EBTX

I concede that using physical force on a defenseless child is evil. Beating them senseless will generally destroy them and turn them into the next generation of "beaters". So the question becomes "Should parents visit evil upon their children?" My view is that they should. To a limited extent. Enough to create within the child a standard of evil to which the child can compare his experiences later in life. That is, extrapolating from a decent spanking (one which causes no lasting physical damage) the child can experience empathy with others who experience a much worse evil. To "know" anything at all, it must be compared to a standard. To experience empathy, one must have some knowledge of that with which one empathizes. To empathize at all with others who have tremendous evil committed upon them, we must have had some lesser evil committed upon ... us. Worse yet ... to understand evil ... one must commit evil oneself ... at least on a lesser scale so that the greater evil might be understood by extrapolation from the lesser. If the foregoing is true, it is incumbent on the parent to dispense evil upon his children in order to inoculate them against further damage. If the parent does not do this, he relegates this responsibility to the community at large ... and ... they probably will do it ... much worse than a caring parent ever would. If one is not so inoculated ... and society does not do it ... the child will grow up incapable of empathy. What they will be capable of is only 'sympathy' which is the intellectual understanding another's distress without the emotional component much prized by humanity at large. So, if this is true, I can predict that Stefan's child will grow up to be (if there are no other factors intervening) ... an intellectual sissy who will analyse accurately all the problems she encounters in life but will feel little, if anything, in the way of empathy. You can't put a child in a 'philosophical-psychological (and dare I say, experimental) bubble' and expect that child to be anything like normal. So, we have this Old Saw "Spare the rod, spoil the child". An old saw is the distilled experience of a hundred billion human beings ... or ... perhaps two trillion man-years that says in effect, "Give the kid a few whacks or he won't grow up true". But Stefan advises against this old saw because he has seen the promised land ... hmmmm ... maybe ... maybe not. There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. My advice to Stefan would be .... measure twice, saw once.

If you inherit the family farm or a parts company that feeds General Motors, you don't inherit much in the political arena ... but ... to me ... inheriting a huge amount of money is logically equivalent to inheriting a title of nobility along with lands and castles. You have now an influence in the current political structure. I can see your point however ... if ... there were no political structure at all and the world was a settled place ... permanently at peace ... then, it wouldn't matter. But this will not be true for perhaps several thousand years (if ever). My concern is (theoretically speaking) over the span of the next couple centuries. And ... it's an intellectual interest only. I certainly won't be around to see how it turns out ... though i'd like to think my grandkids might live in a better world. As I've come to understand it, Rockefeller used crude physical force against his competitors on occasion (hiring thugs to keep them out of the 'his' market) and was not what anyone would call a "good person" (rational) ... and was not the capitalist hero some suggest. Bill Gates is notorious for his swearing and loss of control in meetings and does not appear to be the rational person he projects in public. I don't know these people but from what I've learned about them ... I wouldn't want to know them. My brother DID work with some very rich people and he said of them in general "It's good to have money but not too much" ... he having seen their drunkenness, debauchery and lack of concern for even their own welfare. They left that to him and others to take rational care of. Yet these types have the overall control of civilization. They are not the right people for that job. If they were, we would not be int he fix we are presently in ... not that they directly caused it ... but they are incapable of fixing it. You will never see Stefan getting a cash stipend from the Rockefeller foundation ... nor do they contribute to the spreading of anyone's rational opinions and inquiries. Rich people generally breed dysfunctional children ... they breed conmen. Poor people generally breed dysfunctional children as well ... they become the thugs the rich people hire. There are numerous exceptions, granted.

