Decentralized Army

[SebastianJu]

but wait, if a country was an army like switzerland, how would they be able to carry out the functions of an army? things like setting up bases around the world, fighting off bad things like communism and holy wars, making profitable alliances overseas, etc.

Switzerland has more democracy than most countries, the citizens actually can decide whats going on in the country. Not loved by other governments of course since they want to lead the way their lobbyist companians want. Since they want the nice income job right after ending the political career.

The thing is... citizens mostly know how shitty war is. So they wont decide to send out their own sons to capture some oil in foreign countries. And so far it works fine for switzerland. They can defend themselfes since the citizens have to learn being a soldier at one time in their life.

So far i like this system.

I always wondered how they managed to stay neutral during all the world wars. I thought it was because all the other countries needed some safe banks to stash their money in. I didn't know the citizens got to vote on going to war.

Im not sure if the citizens decided about going to war directly in the last years since no politician would come up with the idea. But if politicians would try to do such thing then citizens can build a referendum and stop them. When i think about our politicians (im not swiss) then i know why they fear this system. 

[SebastianJu]

We have this in the USA, it is called the militia. Unfortunately the government does not like competition in their monopoly on the use of force, so it has been systematically attacked, dismantled, and cast as being made up of batshit rightwing terrorists.

I think most of this militia is dangerous in fact. Normal people feeling the power to rule often lead to problems. You ever heard of stanford-prison-experiment? I wouldnt like having a militia in my neighbourhood because i know that all the shit of mankind would go into it. Wearing weapons and feel mighty.

Of course there are good people building militias too. Only those things often go wrong.

And then there are those racist militias. I guess it doesnt need explaination why such people shouldnt be allowed to legally build a military power. They would only be there for some people and what happens with the rest is open. Maybe those have to create their own militia then...    

[L]

So, with this 'decentralized army' on rich people would be able to defend themselves...

[inBitweTrust]

So, with this 'decentralized army' on rich people would be able to defend themselves...

"Rich people" currently control all armies and private security firms and they are very efficient at killing people and extremely corrupt as well.
 
I am actively distributing arms for the poorest and most needy of humans on the earth. The organization I volunteer towards is called "Arm the homeless" and here is some press we received a few years ago:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-04-01/news/give-piece-a-chance/




Let's work together to make sure all people are secure and armed and start with those that need it the most!

[TECSHARE]

We have this in the USA, it is called the militia. Unfortunately the government does not like competition in their monopoly on the use of force, so it has been systematically attacked, dismantled, and cast as being made up of batshit rightwing terrorists.

I think most of this militia is dangerous in fact. Normal people feeling the power to rule often lead to problems. You ever heard of stanford-prison-experiment? I wouldnt like having a militia in my neighbourhood because i know that all the shit of mankind would go into it. Wearing weapons and feel mighty.

Of course there are good people building militias too. Only those things often go wrong.

And then there are those racist militias. I guess it doesnt need explaination why such people shouldnt be allowed to legally build a military power. They would only be there for some people and what happens with the rest is open. Maybe those have to create their own militia then...    

First of all, are you even in the US? Do your lords and masters even let lowly subjects such as yourself you own a firearm where you live? Do you fear the coast guard? Because that was designed in a very similar way to the independent militia system, only the governor of each state controls them.

The militias are NOT dangerous, this perception is 100% comprised of media lies any hype. The vast majority of militias are composed of former military and police officers (ie patriotic law abiding citizens). If you are so terrified of militias, why aren't you afraid of the coast guard, or the army, or police for that matter? Militias in the US have never tried to take control. Their only purpose is to serve as an independent armed force to preserve the constitution of the USA. Never have they tried to subvert the government despite the news media jizz you chug down like koolaid.

"normal people feeling the power to rule"? First of all militias aren't for anything except rule of law. Second, you really believe normal people are more dangerous than the psychopaths currently in charge, and you feel safer with them continuing to run things? You are pretty mental. Have you ever heard of Stockholm syndrome? You are right about one thing, the militia are only there to help some people, and that is the people within their own state. There is nothing wrong with that, because that is their duty to protect the law of the land of the state they are based in. Further more, the USA, is SUPPOSED to be run by "normal people", not queens and lords like I am sure are in charge where you live.

You "know all the shit of mankind would go to it". How exactly have you come to this conclusion? Was it from talking with actual militia members or hearing their arguments, or was it because the glowing idiot box told you so? What evidence do you actually have that militias are racist?

