your borders you lose both time and money.

>I doubt you've fully considered the ramifications of essentially "declaring independence".
I have. user, that's exactly why it wouldn't be some horrible disaster to allow secession, from county, from state, and, by God, from the Union. It wouldn't end up 200 million independent entities, it might become more like the old HRE, probably even having many "unions" for defense and law only.
I don't even really want to declare independence, I just think it's morally reprehensible to not allow it.
And, no, I'm not from the south, I'm from Ohio.

Nice straw man. I'm telling you how the world works, cupcake.

>he's never seen magazine auto subscription
You literally can't unsubscribe or tell them to stop charging you. If you even manage to find the number or address to contact, the line will be "busy" until the heat death of the universe. The only way to stop them is to close the financial account they charge to and go out of your way to not have your next one linked back.

>Why do nearly all sci-fi settings feature extremely powerful governments
>nearly all

Morally reprehensible to not allow people to leave? Jesus Christ you live one hell of a comfy life if this is shit you care about. How many stories you got with your house?

>People kill each other, man, nothing to get worked up about
>theft happens, dude, you can't make it not
>rape is just a natural part of life, don't waste your breath denouncing it
>don't care about bad things when even worse things happen
That's just simply not an argument.

you're missing my point.

are you self sufficient enough to SURVIVE apart from your current society? can you make all your clothes, build, repair and maintain your own shelter, grow ALL of your food and harvest all the water you need upon "your land" without help from everyone? can you create every form of entertainment, recreation, protection, energy, governance and utility you'll need for your people?

How many crows are you dealing with, Dorothy?

I think it's hilarious how many "pulled myself up by my bootstraps" (which is a saying that has completely flipped it's meaning, it originally meant something impossible) types are so subsidized that they couldn't survive a month without government support. All those cattle barons that rely on public grazing land, all those corn farmers that only turn a profit because the government fixes the price. No one is an island, but people who literally receive handouts to sustain their living are even less so.

So I'm guessing 2 stories. Is your dad giving you money upfront and telling you how to invest it or does he make you jump through hoops first?

>are you self sufficient enough to SURVIVE apart from your current society? can you make all your clothes, build, repair and maintain your own shelter, grow ALL of your food and harvest all the water you need upon "your land" without help from everyone? can you create every form of entertainment, recreation, protection, energy, governance and utility you'll need for your people?
Me? Likely not. I'm certain many survivalists could, though. And, anyway, I doubt many people would even secede alone. Why not secede with a hundred, a thousand, a million of your fellows?

Hell you don't even need to look at farmers. You get that shit with people who just moved money around all their life.

Would you trust a multi-billion/trillion spaceship that can blow up a city if it crashes or throws trash out of the airlocm into private hands? Any spaceship with an interesting engine is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Because cyberpunk is a massively dominant sci-fi genre, and its trappings are bleeding into the genre itself

now you're playing the logistics game over however much land you're talking about. and good luck with getting consensus from them about every little thing required to set up a new government for that scale.

Yeah but you would secede alone, right? Smart puppy like you knows how to play the political game.

I like what you did there.

But they should have the right! It's not like foreign governments would take advantage of the law to cause instability, right? Think of the morals!

>consensus from them about every little thing
Why? Just like how many people who are unhappy about some things would stay with the US government were we to allow secession, like farmers who use public grazing land, many would settle for whatever is good enough.
Most of /pol/, for example, would likely settle for no-non-whites and no Jews, even if they can't agree on every little thing.

Of course they would. No other power would use its vast influence to try and persuade people to secede.

institutionalized discrimination as government policy will certainly -destroy- your trade options. good luck getting your people fed.

quitting a country means giving up your claim to anything you don't take with you FROM that country. since you can't take the land, if you don't succeed, moving and changing your citizenship is your only viable option.

To allow succession, you'd have to bring back Monroe Doctrine and enforce it brutally or else you'd just end up with Russian and Chinese puppet states in the middle of the US.

Yeah, moving and changing citizenship is a pretty sweet option. You might even be able to move to an unstable area and be your own little warlord. Get lucky and you can live your dream of declaring independence.

If everyone is armed with a gun that has settings from "Lightly Tickle" to "Vaporize An Entire Room Down To The Walls" and a spaceship that can kill entire cities via kamikaze, clearly no one would ever dare cause trouble, because people are inherently rational actors who carefully weigh the pros and cons of their actions, and realize that vaporizing people means being quickly vaporized in turn. No one is ever spiteful or crazy or suicidal or just wants to ruin and destroy lives for lulz. That's how humanity works, right guys?

Idk , drug lords might get their shit together enough to at least cause a ruckus.

