Indefiance

Just the title. I first heard of DRO's from Stefan in his book Practical Anarchy. I first heard of DAO's from this article http://btcgeek.com/dawn-of-autonomous-corporations/ they called them DAC's but the DAO is more generalized and can easily include DRO's from Stefan's conception of the idea. If it weren't for my reading of Stefan and listening to this idea, I wouldn't have ever understood the power of re-creating society that is possible using the technology of Blockchains. In fact, it was almost like Stefan was predicting the creation of those decentralized organizations long before the technology truly became possible. Anyway...long story short, It was only because of Stefan that I invested in the crowdsale for Ethereum, and I only did that because I wanted a free society via DAO's. Ethereum is truly catching on, and it is quite possible that it would be central to the re-organization of society around decentralized principles, and the creation of Security DAO's using Drones isn't that far away now. Thanks Stefan, you helped bring this vision about, because I know I'm not the only one who saw the similiarities and decided to invest to help bring it about, I know at least 5 others who did the same. If you had a ethereum tipping address I would send you some.

http://www.thefreedomchambernews.com/osgWP3915/osgwp_ChasHolloway_2015.pdf Its long. But worth it IMO. Makes the same point, but very precisely. Not my article, but I am hoping to get it more attention. In fact I don't know the author, but the work is pretty well thought out and he isn't getting as much traction as I think it deserves. I hope you guys give it a look through.

Not my paper. Just thought it had a lot of good points and was philosophically well conceived: http://www.thefreedomchambernews.com/osgWP3915/osgwp_ChasHolloway_2015.pdf Attempts to make the case that free societies were historically a 'hard problem' to solve, and recent technologies may be the thing that enables them. Regardless, I think the historical background he builds was very worth the read in and of itself. I think many here will appreciate what he has to say. My objection is simply that while it may create the possibility for more freedom, Ethereum may also create the very tools for either outcome, i.e., less freedom not more, if not protected against. I'd be interested in a discussion on this.

Hey cool. Saw you posted in my thread. Glad there are others who are tracking this and trying to get the information out there. Her research and presentations on Epigentics is phenomenal, and I immediately thought of Stefan when watching it. I would love it if he did an interview with her. Possible topics would be epigentics of course, but also early childhood development issues caused by malnutrition, and also cognitive diseases caused by lack of Vitamin D etc.

https://youtu.be/qvNLNl7oJnM?t=9m43s Watch till around the 11 minute mark at least to get an idea of what I'm talking about, but watch the whole thing for some pretty ground breaking new discoveries I thought. BTW. this isn't some dumb internet chick. she is the protege of Bruce Ames who won the Nobel peace prize for discovering a method to detect carcinogens and the reason you don't put your kids to bed in pajamas rife with them... But her research pretty much speaks for itself if you've the mind to dig through it. The main question I would like to pose is this: What if you're accidentally harming your children by not allowing them enough sunshine? Perchance this may coincide with the rise of autism, and other dysfunctions being caused by enforced schooling and too much screen time versus playing outside This is something I hit upon and immediately thought of this Forum to get some discussion. Interested in the implications this may have, and other thoughts people may have about it. (Edited for grammar)

Great vids, thanks for sharing.

