RichardY

A choice between Nationalism and Anarcho-Capitalism OR Do Nothing/Join the State? Nationalism If you go Nationalism then I would say you are basing your preference fundamentally on the genetic make up of an area, cultures are liable to change throughout history therefore it can not be culture alone. What similarities might a Religion have towards Nationalism? My point being that the Jewish people eventually decided en masse to found a nation again based on being Jewish and eventually even with Genetic Tests? Even in Islam, Buddhism and to an increasingly lesser extent Christianity there are divisions at the Ethnic level, I haven't seen any Chinese looking Amish although maybe there is one. When 2 different Nationalities or Religions meet in a situation of gaining material wealth or eliminating a potential genetic threat in order to preserve ones gene-sets, is conflict inevitable, is balkanisation the answer for peace? Is the Will to Power and abandoning the NAP between tribes the best way of preserving such a reality? Anarcho-Capitalism Embrace the NAP, although in a society dominated by Fear(Of The Unknown, or unprocessed emotions?) I do not see how this is possible. In higher I.Q societies where people are able to obtain a higher degree of knowledge this could be possible. There may well be nutters(or having a bad day and ruining everyone else's) with guns, but would it be better to have them weeded out of the gene-pool now rather then later when more potentially powerful technology exists? Do Nothing/Join the State? Is letting another region of the World this time Europe again, collapse into a Khmer Rouge style scenario a good idea, to discredit the state? Especially if they target intellectuals, thereby decreasing the I.Q of the Population, creating more of a helot slave class. Maybe it might even go Nuclear, what if through a system of Alliances, like WW1 Turkey or another NATO ally gets more involved in a conflict? Would it make more sense to Embrace the Aggression Principle, but not between those who understand the NAP and material wealth and well being it may bring, and join the State for self preservation. With perhaps making choices to put yourself and others in a less dangerous situation. For people who do not want or will not take “Power over People” as an end in itself, might the only option be to embrace the horror?

Its quite possible you could start a community in Canada. Just talking about British Columbia, much of the land has small rivers which could be damned to supply ample Hydro Electric, they export cheaper to the USA than Canadians. Unfortunately there is also a granted Government Monopoly to British Hydro, they decide who dams the Rivers. If you want to lumberjack (death rate is high), there are quotas for cutting logs that are purchased from the state at extortionate cost, might be a reason why the men on the TV show axemen have to work hard and fast. I think you might be allowed to grow food still, but there are laws on selling it If you embrace buddy Jesus, the Mennonites or Hutterites might take you in, they have various compounds and from what I have heard one of them only buys within there own community. You can sing Kumbaya my Lord as the rest of the World or at least Europe goes up in flames Kind of appeals to me the simple lifestyle, beautiful landscape, maybe I could fake believing in God or cut out a section of my brain.

1) Although you could buy land in the country, you would still be subject to the country's laws. If by some chance you were able to obtain exemptions from the laws, you would still be faced with the task of building a self sufficient community with a living standard people would accept. Very few communities in my opinion can do this, I am thinking the Hutterites and Amish in Canada and the USA or the Volga Germans in Russia, although many of them fled back to Germany I think during or before the Russian Revolution, many Ukrainians homesteaded the west of Canada, to avoid Stalin. 2) Again living standard, plus international arguments of who gets a slice of the Antarctic mineral wealth, assuming technology is advanced enough to make it viable. 3)Living Standard and Technology, there is however an abandoned Oil rig called Sealand, but again you would be faced with Living Standard plus possible legal issues. I'm not sure how viable Rapture is at the moment, maybe there is some company mining underwater mineral deposits or using energy from volcanic vents, it would be interesting to see in person. 4) The Native American Reservation option would not be Ideal, in Navajo territory in the USA no alcohol is allowed and many of the reservations from what I know are in areas of more marginal land or sometimes in flood risk areas in Canada. Some tribes are also very corrupt with the Chief receiving money from the government as “Restitution” to which he decides who will have and have not. There are probably some that do very well for themselves more legitimately, it was interesting to see in a supermarket near Monument Valley that the Native Americans have cards to obtain a discount. In Canada I was surprised to learn that many of the Native Americans are exempted from some taxation, including alcohol and tobacco, they also have special privileges on fishing rights and some cast nets across the rivers, eat a few fish and discard the rest, which are now dead. They are also allowed advertisements on the roadside, not allowed to regular citizens (Vancouver Island). The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are also not allowed to enter a reservation from what I have heard ( maybe there are exceptions) even in a case an Indian Chief committing Rape.