Extremely great would be in today's numbers ... something like a billion dollars. To inherit such a sum in money or property confers upon the recipient political clout that he did not earn. It is similar to being born the son of a duke and inheriting the castle (w/ serfs). If you inherit 20 million in today's dollars, you're not so formidable as there are plenty of people with similar fortunes earned as well as unearned. These therefore don't concern me at the political level. And ... many huge fortunes end up as charitable funds which are in fact a means of undermining civilization (Ford Foundation, etc). Excessive fortune can be self-sustaining as the Rothschild or Rockefeller fortunes and these people routinely do civilization great harm. And ... I haven't seen this discussed anywhere ... The largest bankers, who are now above legal scrutiny, type money into their own personal accounts at will. I don't mean by the publicly stated rules of banking (fractional reserve banking) but by the crude method of "just typing". They achieved this status by inheriting vast sums and buying all the people needed so they can lay back and do as they please. The requirement for getting their foot in the door is large scale inheritance as well as the "foundation scam". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUH5qbIBDC4 (~6 min.)

This thread raises an important and extremely fundamental issue ... whether property rights extend beyond the grave. In view of the fact that extremely great inherited wealth confers political power on someone who has not earned it by the consensus of the free market, it must be dealt with or Stefan's "gun wielding" DROs will be inherited by the children of wealthy parents who generally raise dysfunctional brats (who never experience a day's labor in their lives). The idea that these dysfunctional people will dribble away their fortunes in three generations is not true. They simply hire reasonably competent people to manage them. Large fortunes can easily become dynastic like the Rockefeller or Rothschild fortunes (maybe even Walmart). These dynastic "benefactors" do not necessarily engage in free market activities. Even the original Rockefeller had his competition ruthlessly suppressed by force. So you can imagine how far the fruit fell from that tree. They take in a dollar by free market appearance ... but in reality, their substance is force-fraud. Then they give ten cents to "cultural" pursuits to maintain the appearance. And ... they pay off those with the guns or employ them outright giving them their marching orders. There's plenty of dirty business in the free market too. The $64 question is how to filter it out. I have grave doubts that the DRO system will work because "evil will find a way" in most any system. But come back in a few thousand years and all the questions posed in this forum should be moot. Our problem is what to do about evil in our lifetimes.

