Politics govtheory was: assange
Hi jim, You've probably blocked me by now, but On Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 6:56 PM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
The problem, briefly stated, is "How do you defend a country based on anarchistic or libertarian principles, if they cannot tax themselves to put on a defense?"
The money and labor rise from people who value defense. This value is clear when the danger is clear. AP is a little similar to a culture I heard of among indigenous people in canada. There is a nation of them who do not provide for outsiders to trespass on their land. The punishment for trespass is death, and that's just a part of their shared culture and has been for as long as anybody knows, so the entire nation would be familiar with supporting it. When living off the land, if the ecosystem is mistreated (e.g. overhunted by a neighbor), your families die, so managing the impact of others has been important. But jim and I disagree on the result of money. I think I see supporting unlimited wealth as oppressive and jim sees it as freeing, not sure. Regardless you probably need some kind of financial government to provide for unlimited wealth, since people as a whole only have so much demand. Most people don't want advertisements in their search results, and those ads produce a lot of unnatural demand.
Also, here's another proof of the fact that bell isn't a libertarian, but rather a right wing NUTCASE. Bell has constantly defended MURDER as the 'punishment' for anything he doesn't like, and that is the basis of 'his' 'AP' system. People can look up bell's 'writings' where he proposes the DEATH PENALTY for car thieves. Just for laughs, here I am explaining the A of the ABC to bell https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2016-December/064296.html me : Yes, you can defend yourself against theft, but you can't automatically go around killing people even if they are thieves. bell : Who says? Let me point out that if the NIOFP was so obviously limited and flawed, libertarians would have long ago modified it to include an explicit set of restrictions. I have heard of none. So again, the guy is clearly a lunatic who thinks he can kill anybody for any reason while invoking 'self defense'.
I've never blocked anyone in my life. Why would you think that? I haven't even looked to see HOW to 'block' anyone, in ANY forum that I've ever discussed in, as I recall. On Wednesday, August 11, 2021, 04:17:39 PM PDT, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi jim, You've probably blocked me by now, but
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 6:56 PM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: The problem, briefly stated, is "How do you defend a country based on anarchistic or libertarian principles, if they cannot tax themselves to put on a defense?"
The money and labor rise from people who value defense. This value is clear when the danger is clear. The problem is related to the concept of "Tragedy of the Commons", I think. What happens if it costs about $X to protect a given land region from external aggression. What if many people don't contribute to this cost? People who support taxation (I don't; taxation is theft) worry that "We'll be conquered!" if not enough is collected to support some level of defense.
AP is a little similar to a culture I heard of among indigenous people in canada. There is a nation of them who do not provide for outsiders to trespass on their land. The punishment for trespass is death, and that's just a part of their shared culture and has been for as long as anybody knows, so the entire nation would be familiar with supporting it. When living off the land, if the ecosystem is mistreated (e.g. overhunted by a neighbor), your families die, so managing the impact of others has been important. Can you associate this with a name, a label that can be google-searched?
But jim and I disagree on the result of money. I think I see supporting unlimited wealth as oppressive and jim sees it as freeing, not sure. Regardless you probably need some kind of financial government to provide for unlimited wealth, since people as a whole only have so much demand. Most people don't want advertisements in their search results, and those ads produce a lot of unnatural demand.
What do you mean by "supporting unlimited wealth"? Maybe you merely mean "ALLOWING unlimited wealth". Myself, I don't think that's a problem. The way I look at it, if a person makes a huge amount of money, and assuming that he doesn't get that money by some sort of 'illegal' (or wrongful, or way that people generally agree is a violation of somebody's rights), he does so because he is doing even more 'good' for others than he collects. Assuming that there isn't some improperly-achieved monopoly going on, then there must be competition, and that means that such profits are legitimate. If people object to paying whatever the going rate is, for those goods and services, then somebody else can and will enter the market to act as competition to that existing source. That's the way things ought to work. Jim Bell
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 8:56 PM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've never blocked anyone in my life. Why would you think that? I haven't even looked to see HOW to 'block' anyone, in ANY forum that I've ever discussed in, as I recall.
You must be experienced at going through some pretty ridiculous stuff on a regular basis.
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021, 04:17:39 PM PDT, Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi jim,
You've probably blocked me by now, but
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 6:56 PM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
The problem, briefly stated, is "How do you defend a country based on anarchistic or libertarian principles, if they cannot tax themselves to put on a defense?"
The money and labor rise from people who value defense. This value is clear when the danger is clear.
The problem is related to the concept of "Tragedy of the Commons", I think. What happens if it costs about $X to
The concept of the tragedy of the commons assumes that people's self interest is different from their shared interest. We have a lot of marketing helping us believe that would be true, but in reality we all rely on shared resources such as our land and safety to survive, and if people don't choose to defend that either their whole community dies from not protecting itself or the people who don't do that are outcompeted reputation-wise by the members of the community who do. An example is the indigenous people of the kalahari desert: they had very little game, living in a desert, and if one family hoarded meat all the other families would gang up and attack them, as a norm. protect a given land region from external aggression. What if many people
don't contribute to this cost? People who support taxation (I don't; taxation is theft) worry that "We'll be conquered!" if not enough is collected to support some level of defense.
It's in their self interest to, because of the conquering: but they need communication channels to learn and act on this. Today our communication channels are youtube videos. Not exactly productive reliable dialog.
AP is a little similar to a culture I heard of among indigenous people in canada. There is a nation of them who do not provide for outsiders to trespass on their land. The punishment for trespass is death, and that's just a part of their shared culture and has been for as long as anybody knows, so the entire nation would be familiar with supporting it. When living off the land, if the ecosystem is mistreated (e.g. overhunted by a neighbor), your families die, so managing the impact of others has been important.
Can you associate this with a name, a label that can be google-searched?
http://www.wetsuweten.com/culture/governance/
But jim and I disagree on the result of money. I think I see supporting unlimited wealth as oppressive and jim sees it as freeing, not sure. Regardless you probably need some kind of financial government to provide for unlimited wealth, since people as a whole only have so much demand. Most people don't want advertisements in their search results, and those ads produce a lot of unnatural demand.
What do you mean by "supporting unlimited wealth"? Maybe you merely mean "ALLOWING unlimited wealth".
Right: it should not be possible for a single individual to have an unlimited degree (many many orders of magnitude) of purchasing power compared to another. It means the richest person easily controls the entire economy as the gap grows and grows.
Myself, I don't think that's a problem. The way I look at it, if a person makes a huge amount of money, and assuming that he doesn't get that money by some sort of 'illegal' (or wrongful, or way that people generally agree is a violation of somebody's rights), he does so because he is doing even more 'good' for others than he collects.
I think that makes sense on a reasonable scale, but not in extremes. I don't see addiction-oriented drugs and profit-oriented marketing (where the truth of ads is considered moot in comparison to their influence on the viewer) as good. It is not hard for a quintillionaire to hire people in poverty to beat everyone up and institute a private government. Assuming that there isn't some improperly-achieved monopoly
What makes a monopoly improper or proper? going on, then there must be competition, and that means that such profits
are legitimate. If people object to paying whatever the going rate is, for those goods and services, then somebody else can and will enter the market to act as competition to that existing source. That's the way things ought to work.
If you have a monopoly, you have control of the economy related to your monopoly. You can prevent other people from entering it with that power. Say you sell toothbrushes. A startup competitor has to find ways to compete with you when nobody they work with can buy a toothbrush, and everybody who brushes their teeth receives marketing against them.
Jim Bell
participants (3)
-
jim bell -
Karl -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0