Government IS force.
Bingo.
Depends upon how you define terms. Remove force from government but retain the ability to have an ordered, peaceful society that appears to be "governed" from the outside and what do you have?
So we can either attempt to scare people with new terms by "taking away the government they believe deep down they need" *OR* we can say "keep your government, I just want to take away its right to use violence".
The problem with government isn't that it uses violence, but that the people believe it has the right to. Take away the belief of the people and it is little more than organized crime. If we tell people we can achieve everything "good" the government does without using violence then they are receptive.
I've certainly fought the word government, but I think what your saying makes sense as a strategy. A government without the right to violence is simply a company of people offering a service, who can be replaced with a better competing company of people offering the same or better service. I don't think this company is technically a government but perhaps the larger dynamic structure that allows an individual to voluntarily arrange for himself how he (and only he) should be governed fits the bill. There can of course be any number of different companies involved for any number of different services.
So really the government this creates is a personal government of one, because any attempt to govern outside of yourself requires violence/coercion.
Can a MAS be applied to services or only things like insurance, charity/welfare? I can't quite make the link of how exactly a MAS can replace other government services like water/roads/security etc.
You might be right. Maybe MAS is the next big thing.
But the problem is we (the shareholders) are not given a choice.
We are forced to follow our developers' vision. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
It's quite ironic that MAS is all about non-violence but this situation feels like violence to me.
I can either follow the vision or say good-bye.
The difference is you're not being forced or compelled to act against your will. You can freely make the determination that development is not going the way you want and freely choose to leave if necessary, or better, convince another developer to work towards your aim. But it ultimately comes to shareholders determining direction. At the moment voting shareholders are primarily supporting BM.
It would be violence to coerce CNX to act according to shareholder will.
It would be violence to coerce BM to provide alternatives that he does not willingly support.
Shareholders govern bitshares, not CNX or BM and the option to do nothing is always available to them.