Stefan has occasionally alluded to the amazing capabilities of the subconscious mind and about how this could be thought of as the underlying truth that generates a "God" conception in so many people. I have, in my life, experienced perhaps a dozen such instances. I'd like to share a couple here and maybe find out if others have had similar experiences. It seems as though the statistical calculating power of the subconscious is perhaps 1000 to 10,000 times greater than that of the conscious mind (my estimates from some decades ago) ... others have made similar estimates of its calculating power. The "weird" stuff is of two basic types ... revelations and suppressions. All the revelations I've experienced were about trivialities so I can share them as they were never of any consequence to me ... just terribly interesting. The suppressions all had consequences so I can't discuss them except in general term. In a subconscious suppression, a calculation is made of a future possibility or present state and your conscious mind is actively disallowed from seeing it as it really is. For, instance, your 'ship comes in' and you fail to see it until later when you consciously realize that you've "missed the boat". These are very costly but it may be that you shouldn't have gotten on that boat for reasons known only to the subconscious. However, the revelations are universally cool and sometimes offer insights into other things. Revelations (as I have experienced them) have this in common: 1) They occur all of a sudden with no lead up ... [switch on] 2) You know something that will occur in the near future or receive knowledge about something that has occurred elsewhere that you have absolutely no direct access to. 3) It is always accompanied by an overwhelming sense of truth. It seems so true that you often wouldn't hesitate to bet your life on it. And ... this is the ONLY TIME you will ever experience that overwhelming sense of truth. I have never experienced such a sense in other things. Hence, to say it is chance is not realistic when you have a dozen or so data points all clumped up unnaturally. 4) The revelation lasts about a second or two at most ... [switch off] 5) It often has no apparent connection with what you are presently doing. It's 'out of the blue' so to speak. __________________________________________ A) The first one I recall was the day JFK was killed. I was in Catholic high school. Nuns told us to kneel between rows to pray for "something" (unprecedented activity). When I found out what we were praying for, this thought hit me. "Johnson did it" ... just three words from a mind with no political thoughts at all. I was politically 'tabula rasa'. Decades later I found out that he was one of the main instigators of the assassination. Interesting but trivial. I told no one. Why bother? ;o) ___________________________________________ B) Super Bowl XXV - Giants vs Bills. LIving in upstate New York at the time and a week or two before the game I suddenly knew with overwhelming certainty that the Giants would win the game by a score of 20 to 19. I went around telling people just that but, of course no one really cared because "it's just your prediction, I've got one too". Well it turned out just that way and when Norwood lined up for a last second field goal, I knew he would miss. I interpret this to mean that the outcome of major sporting events is determined by the players ahead of time (by their subconscious minds) and that others can 'read' it somehow off their faces. TV interviews is the only access I had to the players prior to the game. ___________________________________________ C) Lastly, the weirdest real thing that ever happened to me. 1990 summer Michigan. I was walking through a local park and came upon a women's softball game ... underhand, fast pitch, 9 players per team ... like an organized league but without uniforms. I stood in foul territory behind a four foot chain link fence a little past 3rd base. I was intrigued by the pitcher who was 9 months pregnant (maybe 10 months - she was absolutely huge) and I marveled at the sight thinking "How could you? Are you crazy?". She batted too and ran out a grounder to shortstop. The baby bounced unnaturally all the way down the line. When she went back to pitching, I knew absolutely, all of a sudden, that on the next pitch the ball would be hit and would come right to me. So, I put up my right hand to catch the ball where I knew it was going to come. Then ... after I had put up my hand ... she threw her fast underhand pitch and the batter hit a looping line drive curving foul directly to me into my waiting hand. There was never any eye contact between me, the pitcher, the batter or catcher. As far as I knew they did not notice me at all. I was perhaps 50 feet from the pitcher and 75 or more feet from the batter. But ... there was a hitch. I had to move my hand about 8 inches higher and a little to the right to actually get it. So, I reasoned that this could not be some sort of clairvoyance (premonition) else the ball should come directly to my hand without adjustment. Reasoning further afterward that this must be a case of subconscious calculation, I realized that I was very surprised that the ball was "fuzzy". If you play any softball you know that new balls are smooth and old used ones get pretty fuzzy. These women (who didn't have uniforms) used their balls fuzzy ... Please, no jokes here ;o) But ... it was optically impossible for me to discern this fuzziness from the distance I was at. I therefore supposed that ... I had (subconsciously) assumed smooth. So when the bat struck the ball it had better traction and gave it lots of extra spin. The spin imparted was easily sufficient and in the right direction (based on the physics) to account for the extra curvature and height. And hence, that I was surprised that it spun so much. With one smooth motion, I threw the "mystic" ball back to the pitcher and left for home. Even accounting for subconscious calculation, I still don't really understand how this was possible. How could I predict the integrated actions of the pitcher (who had to pitch the ball good enough to hit and could not see me) and the batter (perhaps she saw me and aimed subconsciously for my hand ... but then how did I "know" her disposition beforehand?) ?? I'm pretty much stumped on this one. _________________________________________ When you discuss things of this nature with scientists they just roll everything up in a ball called chance. It doesn't comport with their limited world view which is that the conscious mind is the font of everything rational. They take no account of other operations of the mind. Because I am aware of all this, it must be incorporated into my worldview. So, in the past 5 to7 years, I've revisited the concept of God to see if I could invent one ... consistent with the my personal 'known' facts of the subconscious. This "God" would be a developing mind connected with the human race and decidedly finite ... very much larger than the individual ... but decidedly finite ... with goals fairly similar to ours. I developed the logic and mechanics myself. I invite you to take a look and see what you think of my "model". The Nature of Consciousness Thanks for your attention ... and ... if you have had similar experiences ... please let me know here. There must be others ...