TL;DR The request is simply Helping me to parse the data, and rationally discover an objective answer if one exists. The question for the show would be: Is moving out of the US objectively better than staying, and by what Rationale? Certainly it would have been objectively better (if the goal is survival) for the Jews to leave germany before Hitler. Is that the case here? Long explanation: So, first things first. I'm not a doom and gloomer, in that I really would prefer to be rationally optimistic where possible. I love Stefan for keeping things real and presenting a clear picture whatever the case may be, but I also really like Jeffrey Tucker for the simple reason that he can always find the silver lining in todays increasingly bleak world. He is part of the reason I keep my wildest fears in check and don't head off for the nearest forest to be a hermit since sometimes it certainly feels like that is the only safe option when we face the evil of todays leviathan state head on. Sadly, In light of recent and historical events both inside the US and outside, (Auschwitz, Topaz UT, Boston Ma, and now the Prism and NSA, some would say 9/11) It is starting to be a rather clear picture to me at least that evil people will do as much evil as they can get away with. (will they get away with murder here too?) I don't think history repeats exactly, but it is certainly iterative and cyclical, and certain trends are unmistakable. Is there some rationale to suppose that this time it will be different? I think its also clear that the Status Quo is unsustainable, at the very least the Dollar will probably collapse. But does a dollar collapse necessitate Martial Law and an Orwellian State? Supposing that "It can't happen here" is obviously wrong without some evidence to point to, and we can dismiss it as irrational american exceptionalism. So the question keeps coming to me; Stay or Go? If I it was the beginning of Hitlers reign, those who fled certainly were the smart one's. Is there enough evidence and 'reading between the lines' to suppose a new tyranny will soon transpire? Is there anywhere safer then where I currently am ? Hard questions that I haven't been able to answer despite it taking up a considerable portion of my energies. My current thinking is to seek stability. But is there anywhere stable right now? I've looked at South America, and heavily considered Chile as it ranks high on The Economic Freedom Index as well as the Global Peace index. But they are also going through some instability with Student Riots as the students demand more free stuff. So that doesn't sit well with me. At the same time I realize we have similiar if not worse in the US with the Occupy movement and there silly demands. So, not a complete deal breaker. Anyway, those are my current thoughts surrounding the dilemma. Any thoughts or input is appreciated.

This is true, but actually on reading your re-wording the meaning didn't get lost, and I have no other way to address the concept of 'society' without being overly simplistic. I realize society is a construct, and not real in the sense that a physical thing is, but I think the same argument could be made about many 'emergent' properties. Society is an emergent property of a group of humans isn't it? As for the rest, I took your critique and really tried to simplify things down and ignore too many extraneous concepts. Let me know if you think it is an improvement.

1. Things aren't perfect, far from it: Most Individuals in a society agree that society itself is not optimal in some fashion. The specifics of their disagreement with society at large are irrelevant, they must only agree with this statement, "Things aren't perfect within society." 2. If the Majority had all the answers or even most of them we would be in heaven already: If an individual agrees that things are not perfect within society, they also implicitly must agree that to the precise degree that society is imperfect that an equal portion of societies members and their majority viewpoints must also be contributing to society in an imperfect fashion. The more that a member finds wrong, the more they should agree that societies individual members and majority viewpoints must be wrong. If things aren't perfect, there must be a reason, and that reason must be that the individuals comprising society are wrong by some undetermined degree. 3.Its infinitely easier to be incorrect than correct: There are nearly infinite methods of being wrong or incorrect, and a limited and finite number of ways to be correct. Infinity divided by anything but itself is itself infinite. Suffice it to say that its far easier to be wrong when an active intelligence doesn't become involved. Because of this all randomly given world-views will be almost always wrong when that world view is unexamined and taken uncritically. 4. Take nothing on faith, the physical world requires rational thought: Because the potential to be wrong far outweighs the potential to be right, it is only through an active intelligence's intervention examining possible outcomes using logic and empiricism, that an individual's world-view and subsequent actions become closer in line with reality i.e., The Truth. Accepting majority opinion on faith, unexamined, is a guarantee that one will have at least in part a potentially crippling world-view inhibiting growth and development. 5. Herds are political, not rational, and humans are herd animals: Humans are herd animals, whose life depends on to a great extent the help of their neighbors. Herds are political. Political maneuvering is not based on logic or evidence. This means that over time groups which become heavily politicized get further and further from reality in their view points and opinions so long as these opinions do not become completely self-destructive. 6. Summation: Since nearly all members of society agree that society is sub-par, and because we can see that the likelihood of being randomly right even in part is vanishingly small, then all members of society implicitly must agree that the majority of all societies members are wrong in whole or in part which is what leads to the sub-par, un-optimal behavior that they take issue with. If even partially reasonable they will further admit that the likelihood of their own world-view being somehow 1 in 10 trillion and somehow completely correct is next to impossible, and furthermore that is far more likely that they are completely wrong on the vast majority of their beliefs right along with everyone else.