Is that some sort of issue? Should I care more about the "US government's" power over foreign countries than my own freedom and the freedom of fellow men?
Hey, it's just an example. If their policies end up fucking them all over, maybe they'll learn and try again differently. Or maybe they'll still be perfectly happy as long as there are no blacks.

Yeah, your new masters will totally respect your independence.

>Should I care more about the "US government's" power over foreign countries than my own freedom and the freedom of fellow men?
Consider that foreign countries are far more likely to want to curtail your freedom and the freedom of your fellow men. Consider also that the US government's power over those countries keeps them away from you. Therefore, yes, you should.

>new masters
Who's to say they would be able to gain this power over the newly-independent states? You?
I've seen literally no arguments other than "But someone else would annex you!"
What if many new states sign deals with the US, giving money to the US, giving money for protection? Is that impossible?
What about the new freedom in the US invigorating the rest of the world, causing massive insurgencies and movements in countries like Russia and China, as well as, say, Catalonia and Scotland?

>realize that vaporizing people means being quickly vaporized in turn
>No one is ever spiteful or crazy or suicidal or just wants to ruin and destroy lives for lulz
I feel like I should point out 9/11, but I get the sense that you're being sarcastic

welp, the thread has shown that small groups of people will become susceptible to all kinds of outside influence and an eventual dependence on a patron nation. so to prevent global-scale clusterfucks of diplomatic incompetence, bigger more competent governments are more stable in providing for the needs and EDUCATION for their populace.

hence the idea that, in theory, a powerful government is a force of good at the start that eventually falls into some sort of decayed state as values and interests change between generations.

I feel legitimately depressed that our society is so fucking crazy that an entire paragraph of withering sarcasm gets chucked in the "Maybe he's being sarcastic" bin.

people anonymously talking about extreme hypothetical scenarios are nothing if not regularly depressing.

Because governments use the latest science and technology to harness power and oppress the populace more than the other way around.

If they have the money to properly up the revolt they have enough money to take it over

>the world is a powder keg of small nations ready to break free of their shackles

You think humans give a fuck about nations?

Judging from only the whole of human history, I'd have to say yes, of course they do.

judging from the whole of human history, larger nations get more things done simply due to the sheer scale of production and trade potential. smaller coastal nations without economic or military dominance serve as regional powers at best, and landlocked nations are even less effective.

You need to look closer at history. Humans care about safety and comfort. Nations are a means to an end. No one cares about them.

>departments that decide if people can even have children?
we have those now

pretty sure they're talking eugenics instead of parental aptitude.

Eugenics was actually government policy for decades in many parts of the world. Many of these policies were only recently discontinued.
Many nations still have legal provisions allowing for mandatory sterilization, usually for people convicted of sex offences.

>eugenics
>parental aptitude

Holy shit dude, the world is bigger than Ohio.

>Less powerful governments usually results in big business filling in the void.
Historically the two are dependent on each other, A big government can afford to bail out big businesses as well as crate various monopolies (West Indian Company for example) and big corporations love using the government to get preferential treatment. In fact the only legitimate case of a "corporate dictatorship" came about as a result of the United fruit company provoking and exploiting a CIA backed coup.

totally agree because I'm not Ohio guy.
I want neither restriction.

Ohio guy?

yeah.

(You)
(You)
(You)
(You)
(You)
(You)
(You)
(You)
(You)
(You)
(You)
this is me.

Forgot pic.

Sure?

You put a lot of value in having a sense of self on an anonymous message board.

>pic

Didn't that rocket or whatever fail spectacularly?

> strong central government +time

Star trek

> liberal wet dream +time

Mad Max

So you're saying that there were no military aircraft involved in WW1? Nothing that could have made then think "I wonder how fast/high they'll be able to fly in the future?"?
If you'd said 150 years ago, on the other hand...

>Star Trek
>Not literally a 70s era liberal socialist utopian wet dream

Well, the only supersonic aircraft in service are all military-operated, so that's pretty simple.

Capitalize your goddamn sentences you faggoty shitstain.

History shows time and time again that centralized power leads to advancement and there's no reason to think that sci-fi should be different. If anything, with better and more advanced instantaneous mass-communication making education and organization easier, future society might behave more like a hivemind.

Only after capitalism and strong government drove progress up until the technology was sufficient to provide for everyone's needs forever.

>It's this guy again
No, you do not have the slightest right to own land, nor to own anything. You do not owe your birth and your existence to yourself only and you aren't entitled to shit.
Wanna play the moral argument ? The list of people without whom you wouldn't be alive or even who you are today is as long as your ego is large. Is it moral to disregard everything other people did for you and pretend you can owe something without answering to anyone ?
Obvious answer : no, it's not.

