Erik: your article is chessmate for Dmytri's. Well done. |
|
|
|
In the "The First Steps to Strategy" section, they lay out objectives as though "the problem" is already self-evident and doesn't require explanation. Unfortunately, it does. Skipping this important step makes the work sound dogmatic rather than legitimately trying to solve problems in society.
It's not a manifesto. It's a strategy guide. A "how-to." The "what" and the "why" are assumed to be already understood. The "what" and the "why", along with a little bit of the "how" can be found in The New Libertarian Manifesto. . If one buys a Chilton repair guide:  one is not going to find an extensive and lengthy "car theory" and "a treatise on the benefits of driving a car" chapters at the beginning of the book. The Chilton's just going to go down to business and show you how to change the damn air filter :-) This book is the Chilton of voluntaryism and agorism. (In case you were curious about the Chilton analogy: I have that Chilton book, cos I need to take care of my baby. She's 30 years old now, and needs more care than newer models.) |
|
|
|
Here's my quick, incomplete review:
[...]
Hey there man! Thanks for your review. I failed to mention this, but the book is divided in two parts: 1. A quick and cursory review of agorist class theory and libertarian ethical norms (nb: the tax feeder vs tax parasite thing is not really libertarian, that's a mistake of the author -- it's agorist). The author just states them in Cliff's Notes form -- he's not trying to persuade you, as he assumes you can look these up in the appropriate treatises. This book sort of assumes that you agree with these principles upfront. But you don't need to agree with them -- you can still derive utility from the second part. 2. Strategies and tactics to bring about a parallel society (a Second Realm, if you will, thus the name of the book) in compliance with non-violent ethical norms, based on experiences derived from other parallel societies. This is, for me, the most useful and practical part. How to evade taxes safely, how to develop strong trust networks outside the system, how to protect life and limb against statist threats, how to operate in the Second Realm undetected, et cetera. You know the drill. That's what the book is about. Should Bitcoin become contraband in the future, the book outlines effective strategies to carry on without caring about that, and these will be useful whether you're an agorist or not. Now, I know you disagree with Libertarian theories, from reading your review. I suggest you don't let that sabotage the utility you may derive from it. |
|
|
|
My suggestion to advance in pretty much any field or endeavor is: let's just ignore anyone who says "X can't / shouldn't be done" and do it anyway. These crab bucket people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality should just move aside and allow those who are attempting X to succeed. :-) |
|
|
|
Since AnCap can't prevent non-AnCap governments from taking over, it seems to be an inherently unstable political system.
"Non-AnCap Government" uses force or the threat of force to achieve it's ends. They would be considered (and treated as) criminals in an AnCap society. Indeed in Civcraft they are. Anyone verifiably using coercion or fraud is prosecuted by the rest of the ancaps (no one is forced to do this, most ancaps are solidary like that) and pearled (imprisoned) until the person committing the wrong pays restitution. Violence is never used against non-violent people. |
|
|
|
Civcraft http://civcraft.org/doku.php is a thriving game where you can choose to align yourself with your favorite political or non-political faction, and try the principles of your faction out. I recommend it. Now, I might be biased, but the ancap cities are the ones that have the most riches and best structures. This sounds like fun d. I tried to get into this and discovered that minecraft is not free software? Help! Yes, that sucks. Still, it's worth your while. Stallman's compromise with the enemy to find our way to a free software / society. |
|
|
|
2) Market forces clearly chose governments as the most economic way of organising humans and providing the maximum overall utility to society.
You would be right if coercion were a market force. It's not. as I noted before, it introduces distortion into any market it is involved in. Agreed. I have a hard time considering conquest and revolution (violent acts that describe how all governments gained power) as a "market force", given that I consider the market to be the sum total of voluntary non-violent interactions. |
|
|
|
Civcraft http://civcraft.org/doku.php is a thriving game where you can choose to align yourself with your favorite political or non-political faction, and try the principles of your faction out. I recommend it. Now, I might be biased, but the ancap cities are the ones that have the most riches and best structures. Don't know how to play this game, what kind of political system ancap cities are using? None. They just play and resolve disputes by agreeing on a respectable member of the community to render judgment. The chosen guy, of course, gets paid for his services. |
|
|
|
I read again the OP's post, there are some really good points, especially the cruel competition part
Imagine in a RBE, everyone will be allocated 50BTC per month, and after a year, someone will have more than 200BTC saved, someone will use up every coin they get and try to borrow from those who have saving
This is how today's world shaped, even we could remove money and allocate resource to each person equally, sooner or later some of them will become rich, some of them will get debt, this is related to each person's behavior
And money works as an incentive, without money, how could people have incentive to come out with new ideas to improve the life of other people?
Maybe, a game based society could be close to RBE, where each people will share the way of improving the gaming experience to others, without consider their income
Is there any such kind of social system existing in second-life? Someone can just create such a community virtually and see if it works
Civcraft http://civcraft.org/doku.php is a thriving game where you can choose to align yourself with your favorite political or non-political faction, and try the principles of your faction out. I recommend it. Now, I might be biased, but the ancap cities are the ones that have the most riches and best structures. |
|
|
|
Courtesy of my friends at /r/AgainstAllArchons, I bring forth the book http://secondrealm.net/Aside from being highly practical and straightforward, it will aid every single one of you who seeks to protect yourself against State aggression. Hope you enjoy it! :-) |
|
|
|
So if the US economy has to print more $$$ to deal with this fiscal cliff I've been reading about in the news will the inflation of the USD cause an increase in BTC price? Or are BTCs relatively pegged to USD?