Hey thanks for the feedback all.. Don't have tons of time to reply but will do my best. First off, I re-wrote the main points trying to address the criticism here and I think its clearer? Let me know if this works better. Cool. I think those were the most important. I elaborated on them a bit in the new version, but let me know if it helped or hindered. Nor do I. Its a bit difficult to try to be brief and not create misinterpretations. I tried to imply in a couple spots that human thinking will be naturally walled in by our survival mechanism and survival needs. A 100% wrong world-view gets weeded out pretty quickly since it kills the user and never gets passed on. Above this lowest common denominator however is still a possibly infinite variation of incorrect thinking. Hmmm,,, this is trickier. But see if you agree with the new version posted above. If I understand what you're taking issue with I think I have incorporated the 'evidence' in the premise. Its sort of like UPB, in that we judge the person by the principle they use themselves. Very loopy and self-referential. Namely: if the person agrees that society is not perfect then they must also agree that if majority opinion held the answers and all the power in the world to make those answers happen, then we should be in heaven already. Why isn't this utopia? i.e., the answers can't be with the majority since there is obviously something drastically wrong. Then if they claim its a utopia after-all they are just intellectually dishonest and we can ignore them as a troll. I believe it is strongly implied, and perhaps logically demanded should they accept the premise, "Society is not perfect". Perfect may be too strong a word here though. Maybe even if they accept the premise, "Society could be improved." If they accept that society is not perfect or at the very least doesn't have all the answers, and by extension the majority of society and their world views, then they must at least agree that at least some portion of their own world view is probably suspect. It really depends on how much they think society is doing wrong which is why the chain of logic starts with that.

Rewrote the Conclusions Section; While couching my terms a bit more, I did not back down from the full implications. See what you think: Conclusion: Because of these deductions, It is fair to conclude and provide some conjecture on a few things. -This line of reasoning invalidates in whole or in part all religions, political parties, and cultures. The exact extent of invalidation is undetermined here, but also irrelevant. We can only conclude that it is highly unlikely for any one organization or tradition to be right and that we must apply some rigorous standards to find out exactly how much they are wrong. -At any given point in time, the majority opinions of society on any given subject are far more likely to be wrong then correct. - Our own world-view must be the first suspect and receive the most scrutiny since we are not somehow magically special or exempt from logic, reason and evidence no matter how much we may wish it. If we are to find truth, we must first clean the lens we are looking through to insure that what we find isn't skewed by our own incorrect beliefs. - Thus far, the only known proven method of discerning truth is through the use of logic and evidence. Therefore; Those who take a pro-active approach using rigorous logic and appeal to reality through empirical evidence will greatly improve their ability to discern the correct methods of conduct and by extension their world-view and, if consistent over time, they will be more in-line with correct philosophy i.e., truth. In the past, only small minorities have done this consistently, The vast majority of people will never take this approach. - This means, the likelihood of finding 'Truth' in majority viewpoints is unlikely and close to impossible as it concerns any field of endeavor that doesn't adhere to rigorous standards of logic and empirical evidence. - Since political maneuvering as a general rule is anti-logic and anti-evidence and more about human power structure's, the more political an organization becomes, the less likely that it will be able to recognize or implement truth. This includes all organizations, including ones originally based on the principles of logic and evidence. -Lastly, This is the contrarian viewpoint justified since it implies and supports the intuitive notion that majority opinion is nearly always wrong, especially when logic and evidence are not strictly adhered to and political maneuvering gets in the way. It also strongly suggests that if a man wishes to find truth The place to look is with the small minority of those who will bow in the face of logic and evidence and who will let go of the random grab-bag of conflicting beliefs they were given by accident of birth.

Yeah, I guess I don't care if it offends people, but I see your point. I may re-write that portion for general consumption, but I was trying to be somewhat rigourous and logical (disregarding emotional impact) myself although I admit I am still a student in that regard. I have to agree as well that although it is 'suggested' it is not a proof of minority claims by any means, and its very true that both could be equally wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose It is more accurate to say that the minority of people who use logic and evidence to create their worldview is where to look for further truth vs. minorities in general.