Yes, I've gathered that the people here have heard just about everything there is to say on this issue. I have a problem with the DRO thing which is "What do the evil people do for a living?" ;o) I know that sounds silly, but is it the position of rational anarchists that the establishment of rational anarchy will drive evil out of civilization? If so, by dint of what? And... how long would the transition take? Are there formal propositions given to effect that transition? I don't expect you to rehash answers but if you say the questions are dealt with, I will ferret them out of the archives myself. Thanks for your reply.

I can see where some options could be added ... if ... the initial thing worked. A penny can add up if you have a "cute baby" video. A million pennies will put junior though community college and that's probably all a cute baby 20 second video is worth. I now that some people make a living on YouTube but I think many more could do so if I could send 'em a quarter ... which I would do ... if it were easy. There are probably problems I haven't thought of but I think this would be a game changer.

Hardly. But ... if I had, say, a billion dollars ... there are about two dozen people I've found on the internet whom I would set up for life (with maybe 10 million) ... without any conditions ... just because I want them to continue what they are doing. Mr. Molyneux is one of them. In general, I multiply the number of subscribers someone I like has ... by 20 and ... if ... that would put them on "easy street" ... I send them 20 bucks and consider than I've done my part. If 20 is not enough, I will send more ... if ... I can afford it. But I only have a couple thousand dollars to my name, so my assistance is quite limited. One problem is the mechanisms of rewarding what we like on the internet. People will part all at once with 10 cents very easily but not with 10 bucks. I made a video about a tip jar thing I'd like to see on YouTube and anywhere else. Like a browser add on. And ... I realized afterwards that it would be ideally suited to Bitcoin as well. If you could just make a two clicks to give somebody a dime or quarter ... those bits would add up quick on a site that gives lots of value. I think people would hit the quarter button almost as much as they hit the "like" button to offer encouragement to the value creator. About 8 min. if interested ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XzFRA0v3XE

Back in 1962 (age 14 - raised Catholic), I decided to reason out the answer to the question "Why did God make me?". It took two weeks of wrestling to come to the momentous conclusion that ... "It's all b---s---. The whole thing. Wow!". Many of you can empathize with my feeling of magnificent elation at having relieved myself of the 'awful burden'. What a joy it was to be free of all that. But I had no comprehensive theory of what we are or why we exist at all ... just the understanding that no one else did either. I therefore set to task the goal of figuring out ... the logical structure of physical existence from nothing ... and have been diligently at work on my subject for the past 51 years having expended several tens of thousands of hours thereto and yet again several tens of thousands of hours more on diverse other topics ... many having little to do with the aforementioned. I labor alone finding no others of similar interest. There are those who are interested in causal principles but none to the degree that they would actually make of it a life's work. I mean here ... people who actually scale the mountain as opposed to those merely looking upon it or those with but a foot up. There are however, many 'commentators' on hypothetical principles. Imagine a sheet of typing paper, single spaced, normal font size. In theory, a short summary of the fundamental principles of existence could be fitted in this area. We can be certain that the putative 'explanation' would not contain words like Africa, table saw and onion ... these being too complex and ... derivative from the fundamentals. But it would probably contain words like point, line, plane, field, motion, expand, contract, rotate, mass, time, space ... etc. Armed with such concepts and all the facts discovered by physics to act as guideposts upon which to string my net, I have my foot securely in the door so to speak. I made a video concerning the general principles I deal with including elementary calculations and geometric / logical descriptions of the various parameters known to operate in and on matter. It isn't seen much, due to YouTube's use of an age parameter in the placement of videos in the "Suggested Videos" display to the right of the watched video. That is, if your video is not in the 'suggested' display you're not likely to be seen ... unless by search or word of mouth. I invite you to take a look. You will, undoubtedly, not agree with it in general but I can confidentally assert that no explanation at all is possible unless it also deals with the subjects there presented. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlzLKwSp0ug You will find no other extant information on this subject for ... the best that's been mustered by religion is ... "God did it" - (a First Cause without details) ... and that of science ... "Chance did it" - (quantum fluctuation - eschewing causality with some a posteriori details). If you make it to the end of the video, you are a real 'trooper'. I apologize in advance for the conceptual density of the video but fluffing it up would make it way too long.