Ceteris paribus, the more USD available, the higher the BTC price. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin helped to take me from minarchist to market-anarchist. I was infected by the community and exposed to the likes of Stefan Molyneux, who really made the case for no-state.
Elaborate? Bitcoin probably eliminated asdf's previous belief that minarchy was the only viable way to organize a society (probably because he wondered "But what about the currencies?" and Bitcoin came at the right time to prove that voluntaryist currencies can and do work). It's like, you know, we're all repeatedly told for almost two decades that certain things X, Y and Z can only (magically, mysteriously) be made by this group W, and BAM! this guy F comes along and proves twenty years of "it's common knowledge, man" utterly wrong by making Y, and not just Y, but a superior Y. F being Satoshi + every one of us, and Y being Bitcoin, of course. After that, you kinda start suspecting whether it's true that only W can make Z and X too. Doubt's always the first step in shedding false beliefs. Stefan Molyneux is a philosopher (he runs Freedomain Radio, the largest philosophical conversation in the world) who is very much pro-Bitcoin and pro-voluntaryism. Stef was the one who "converted" me to voluntaryism, so-to-speak. |
|
|
|
|
Mmmm. I posted on the wrong thread. Sorry about that, carry on.
|
|
|
|
Yeah.... I'm not clicking that link. I'm sure I'm on enough watchlists as it is. I do recall a paper which suggested that sort of thing, though... Anonymous "bets" that such and such politician would die on such and such date, and then someone comes along and collects the "winnings". Too bloodthirsty for me, but I can definitely see how it could be done. the author of that paper was recently released from prison ; ) see? no worry. in +- 10 years you'd be free again To the extent that I know, they used his tax stance as an excuse to cage him. They of course added a zillion charges on top of that, and the trial against this guy... it would not be inaccurate to describe it as "kangaroo trial". Clearly what he wrote terrified many a psychopath in power. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin confirmed for me that strictly voluntary relations can work, in more ways than one. For example, I have traded with over 25 people and only one of them scammed me (for a total of like 8 BTC total, which is a minuscule amount compared to what I have traded so far).
This observation, to me, confirms the well-studied fact that people -- strangers -- are, by and large, trustworthy and well-intentioned even when rules aren't being violently imposed on them, and completely destroys the notion that Mankind is malevolent and therefore it needs a magical group of men (who somehow magically won't be malevolent) to rule everyone else. I mean, I knew it theoretically from obvious logical deduction that this belief was unfounded and pernicious, but now I know from first-hand experience that it is false.
It also showed me that there is indeed a way to practice agorism and tradecraft, swiftly routing around the psychopathy of the control freaks who do business as "the state". Before Bitcoin, we knew they were wrong and malevolent -- now we still know they are wrong and malevolent, but we can actually start not giving a shit about them.
And, for that, I am profoundly grateful to everyone who has made Bitcoin happen. Thanks everyone!
|
|
|
|
Your response nicely demonstrates that kind of muddy mythological thinking I am criticising here.
In your thinking style, there are the "evil ones" and the "good ones". Each of them is so substantialy and clear.
Nothing of that matches reality in any way.
In your thinking style, there is an magical mythological evil entity called "the state". Which has nothing to do with the "real people". And "government" activities are obviously always staged, pretended, sold and manipulated, like in the next best, average shady Hollywood-Thriller.
Umm, you might be confusing me for someone else. Never have I said anything of the sort, and of course I won't be responding to comments that put words in my mouth. While I technically could, It wouldn't make any sense for me to defend views I do not hold. Also, can you tone it down on the "your thinking is mythological" unsubstantiated assertions? I find it hard to sustain a conversation with someone who from the outset assumes that his interlocutor (me) must necessarily be so wrong as to willfully believe in fantasies. It frustrates me, because I get the feeling that the other person just won't listen to anything I say. Now, going back to the topic -- and staying there -- how about responding to the argument http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODu02R_gA&feature=youtu.be&t=17m13s? Respond directly to what I said instead of introducing new ideas (don't break rule #1 in the handy guide on my signature right here below), and I'll gladly have a conversation with you. Thanks for your cooperation :-) |
|
|
|
You know who loves to bet that politicians will die? Politicians. It's called life insurance.
Bahahahaha. That's literally and technically correct. |
|
|
|
The very things you're criticising so vigorously, the state, the laws, the monetary controls, the governments, the regulations and all that technocracy were exactly created "for the general good", to defeat specific problems and to improve the situation.
No, not really. I would beg to differ. While I agree that these things were sold to the public under the pretenses you cite, the real purpose is simply control freakery and profit: to control the tax farm more tightly. The ostensible purpose does not match the real purpose, and I know this because I can see that the observable effect does not match the allegations. If a guy on the street grabbed a hammer "for the purpose of hammering a nail", and used it instead to bash someone's head in, would you believe his alleged "purpose"? Does the ostensible purpose match the observable purpose? No. I say the same is true about these things your interlocutor is criticizing. Now, I could sit here and give you a gigabyte-long printout of exactly how those things were sold under false pretenses, but instead I'll give you the one case I consider to be humanly incontestable. "Governments" were "created" to allegedly protect their own people, yet just in the 20th century, they slaughtered more than 270 million of their own people, excluding wars. So.... in closing... these things you speak of? They're not for your own good. Anyone who tries to sell you a "solution" to social problems that requires threatening millions of peaceful people with violence, is an anti-social person and you should tell them to GTFO. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
