I'm getting real tired with the extreme individualism.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Government has no moral authority, no matter how much it tries to convey it.

Oh you make this too easy. This has been well and truly studied, basically, settled political science since about "The Social Contract". Government is a bargain between people, a quid pro quo. Moreover it is also a bargain between individuals (you, me) and the rest (the forum). This where government gets its moral authority over you: that is you have to live up to your end of the bargain, and in representing the rest of us government does not have to accept you not meeting your obligations under the deal. Which include that you shall pay whatever taxes the government damn well imposes on you. It's a little more complicated that this, but we're already at a considerably more accurate view of how the world works than whatever is in your post.

So from the fact that you have an obligation towards the rest of us, we as represented by the government have a moral authority to remind you and seek redress if you don't.

It has power authority, the old fashioned kind where we do what it says because it says. In the modern era, where we supposedly create the state, it is becoming increasingly clear that we must limit it to the lowest common denominator need. As those needs change, so should government.

This is quite clearly contrary to pretty much everything ever written about the history of mankind. Next thing you tell me we'll eventually end up being hunter gatherers again.

No: the story of humanity is the story of ever more complex organisation as a function of the scale of populations. Unless you propose we reduce population numbers drastically you will continue to be wrong. You mistake government for laws dictating what you can and cannot do, but government is far more than that. Its main job is actually maintaining low level organisation of its people, enabling them to get together and do useful things, the laws are merely a side effect.

First on the agenda is breaking down the government's arbitrary moral hold on what it has no business being involved in and has no actual moral authority over.
Second on the agenda is determining the core requirements that we as individuals are better served by keeping in the public realm. This should change and we should be cutting the governments role where it is no longer needed or becoming a burden (the postal service, certain drug enforcement, etc)
I want a basic and modular government. Should there be zoning to keep explosions from destroying a town? Should financial services be regulated to avoid massive scale abuses of investors? Should there be laws against killing, stealing finite objects? Yes, Yes, Yes.
Should the government make most drugs illegal, recognize the institution of marriage, outlaw firearms, recognize holidays, give tax breaks for desired behavior, etc? No, No, No.

And this, has nothing to do with the size and complexity of government. At all. It's just a bunch of antiquated rules, they can be enforced, struck or rewritten as society sees fit. Government is about all the basic services which you take for granted so much you hardly notice them. Like traffic lights, for instance.

[HopAlongBunny]

The George Carlin bit I posted might seem flippant but he illustrates the point so nicely.

In the USA (and Canada) people were stripped of their rights and marched off to concentration camps for the crime of being born to people of the wrong race. That is what your rights are worth; they exist at the pleasure of the government.

The latest manifestation might be being labelled as an "Enemy Combatant" or "Terrorist". The government can make any distinction it chooses really; rights are a fiction that exist only so long as it is useful and disappear when they get in the way.

[Husar]

rights are a fiction that exist only so long as it is useful and disappear when they get in the way.

The same is true for the value of money, nation states, love and other things that only exist as long as individuals or a group of individuals want them to exist. If your government can easily take all of them away, it's probably a sign of too much complacency. If the government does not represent the will of the people it's because the people let it. The government only exists as long as the people want it. It has authority because the people accept it. The power of the government and the money of the government are given by the people, so without the people giving it that, the government has no leverage.

[HopAlongBunny]

If your government can easily take all of them away, it's probably a sign of too much complacency. If the government does not represent the will of the people it's because the people let it.

Actually it's part of our Constitution :p The "Notwithstanding Clause" was part of the deal that was struck to pass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would be very surprised to learn of a government that does not have a similar mechanism.

I agree with your post however; Bokononism might be a fictional philosophy but it has application in real-life

[Tellos Athenaios]

Actually it's part of our Constitution :p The "Notwithstanding Clause" was part of the deal that was struck to pass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would be very surprised to learn of a government that does not have a similar mechanism.

I agree with your post however; Bokononism might be a fictional philosophy but it has application in real-life

Actually it is a lot easier in the parts of the world that were inspired by English law, than it would be in most of the rest of the world. Habeas corpus and related rights can be easily suspended (and have been, quite often) by the simple expedient of getting the powers that be to agree on that and pass the relevant act. (This has happened quite often, for example in the USA during the Bush admin in 2006.) However, in countries with a more sane legal tradition (and by sane, I mean leaving less to a vague notion of "established practice") there is typically a constitution which grants rights and is binding. This means that a simple act to temporarily suspend the equivalent of habeas corpus is out of the question. It requires something quite a bit more drastic to get around constitutional protections here.