When I observe the long, poor history of rationality on earth, the word that best describes its failure ... to me anyway ... is its niggardliness. People of principle are so incredibly cheap. I recall the Ron Paul 2012 presidential run to which I contributed $140. About $70 went directly to Ron Paul and the rest to Ron Paul Pacs. I did this, not so that he could win, but because I wanted his general views to be a part of the public discourse for as long as possible. And, no ... I don't agree with him on every little thing. I made a video about Ron Paul supporters not supporting him and was roundly castigated by ... guess who? My thesis was simply mathematical. Let's say Ron Paul has just 6,000,000 people who supported him (more likely he had over 20,000,000 who would've voted for him if he'd been selected as the Republican nominee and if he survived the cardiac event that was scheduled for him). And each "supporter" sent him 20 bucks. For those who don't know what 20 looks like ... it's this many ... $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ 20 x 6,000,000 = 120,000,000 Did Ron Paul get 120 mil in his war chest.... :o) If he had a measily 20,000,000 supporters and each gave him the pittance that I did it would be ... 20,000,000 x 140 = 2,800,000,000 Did Ron Paul have 2.8 billion dollars in his war chest? You get the point. Stefan Molyneux has about 143,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel. If each subscriber (supporter?) gave him $20 he'd have $2,860,000.00 in his bank account to fund his operation. 20 bucks is cheesy at best. But divide 2.8 mil into about 8 years and you get $357,500 per online year. You see what I mean about that hidden unmentionable word ... NIGGARDLINESS. __________________________________ I had this thought long, long ago when working in a Jones & Laughlin steel warehouse. Why don't the unions just buy the company? Over many decades they should have now controlling interest in Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, etc. Why don't Americans just freakin' BUY their politicians? They're all for sale ... and ... they're damn cheap. They'd sell out to freedom as fast as they sell out to corruption ... because they are corrupt ;o) So, why can't they be paid off under the table to defend the Bill of Rights? If Ron Paul had gotten a billion dollars in his war chest, every man-jack one of 'em would be trolling for a payday. No one would dare say anything against the 1st, 2nd or nth amendment. Take a page from the Zionists. They know how to do it ... just buy the bastards ;o) _______________________________ There's no two ways about it ... Rational people are also the niggardliest people around _______________________________ "The difficulty is not 'getting the job done' It's getting somebody to do it for nothing" - EBTX

Evil ... eh? Hmmmm ...Evil is something DONE to others. It is the actions of government which are evil. It is then a question of "Do all governments lead to evil deeds?". The DRO scheme proposed by Mr. Molyneux is a form of government. People would "govern" themselves by it, would they not? Is that inherently evil? If would be evil ... if ... the DRO put a gun to your head and demanded cash for protection. Could it devolve into this? What empirical proof is there that it could not so degenerate? Since it has not been tried, there can be no existent proof. If you then say "All coercive governments are evil" ... I'd agree with you. But then, by accepting the adjective, you're saying that non-coercive governments are good. If people engage in government and don't feel coerced, is it still an evil thing? I take it that government is necessary as the given. If people engage others in a civilization, they must govern themselves by some code of conduct in their relations with others. That form is "government" whether you call it DRO or fascism. Anarchy means disorder and has always meant that. That is why people turn away from anything called anarchy. They think it necessarily means chaos, starvation and murder. It's a very poor word to use in your definition of a general code of conduct. Better to say something like "rational governance" ... anything but "anarchy". ________________________________ The Origin of Government Group A (farmers) produce enough crops to support division of labor. Civilization forms. The people are happy (no government yet - just DROs?). Group B (thieves - small in number) find that they can overpower farmers and live by predation on the producers. Group A cannot do farming AND fend off group B at the same time ... so ... they form Group C to defend them against group B. Group B is defeated by Group C and all is well ... Until ... Group B reasons that they should join Group C by stealth. After infiltrating Group C ... B continues it predation of A. Initially, Group A is living in a state of rational anarchy, i.e. government by rational consensus. But this is unsustainable because "men with guns drive the issue". Rational men don't drive predation. They only react to it in the only way possible. So, they have to form C and end up on the "Oppressive Government" merry-go-round. Good government > Bad government > Revolution > Good government > Bad gov ... ad nauseum. What I proposed is a method of preventing B from infiltrating C. Mainly, just that. Is this "evil"? Would a scheme designed to prevent the infiltration of DROs by evildoers be considered evil?