"I guess it doesnt need explaination why such people shouldnt be allowed to legally build a military power."
It does not need explaining why? Because you declare it so? If you are going to make an argument usually that requires you back up your points, not just declare them obvious fact for everyone (because it is not).

As far as your Stanford prison experiment example, please explain to me what effect exactly that has on militias that it doesn't have on police, military, coast guard, TSA, DHS, FBI, ATF, etc, or any other government controlled use of force that you are so willing to put your faith in? This argument is moot because it equally applies to any other use of force you feel may be more appropriate.

It is very clear to me that you either:
A. Don't reside in the US (probably in some western European slum that likes to pretend they are better than the rest of the world)
B. A fervent antigun nut (because if you decide to be defenseless, everyone else should be too)
C. Or both

Here is an interview with some actual militia leaders so you can see what bloodthirsty dictatorial racists they are for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky49ltgeXRU

[TheButterZone]

Actually many "antigun nuts" are found to not be defenseless, and have guns or gun-wielding bodyguards to defend themselves (against non-existent threats, because their enemies are law-abiding gun owners who by definition will not harm them in any way, and their allies are violent criminals who will not knowingly kill their golden geese). It makes sense to disarm people before you democide them, or commit other violent crimes against them, though.

[BADecker]

Hows about a decentralized army which instead of regular armies could protect their baker using the Darkleaks back-end code (www.darkleaks.com)?

People would pledge a small amount of bitcoin to claim a protection for an irregular army. This would ampute more power from governments who are illegitimate imao.

What do you think? Discuss.

How about getting rid of all laws that infringe on our right to own guns and ammo, an carry it/them any way we want at any time.

Better yet, require the carrying of a minimum of a .357 Magnum when off our residence.

We don't need any army to protect us. With training, we are our army, just the same as it always has been and always will be.

[Tusk]

There must just be one requirement, that they get paid only in BTC. This way we may finally evolve to living in peace, by realising that war is too expensive to contemplate. 


Bitcoin vs. Political Power: The Cryptocurrency Revolution - Stefan Molyneux at TNW Conference

Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly increase taxes. The staggering growth of political power throughout the twentieth century -- the century of war -- was largely made possible by replacing money limited by gold with paper currencies, which can be printed at will by government-controlled banks.

Cryptocurrencies are the first self-limiting monetary systems in the history of mankind, and could be our greatest chance to check the growth of political power since the Magna Carta. Join Stefan Molyneux, the host of Freedomain Radio - the most popular philosophy show in the world - as he reveals the hidden political and military power of government currencies, and shows how cryptocurrencies could be greatest revolution in human history, and the foundation of a truly free and prosperous planet.

The Next Web Europe Conference - April 25th, 2014

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate

Bitcoin Address: 1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs
Litecoin Address: Lbxr3M8oezWaguEBc35MoyvQT88C85Sqpi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joITmEr4SjY

[GreenStox]

How about getting rid of all laws that infringe on our right to own guns and ammo, an carry it/them any way we want at any time.

How about we get rid of all laws that infringe upon any of our rights?

The right to self defense is important, but there is also the right to property (which the state constantly violates) and many more important rights!

[TheButterZone]

How about getting rid of all laws that infringe on our right to own guns and ammo, an carry it/them any way we want at any time.

How about we get rid of all laws that infringe upon any of our rights?

The right to self defense is important, but there is also the right to property (which the state constantly violates) and many more important rights!

Abolish government, then.

[waterpile]

This is the same like putting up your own private army. Later the government will see you as a threat in the country

[SebastianJu]

Im not in the US and no im not allowed to wear a gun. Though we have many guns owned by normal people because they are in a gun club. And o wonder... those are the weapons that are used for school killings regularly. Because they are there, reachable to those with a ill mind.

Governors still are responsible for their deeds since they get elected.

Im a fan of democracy. Im a libertarian too to some extent but the same way i wouldnt let you make a surgery on me i would not want each ill minded person in my country being able to kill dozens with as easy as triggering a gun. I think protection against surgery failures isnt created by simply allowing everyone to do it. It should be done by those with a proven ability to do so.

I think it doesnt help that you only come with examples where milita worked. There are enough religious stupids that misused the power to wear weapons. The same goes for racists, criminals and so on.

And you speak about militias in areas with a proper government. Thats fully different from militias without this. Or what do you think happens in areas where governmental rules stop to work? Its everywhere to see. Vawelas in brasil, different african countries and so on. Private armies that dont have to fear the governmental army tend to not being the ones i want to live beneath. You can come up with your friendly ex police men but that still isnt the topic in here. Organizations with military power are a risk and yes... if democracy doesnt work, like in the us, then a governmental army is a risk too. At least not so much for the own countries citizens but still to other countries ones.