Fucking retard.

>he's never seen magazine auto subscription
>You literally can't unsubscribe or tell them to stop charging you. If you even manage to find the number or address to contact, the line will be "busy" until the heat death of the universe. The only way to stop them is to close the financial account they charge to and go out of your way to not have your next one linked back.
Now tell us how hard it is to program the VCR.

Magazines do that shit in the present day. You can subscribe online or over the phone, but to unsubscribe,you have to use a snailmail address that you can only find by looking up their official business location and then hope that they don't "lose" the letter after the 3 to 8 weeks it takes for them to process the request.

A corporation with a monopoly over basic utilities is no different than a government. You've got to pay for your police subscription or you'll find yourself robbed within the hour. Worse, you can't even vote for things to change. As long as a business holds a monopoly your only choices are to suck it up or move and if you move you'll end up loosing most of your wealth as most of your assets are worthless outside of that particular corporation.

>So, might makes right?

Well, yes. If by right you mean the legal capacity to do things.
Ultimately, laws only extend as much as they can be enforced. If a law can't be enforced it doesn't matter what the law is, it's meaningless.

Take democracy for example. Democracy only took off when the gun came into the picture. Suddenly, it didn't matter how well trained your pikemen and cavalry were. What mattered most was how many musketeers you could field at a time. You couldn't count on elites suppressing a rebellion so you had to give the masses more power and influence.

Ah, never tried to unsubscribe to a cell phone service provider?

A lot of people are perfectly happy living in a country with no world dominance, as long as, say, abortion is legal or illegal, depending upon the people.
jacobitemag.com/2017/08/04/why-liechtenstein-works-self-determination-and-market-governance/
The world would be better if every country was like Liechtenstein, Switzerland, or the HRE.

From my experience most cyberpunk settings have gargantuan megacorporations running the show in place of governments.

The last cyberpunk game I played had a Corp intentionally fill the air with infectious nanomachines and sold different levels of cure at varying affordabilities.

Who said all revolts will be some Russian operation? And if some are, so what?
>>It's this guy again
Literally who are you? I've only ever talked about this shit on Veeky Forums before, do you somehow recognize me?
Anyway, people do have a moral right to own land, and you haven't disputed that in the slightest.
How are they going to enforce that monopoly when there's no police force to arrest people trying to get services without them? Or will they have their own, is that what you're saying? At that point, they're a government.
Also, while one should always have a police subscription, do you really think there would be only one possible one? There'd likely be a few in each area that generally work together to keep things safe. Or one could just move to the next city over and live there with their great police force.
The actual willingness of people to vote with their feet decreases with the further one has to walk.
You are morally reprehensible.

Read Stirner you cuck

Fuck you, you shithead Stirnerite. Read Hoppe.

>the truth is morally reprehensible
I want entitled manchildren to leave.

>No, you do not have the slightest right to own land, nor to own anything.
Holy shit dude, communist much?
Yes, humanity as a whole is interdependent. Yes, people do rely on other people. But if the determining factor in national sovereignty is the will of the populace, as is the key tenant of democracy, then why is it that the people are simply not allowed to will to leave?
If the entire world was one big huge happy supernation where everything was perfect, then your argument might have some weight. But the world is divided into hundreds of shitty selfish competing states, that only co-operate when there is something direct to gain. Why is it so wrong to want to leave then? Why do you consider it wrong to want to leave a shitty and corrupt system because it has provided you infrastructure up until now? You don't owe that country shit, you've payed for that infrastructure with taxes, and a good sum of that has doubtless not gone to hospitals and roads, but has gone to private holidays and mansions.
By your logic, moving out of your parents' house is wrong, as they raised you, so you should stay in that house forever to look after them in their old age, even if they abused you.

Any system of government that does not allow people to simply leave is broken, and none of them do. States are not some intrinsic property of the universe, where they are sacred and cannot be touched, they're a human construct designed to give people power over others. Some are much more helpful to their citizens than others, but when you don't have the option to simply not subscribe to a state, it's really just choosing which is the least bad of the bunch.

Just because it might be "the truth," that is, the way the world currently works, doesn't mean that I shouldn't speak out against it, since it is a bad system.
Tell me, if you could push a button and make it the general opinion of most people that governments don't have the right to militarily subjugate other people, would you not? This change in opinion would be so strong as to surely incite riots in any country not allowing secession.
Do you not agree that it is immoral?

You can leave at any time. You just may have nowhere to go.
The national passport isn't a permission slip to leave your country. It's a document necessary for you to enter another.

>I've only talked about it on Veeky Forums before
I knew it wasn't on Veeky Forums but couldn't put my finger on it.