It would be advantageous to civilization that all arterial systems ... roads, sewers, general water delivery ... (anything requiring a right of way) ... be assigned to a "government" which I define as "a hierarchical system with authority backed up by guns", i.e. the final solution ;o). There are "donations" which differ from taxes because you don't have to pay them. Why pay then? If donations are not given, the services of government are reduced opening up possible free market solutions ... if ... these are seen as more desirable. I'm not proposing that such a government be necessarily permanent. Only that it be a transition to a possible 100% free market solution. In general, I don't believe competition is the best option in arterial and communal systems. These appear to me to belong to the "collective", i.e. everyone owns them and uses them freely without complication and so they must be governed by some system. And no government system is acceptable to me that is not instituted and maintained from the ground up. The method of donations would be that you'd vote on what level of government involvement you wanted in civilization by designating a decrease or increase in the percentage of your income to be given to the state. For instance, if the present involvement was 50% of everyone's income and you thought it was too much ... you'd vote a decrease of x percent. Everyone's votes are then tallied, divided by the number of "taxpayers" and that's the amount that government would get ... no counterfeiting allowed of course. The level of taxation-donation would decrease till the services required were not met. Then the rate would stabilize. If you don't wish to participate, no one will come to "get you". But ... your employer is also not obligated to pay you the same as an equal employee who does accept the percentage that goes to government. The driver for the donation scheme is just social pressure. This is what Mr. Molyneux does. I sent him a donation of $50 because I want him to continue doing his service to me which is to provide philosophical ideas. I pay for what I want. Essentially, the government would be just another player in the free market. Its guns would be to enforce the rights of way in arterial systems and quality of arterial systems (like air quality) and the maintenance of the "commons" (places owned by all as a collective). If they use their guns to excess, the level of donations would, of course, go down as a disciplinary measure. If people want these things, they should be able to have them under the same general restrictions as private property. If honest men rule, the civilization will prosper. If dishonorable men rule, the civilization will eventually perish. There is no way to escape this fact regardless of any "setup" at all. It comes down to the selection process of WHO will rule. If good men ... the lightest touch possible is used .... if evil ... the heavy hand, up to and including murder. I agree completely that the present Constitution has failed to do what it was supposed to do. The reason is that it was gradually converted into a fully top down system. The wealthy choose who gets to run and you are eventually stripped of any real choice by their "monkeyed" voting process. We have some voting going on here in Texas. I am appalled (as ever) by all the posters on the lawn for this or that candidate. They need money and backing to even get on a ballot. Why does anyone need money to run for office when the only relevant qualification is honesty, integrity, intelligence, etc.? If the chain of command were "bottom up", you'd just have to talk to your friends and gradually ascend to rule by building the hierarchy through the free consent of those you spoke to. A rough calculation shows that you'd have to talk to minimally ~100 people to become the president of the USA. But as you rose higher and higher, the competition for their votes would become progressively more difficult. People with logical skills in government, on a par with Stefan's in philosophy, should prevail over, say, George Bush or Barrack Obama. It is not "power of attorney" if I can rescind that power at will, i.e. your judgement is no good ... out you go. I take my votes back and give them to someone else. 1) I don't know 2) Failure 3) Government = a hierarchical structure of men with the power to order force (guns) to be used against those not in that hierarchy to obtain compliance with the rules set forth by that hierarchy. Everyone here recognizes Stefan's words in your post. Restate your objection in your own words with nuances that show your are an independent mind. "A blind follower is no better than blind opposition" - EBTX