An army that is bound to the rules the normal people give them democratically... thats whats ideal in my opionion.

We have this in the USA, it is called the militia. Unfortunately the government does not like competition in their monopoly on the use of force, so it has been systematically attacked, dismantled, and cast as being made up of batshit rightwing terrorists.

I think most of this militia is dangerous in fact. Normal people feeling the power to rule often lead to problems. You ever heard of stanford-prison-experiment? I wouldnt like having a militia in my neighbourhood because i know that all the shit of mankind would go into it. Wearing weapons and feel mighty.

Of course there are good people building militias too. Only those things often go wrong.

And then there are those racist militias. I guess it doesnt need explaination why such people shouldnt be allowed to legally build a military power. They would only be there for some people and what happens with the rest is open. Maybe those have to create their own militia then...    

First of all, are you even in the US? Do your lords and masters even let lowly subjects such as yourself you own a firearm where you live? Do you fear the coast guard? Because that was designed in a very similar way to the independent militia system, only the governor of each state controls them.

The militias are NOT dangerous, this perception is 100% comprised of media lies any hype. The vast majority of militias are composed of former military and police officers (ie patriotic law abiding citizens). If you are so terrified of militias, why aren't you afraid of the coast guard, or the army, or police for that matter? Militias in the US have never tried to take control. Their only purpose is to serve as an independent armed force to preserve the constitution of the USA. Never have they tried to subvert the government despite the news media jizz you chug down like koolaid.

"normal people feeling the power to rule"? First of all militias aren't for anything except rule of law. Second, you really believe normal people are more dangerous than the psychopaths currently in charge, and you feel safer with them continuing to run things? You are pretty mental. Have you ever heard of Stockholm syndrome? You are right about one thing, the militia are only there to help some people, and that is the people within their own state. There is nothing wrong with that, because that is their duty to protect the law of the land of the state they are based in. Further more, the USA, is SUPPOSED to be run by "normal people", not queens and lords like I am sure are in charge where you live.

You "know all the shit of mankind would go to it". How exactly have you come to this conclusion? Was it from talking with actual militia members or hearing their arguments, or was it because the glowing idiot box told you so? What evidence do you actually have that militias are racist?

"I guess it doesnt need explaination why such people shouldnt be allowed to legally build a military power."
It does not need explaining why? Because you declare it so? If you are going to make an argument usually that requires you back up your points, not just declare them obvious fact for everyone (because it is not).

As far as your Stanford prison experiment example, please explain to me what effect exactly that has on militias that it doesn't have on police, military, coast guard, TSA, DHS, FBI, ATF, etc, or any other government controlled use of force that you are so willing to put your faith in? This argument is moot because it equally applies to any other use of force you feel may be more appropriate.

It is very clear to me that you either:
A. Don't reside in the US (probably in some western European slum that likes to pretend they are better than the rest of the world)
B. A fervent antigun nut (because if you decide to be defenseless, everyone else should be too)
C. Or both

Here is an interview with some actual militia leaders so you can see what bloodthirsty dictatorial racists they are for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky49ltgeXRU

[lophie]

Hows about a decentralized army which instead of regular armies could protect their baker using the Darkleaks back-end code (www.darkleaks.com)?

People would pledge a small amount of bitcoin to claim a protection for an irregular army. This would ampute more power from governments who are illegitimate imao.

What do you think? Discuss.

You are talking the expendables or al qaida? 

[WhatTheGox]

Hows about a decentralized army which instead of regular armies could protect their baker using the Darkleaks back-end code (www.darkleaks.com)?

People would pledge a small amount of bitcoin to claim a protection for an irregular army. This would ampute more power from governments who are illegitimate imao.

What do you think? Discuss.

I'd be happy to support such an army if they are going to protect real freedom.  I'd be worried how they'd function, i assume public would give the orders.

[PayingCharon]

Public giving orders? You understand that we dont have a true democracy because there are way too many people for everyone to participate right?

[GreenStox]

Hows about a decentralized army which instead of regular armies could protect their baker using the Darkleaks back-end code (www.darkleaks.com)?

People would pledge a small amount of bitcoin to claim a protection for an irregular army. This would ampute more power from governments who are illegitimate imao.

What do you think? Discuss.

I'd be happy to support such an army if they are going to protect real freedom.  I'd be worried how they'd function, i assume public would give the orders.