If you believe morality has to have anything to do with state affairs you are wrong. The only thing in which morality is useful and necessary is in interpersonal relationships. No one should apply morality to anything else and especially owning land, as it gets in the way of rational behaviour.
Morality in such affairs is irrational and as such to be avoided completely.

As another user mentioned, you ARE free to leave for another place unless you live in North Korea. You haven't "repaid" your country in the slightest way, you merely participated in its functioning, and that is not the same.

>States are not some intrinsic property of the universe, where they are sacred and cannot be touched, they're a human construct designed to give people power over others
First part of the sentence is true, second part is the most idiotic thing I've read today.

>Moving out of your parent's house is wrong
Absolutely not. It is wrong however to pretend that you own any part of the house and can declare ownership because you've been living here. Nothing forces you to pay rent if you don't live here and nothing force you to stay here to look after them. But nice strawman.

Also
>Muh communism
It's not communism to have basic common sense.

>If you believe morality has to have anything to do with state affairs you are wrong. The only thing in which morality is useful and necessary is in interpersonal relationships. No one should apply morality to anything else and especially owning land, as it gets in the way of rational behaviour.
That's an easy position for a man in power to take, a man whose power would diminish if he held himself to standards of morality.
It's literally not an argument. All people should be held to standards of morality, ones with power and ones without power.
>second part is the most idiotic thing I've read today.
Why? What are states, then, if not a human construct to organize and keep themselves running, keeping their rulers in power?
States really have two purposes. To govern, and to keep themselves running. Now, governing is fine by me. I have nothing against the concept of leadership. But I believe that it should always be completely voluntary. A state that governs in a way that its subjects dislike but which uses military might to keep those people as its subjects is despicable.
Your argument basically boils down to "People can't own land, all land you own is really owned by your government and rented to you," right? And that's because that government can take that land by force, right?
I disagree on moral grounds. Just because that is, undoubtedly, how it currently works, does not mean that it is an acceptable thing. I should speak out against it, and so should anyone who understands just how immoral it is.

So, how did states form? Was it from neolithic farmers agreeing to trade deals, and the subsequent annexation and taxation of the surrounding farms just sort of fell out of that? Or was it powerful individuals like Shaka Zulu going on crusade around their locale to become the most powerful individual in the area? The only states in the world that didn't form through conquest were formed when powerful empires split up and just left the people behind to rule themselves (russian empire fragmenting into eastern europe, european empires in africa, etc.)
Please explain HOW all states were apparently created solely to serve the common man. Oh wait you can't because universal suffrage is a very modern thing.

What is this "basic common sense" you're talking about? I don't want to leave my country myself, I quite like it, although it does have problems. The moral issue of states is that there is no choice to not have a state. Going back to the start of this thread, It's not like a magazine subscription where you can simply cancel all of them and go without magazines, you HAVE to be part of a state, and none of them are libertarian paradises that exist solely for the benefit of the populace, every single one of them has fat cats at the top who spend tax money on mansions and caviar.
You are not simply participating in the country's functioning by paying taxes, if 100% of all taxes went to roads and hospitals only retards would complain. But the truth is that the taxes are paying for a lot more than the public gets back in every country.

The problem is that no country has any legal way for parts to secede. Catalonians were beaten in the streets for trying to vote to leave spain, the Ukraine is still a goddamn warzone split between pro-ukraine, pro-russia, and independent movements, and we have fucking israel and palestine both claiming the same city.
The setup we have, of competing "Sovereign" states bickering over the world, no longer works. We need something new

>That's an easy position for a man in power to take
That's because it is not meant for a man but for an institution. States often have agreed to a loss in their on power for common good. See treaty of Vienna in 1815 or more recently European Union, which has avoided war for more than 70 years now. People should have standards of morality, but not constructs which are meant to administrate something.

>States really have two purposes
States have no predefinite purpose. They are not a construct that appeared of the explicit will of a handful of human beings, but a way of administrating communities that appeared by itself due to many different things that I don't have the time to detail here.

>But I believe that it should always be completely voluntary
It is voluntary. You're just not willing to abandon the benefits you get from the state. As long as you're not leaving, conform to your duties and benefit from your rights, you're participating voluntarily. If you renounce your nationality no one will force you into having one.

>so should anyone who understands just how immoral it is.
It has nothing to do with morals as long as it is efficient. Goal is to maximise happiness of citizens, not to conform to morality. Once you understand the concept of being moral is petty once you are dealing with billions of lives, you will see that your definition of morality is impossible to apply. If you want to keep the greatest number of people in adqueate conditions, you do it that way and that's all.