Back in 1984 I decided to do my civic duty and vote in the presidential election. I knew then that it was an exercise in futility but I wanted to experience the actual thing. The only candidate that had anything in common with me was the Libertarian candidate ... so I duly voted for him. I felt really good about voting ... the glow lasted for about 10-15 minutes then flagged as I recalled that it was utterly pointless. Some time later I began a project to create my own government (on paper) wherein my voting would be meaningful ... if this was at all possible. This took the form of writing a formal constitution using as the initial model the US constitution. I wrote and rewrote all manner of more or less bizarre rules as I fluffed up the manuscript and alternately stripped it down. After about 6 months of such fluffing and stripping my "constitution" was becoming more and more streamlined and shorter ... shorter is what I wanted most ... short means "if it's possible at all, it must be simple". It finally dawned on me that there is only one political question. It is this. "Who says what goes?" Armed with this 'fact', I proceeded to fluff and strip away and finally went for the "gold" ... the solution to all of man's governmental problems ... in 50 words or less. Yup ... 50 ... count 'em ;o) -------------------------------------------------- Each individual shall have the right to: Cast one personal vote Receive votes from others Recall those votes and Cast them for another Votes must be given to one personal acquaintance A representative must have not less than twice the votes of any of his electors The highest representative rules -------------------------------------------------- I won't explain these rules in detail because, as part of this post, I'd like to see if people can actually understand the rules without further elucidation. That's important. To work correctly, anyone must understand, almost intuitively, what's supposed to happen. It's a control system that if well understood shouldn't go "out of control", i.e. go over to the dark side. Conjectures: 1) This form should produce a bottom up representative government immune to gross corruption. 2) Government is not "inherently" evil. It's simply a hierarchical control system (albeit with guns). The reason it hasn't worked so far is that it's like a circus performer first learning to balance on a cylinder while standing on a wood board ... he ALWAYS fails ... then, finally ... success. With experience, it becomes very easy and pleases the crowd. 3) A bottom up representative government will shrink to least control (maximized freedom) ... as opposed to top down government that expands control to totality (enslavement). 4) A constitution is for the army to read ... not so much for the people. It's the young men in the army who will be called upon to enforce the constitution. These guys, at 19, don't understand complex philosophical arguments and are easily turned by sophists ... but they do understand command and control systems. They can understand these terms very well. It would be difficult to confuse even the gruntiest grunts into supporting a gross violation of the command structure. Questions: 1) What do you think? 2) Would this make a viable transitional form if rational anarchy is indeed the 'final destination'? 3) What would happen if the Libertarian Party held this form and put the highest representative on the presidential ballot? 4) What if someone as logically effective as Stefan Molyneux was the candidate? 5) What if the presidential election were held on the internet and the denizens therein declared by fiat that their election was the only valid election? At what point would the army follow the "People's Election" and ignore the mainstream? 6) What if there was an online government at the ready to take over after the "collapse"? 7) What if they printed their own debt free currency and distributed it to the party members, i.e. anyone at all who wanted to join? 8) What if the duly elected members of that party received those monies in quantities proportional to the votes they received? Would this suffice to do a "full restart" of civilization if such were required after a catastrophic collapse? 9) What if the online truth community created their own "shadow government" that ruled on every topic that the mainstream governments did and ... by their utter variance ... showed the people what 'proper government' would do in that specific instance? Would the people want to hear that opinion lucidly expressed from the representatives of an actual political party that could be their own "sticking place"? Would they not then experience a moral, intellectual and ethical congruence with rationality that would be to the good of all? Thank you for reading this far... and, in advance, for any comments generated.