Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is an ambitious and intelligent young woman involved in bitcoin and cryptocurrency trying to do this right now. She has a British mercenary force that will contract with individuals or groups to provide their security. I think one small country has already agreed to honor their sovereignty or passports or something. Can't remember exactly. I do recall she struck me as creating a very intriguing concept.
Maybe I can find here on YouTube and post her.
I haven't heard of that specifically, but I like the sound of it. The girl might even be someone I've heard of...probably not her, but I thought of Julia Tourianski right when you mentioned it, since she's big on cryptocurrency. I'll have to look that up.
Doesn't matter what the people in that society want; if a strong tyrant comes along, they will be ruled by a strong tyrant. Unless they organize together, create the structure for mutual defense, leadership to make decisions, you know, form a government.
So it's not funny my choice, but quite specific. We got very lucky to have men who didn't want to be tyrants. Most of history has gone the other way. We could be there now if a few things had been different at some key times in recent history.
And if someone refused to live by the first rule, what are you going to do about it? That's the whole point why fantasy worlds don't exist outside the ivory tower. Real people are involved and reality has a nasty way of upsetting fantasy. Sheep can pretend the wolf doesn't exist, but that doesn't protect the sheep. Or the sheep can have a shepherd and a dog, brother to the wolf, to guard the sheep.
Everyone has a right to self-defense.
The threat from aggression is real no matter if there is a State or not.
I believe the answer to possible aggression is contractual agreements and voluntary associations free from involuntary 3rd party intervention.
You believe the answer to possible aggression is to have an involuntary entity use preemptive force on "bad people" in the hope that the "bad people" won't run amok. You turn a blind eye to this 3rd party using the tactics it defends you with even though these are the same tactics it will use on your "enemy".
By accepting the idea that it's ok for the State to use nefarious tactics to protect you what you are doing is automatically allowing the State to do these things to others as well as open the door for another State to try to do bad things to you.
What about "Is it right?" instead of "Will it work?"?
Ehm - "will it work" settles whether it's worth talking about as a realistic alternative.
Is it right to install unicorn-fart powered zero-emissions energy generators in every power plant in the US, doing away with our dependency on fossil fuels, improving the environment, removing the dangerous and dirty work of extracting oil & coal? Of course it's right.
Do unicorn-fart powered zero-emissions energy generators work? Ehm...
Quote:
Also, is there any chance that "doing what is right" automatically means "it works"?
Ehm - "will it work" settles whether it's worth talking about as a realistic alternative.
Is it right to install unicorn-fart powered zero-emissions energy generators in every power plant in the US, doing away with our dependency on fossil fuels, improving the environment, removing the dangerous and dirty work of extracting oil & coal? Of course it's right.
Do unicorn-fart powered zero-emissions energy generators work? Ehm...
I see no evidence of that. Could wish it were so.
So there is no moral component to decision making?
Doesn't matter what the people in that society want; if a strong tyrant comes along, they will be ruled by a strong tyrant.
Quote:
Unless they organize together, create the structure for mutual defense, leadership to make decisions, you know, form a government.
So it's not funny my choice, but quite specific. We got very lucky to have men who didn't want to be tyrants. Most of history has gone the other way. We could be there now if a few things had been different at some key times in recent history.
I wouldn't consider that a government necessarily, so that may be the disagreement - just semantics. I'd consider it a government when someone is given power to force everyone to obey them and give them resources whether they agreed to it or not, and nobody is allowed to resist their commands. You can designate leaders, but I wouldn't call them government unless they can tax you, for example.
I wouldn't consider that a government necessarily, so that may be the disagreement - just semantics. I'd consider it a government when someone is given power to force everyone to obey them and give them resources whether they agreed to it or not, and nobody is allowed to resist their commands. You can designate leaders, but I wouldn't call them government unless they can tax you, for example.
The semantics game is strong in here today.
We need to focus on aggression vs non-aggression.
States are involuntary (aggression initiated).
Anything voluntary (which means consent is given by all parties with the cognitive ability to do so) is something else...whatever you want to call it. No aggression initiated.
"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices."
-- Barack Obama
Liberals think the people are too stupid to make it without them so they want big government not "democracy", so they keep trying to cheat their way to power. Unbelievable that people believe "it's too hard" to get a voter ID. Nothing like being called stupid.
Ehm - "will it work" settles whether it's worth talking about as a realistic alternative.
Is it right to install unicorn-fart powered zero-emissions energy generators in every power plant in the US, doing away with our dependency on fossil fuels, improving the environment, removing the dangerous and dirty work of extracting oil & coal? Of course it's right.
Do unicorn-fart powered zero-emissions energy generators work? Ehm...
I see no evidence of that. Could wish it were so.
This is where Shane Killian (a guy who has an atheism and libertarianism series) would say "you're shifting the burden of proof. It's the people claiming that the initiation of force is necessary that need to prove it...just as the burden of proof is on a theist to prove that God exists, not on the atheist to prove he doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim."
Which would be worse: a Big Brother type government with absolute power or a place where absolutely NO type of government existed at all?
In short, would absolute despotism or absolute anarchy be worse?
Neither. These two options are foolish at best..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
