On Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 8:56 PM jim bell <[1]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
   <[2]gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
   >Hi jim,
   >You've probably blocked me by now, but
   On Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 6:56 PM jim bell <[3]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?

   [4]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

References

   1. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com
   2. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com
   3. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com
   4. http://www.wetsuweten.com/culture/governance/