See thats the problem with a regular army, because it's run in a hierarchic scheme, and soldiers have to follow orders or get court martial, weather they like the order or not. And of course the court martial judges are superior officers aswell, so if they are corrupt, they can find him guilty for any bogus charges, and lock him up for good.

And of course the generals can always be corrupted by corporate interest, or private interest, so its really a bad idea to have an army organized like that.

Instead, i think the best solution for private defense is local militia groups, of brigade-size run by a coalition of superior officers, which are elected by the local people. And the militia groups are equal sized and cooperate horizontally, with no superior officer holding the brigades together. So you`ll have a garrison commander, of 1 star general and 10 colonels,  which manage their own regiments.

And the 1 star local garrison commanders cooperate between eachother with other militia groups, and dont have 2 star generals ruling over them.

Does that make sense? Horizontal cooperation, not hierarchical, to avoid powerhungry "Caesar" type generals to create military dictatorships

[WhatTheGox]

Hows about a decentralized army which instead of regular armies could protect their baker using the Darkleaks back-end code (www.darkleaks.com)?

People would pledge a small amount of bitcoin to claim a protection for an irregular army. This would ampute more power from governments who are illegitimate imao.

What do you think? Discuss.

I'd be happy to support such an army if they are going to protect real freedom.  I'd be worried how they'd function, i assume public would give the orders.

See thats the problem with a regular army, because it's run in a hierarchic scheme, and soldiers have to follow orders or get court martial, weather they like the order or not. And of course the court martial judges are superior officers aswell, so if they are corrupt, they can find him guilty for any bogus charges, and lock him up for good.

And of course the generals can always be corrupted by corporate interest, or private interest, so its really a bad idea to have an army organized like that.

Instead, i think the best solution for private defense is local militia groups, of brigade-size run by a coalition of superior officers, which are elected by the local people. And the militia groups are equal sized and cooperate horizontally, with no superior officer holding the brigades together. So you`ll have a garrison commander, of 1 star general and 10 colonels,  which manage their own regiments.

And the 1 star local garrison commanders cooperate between eachother with other militia groups, and dont have 2 star generals ruling over them.

Does that make sense? Horizontal cooperation, not hierarchical, to avoid powerhungry "Caesar" type generals to create military dictatorships

ok yeah that makes sense, like a distributed network of small size army tribes?  how do you stop 1 group not getting too big?

[TECSHARE]

An army that is bound to the rules the normal people give them democratically... thats whats ideal in my opionion.

Just because some armed group calls themselves a militia doesn't make them one. As far as how it works in the US, what is more democratic than an armed force literally made out of the people within the locality it is taking actions in? Those people are their family, friends, and neighbors and will be treated as such not to mention the advantage they have knowing the territory and its normal patterns.

[GreenStox]

ok yeah that makes sense, like a distributed network of small size army tribes?  how do you stop 1 group not getting too big?

The others will stop them. There will be constant communication between each garrison, if the commander of 1 garrison starts to recruit more people than allowed or buy more weapons, with the mission to conquer the planet, then either the local people would change the leader of that garrison to a better one, or the other garrisons would come in and forcibly replace that commander, if it is found that he abused his power.

A private court system would decide on these problems and instead a big government enforcing the courts, small cooperative militias like this would enforce court orders, so if the garrison commander that abused his power is found guilty and must leave office, then the other commanders could enforce this court order with all means necessary.

[SebastianJu]

ok yeah that makes sense, like a distributed network of small size army tribes?  how do you stop 1 group not getting too big?

The others will stop them. There will be constant communication between each garrison, if the commander of 1 garrison starts to recruit more people than allowed or buy more weapons, with the mission to conquer the planet, then either the local people would change the leader of that garrison to a better one, or the other garrisons would come in and forcibly replace that commander, if it is found that he abused his power.

A private court system would decide on these problems and instead a big government enforcing the courts, small cooperative militias like this would enforce court orders, so if the garrison commander that abused his power is found guilty and must leave office, then the other commanders could enforce this court order with all means necessary.

Wouldnt that court and the overview be again a risk? And if people could change a provate armies boss then this army is useless since they need the power to stop an uproar.

And people fighting an army to change the boss? They would need weapons for that and they would face an army then. Of course, if other militias work, then they could help. Question is if enough people would stand up since i believe the majority would stay in fear.

Maybe the key would be the militias controlling each other. But even then... factions might build with generals who think different or follow a leader that promises them things. Even without an instant war, things could slowly turn bad. You cant intervene because the problems arent big enough but at one point the factions could turn violent and they might be so big that its a real problem then.