Hey all, Just wrote something down and thought I would share it. I haven't ever heard these particular ideas articulated before, but if you have then I would be interested to know. I suppose you could call this an intuition which I explored in-depth and tried to dig out all the axioms and logical conclusions, and then present it in a way that the logic becomes inescapable. I see a number of ways it could be wrong or over generalized, but I thought I would ask for feedback anyway. Without further ado: The Contrarian Principle 1. Individuals in a society nearly universally agree that society itself is not optimal in some fashion. The specifics of their disagreement with 'society' at large are irrelevant . 2.Since nearly all members of society agree to this imperfection in some or many aspects, and readily agree that there is at least some level of sub-par activity, they also implicitly must agree that to the precise degree that society is imperfect or sub-par that at least some portion of societies members must also be contributing to society in an imperfect or sub-par fashion. The more that is wrong, the more societies individual members must be wrong. 3. There are nearly infinite methods of being wrong or incorrect, and a limited and finite number of ways to be correct. For simplicity sake, we may call these correct philosophies, or incorrect philosophies. Reality is the final arbiter however, and the level of incorrectness passed down will never supersede the person's ability to survive because such a philosophy will be self-destructive and will not be passed on to the next generation. 4. Since the number of correct philosophies is finite, and the number of incorrect philosophies for all intents and purposes infinite, the number of correct philosophies is vanishingly small compared to the number of incorrect. Because of this, if given by pure chance, almost all random philosophies will be nearly completely incorrect. 5. Because Most all humans are given their personal philosophies based on pure chance from their accident of birth locations and culture (far far more common than we would like to admit), we can virtually guarantee that all members of society have incorrect in part or whole philosophies by which they act upon. The chances that any one individual has a completely correct personal philosophy is also virtually zero. The chances are far greater for the majority of societies individuals to have a completely incorrect personal philosophy where said philosophy doesn't impair their ability to survive completely. 6. Since nearly all members of society agree that society is sub-par, and because we can see that the likelihood of being right even in part is vanishingly small, then all members of society implicitly must agree that the majority of all societies members are wrong in whole or in part which is what leads to the sub-par un-optimal behavior they take issue with. They must further admit that the likelihood of their own world-view being somehow 1 in 10 trillion and somehow completely correct is next to impossible, and furthermore that is far more likely that they are completely wrong on the vast majority of their beliefs along with everyone else. Conclusion: Because of these deductions, I think it is fair to conclude a few things. - This line of reasoning invalidates nearly all religions, political parties, and cultures. -At any given point in time, the majority opinions of society on any given subject are far more likely to be wrong then correct. - Our own world-view must be the first suspect and receive the most scrutiny since we are not somehow magically special or exempt from logic, reason and evidence no matter how much we may wish it. - Those who take a pro-active approach using rigorous logic and appeal to reality through empirical evidence will greatly improve their ability to discern the correct methods of conduct and by extension their world-view and if consistent over time they will be more in-line with correct philosophy i.e., truth. -In the past, only small minorities have done this, The vast majority of people will never take this approach. (this is a different subject however). - This means, the likelihood of finding 'Truth' in majority viewpoints is unlikely and close to impossible as it concerns any field of endeavor that doesn't adhere to rigorous standards of logic and empirical evidence. - Since political maneuvering as a general rule is anti-logic and anti-evidence and more about human power structure's, the more political an organization becomes, the less likely that it will be able to recognize or implement truth. This includes all organizations, including ones originally based on the principles of science. -Lastly, This is the contrarian viewpoint justified since it implies and supports the intuitive notion that majority opinion is nearly always wrong, especially when logic and evidence are not strictly adhered to and political maneuvering gets in the way. It also clearly suggests that the best place to look for truth is with the minority opinions, but always with a critical eye even then.

I realized my reply sounded like I underwent the same hell as that man. Not my intention obviously, and what he went through sickens me. Specifically touching on his experience with the chaplain, as I chose that route as well trying to find some moral grounding where there was none. I recieved similiar advice, and banal platitudes and feel good 'we're the good guys' B.S.

This hit home for me. I went to Basic at Fort Benning 3 years ago now. I underwent very similiar events as I realized how deep the cult of death, and death worship is within the military and woke up to the inherent immorality of it all. My first pep talk from a First Sergeant entailed the gruesome and uncensored details of his first 3 kills and how it changed him, and how he loved the military because he gets paid to kill, whereas out in society they would have to put him in prison since he loved it so much. It was Truly heart stopping and disgusting for me at the time as my delusions of honor and being a hero slowly evaporated and I began to realize the error of my thinking and the massive error of joining and realizing I was stuck. Horrifying to say the least. Anyway,Thanks for sharing this.