The USA military occupied Iceland during WW2 for very important strategic reasons, despite Icelandic neutrality. Given that the cultures have no axe to grind and there are existing facilities on the Island, killing landowners would make no sense whatsoever and I can't see the bases exacting tribute from the Icelanders. We're probably talking mostly sheep farms anyway, the landowners may well be very happy to sell and if they don't, how bad is it going to look on the state that evicts them? The bases would probably bring in much more money then a few thousand acres of low fertility grazing land. The resource use may not be "optimal", but if more and more countries follow suit and become Anarcho-Capitalist regions, who going to pay to maintain a jet fighter and an airbase they would eventually be sold or abandoned. Maybe Intelligence Agencies could sabotage infrastructure and carry-out nefarious acts, but why would they do that? If it was ever found out or leaked how damming is that going to look? If the people give into Fear without even looking at the reason, and sacrifice a little Liberty, for a little "security" what point is there? Might as well just abandon the NAP.

In Reply to: Cornetto97 I'm not sure it would even come to Russia invading, before Iceland would pull out of NATO. If the USA was that worried they may even occupy Iceland with a military base if they have not done so already. I doubt the people of Iceland would attack a military base, especially if the American Soldiers were buying stuff in the country. France even withdrew from NATO under Charles de Gaulle. More Statist countries around the World could try an embargo, but unless they surrounded the country at great cost I don't believe it would be effective. What might be effective is if they tried to buy loyalty and then imported sympathisers, but again that would have to be sustained at great Financial and Political Cost, how many pieces of silver for your soul? Perhaps the greater threat is if some decides its their Manifest Destiny through Religious, Communist or Racial grounds to kill and enslave no matter what.

In Reply to: Vahleeb Although I can see the Machiavellian perspective of, whoever doesn't destroy a free city commits a grave error. With states being increasingly arbitrary, I'm thinking the Prevent Strategy in the UK, hate speech laws and Non reporting of Crimes in Sweden, The Gallows are being built anyway, would it be better to wait for when more people show up, for or against and the noose is tightening? In England we have a potential next Prime Minister that looks a lot like Comrade Lenin and has very similar policies. If there is no action to reverse the trend, would the best course of action be for anyone wishing to preserve some level of living standard for themselves in Europe flee to countries with perhaps a longer fuse, say Australia, New Zealand, Canada and The USA, or buy property in areas of Europe likely to sink last? Then basically report from their new basement or not, and spread the Idea of Liberty and NAP. To stay consistent from a moral standpoint. Could that involve choosing the lesser evil when there are no other viable options? Using force to stop an old lady crossing into traffic who is not looking properly. Or even using the Aggression Principle when in Politics for self or clan preservation or to vacate yourself from the situation. Although I subscribe to not hitting children even for "discipline" given that a lot of 3rd Worlders do, would the non spanked children of say Sweden in the absence of an Ideal like Anarcho-Capitalism, be lambs to the slaughter when Genghis Khan or Islamic Hitler come knocking. In such a situation, would the most humane solution be balkanisation again, in such a situation should people continue to pay tax? Can a tax ever be voluntary? Is there ever a time for action?

I guess China or North Korea could go Red Dawn on Iceland if it were Anarcho-Capitalist and Fear of the unknown might dissuade some people to more of a night watchman state. But why doesn't China or North Korea just go and invade countries that are not part of any major alliance at the moment, would the political fallout be worth the invasion? Why not just pay the Icelanders for their goods, wouldn't that be cheaper? With the free energy situation, would putting a power cord running from Iceland to say Russia be expensive why not pay Icelanders some money for their free energy, what would Russia do with all the free energy? If making the argument for making the entire World go Anarcho-Capitalist, do people with an I.Q of 80 have the mental capacity to accept not having rulers in their lives? As with making the Big Five go Anarcho-Capitalist, I only really see the USA with any chance of going Anarcho-Capitalist state by state given its Common and Natural Law basis. I'm not sure how there would be enough supporters of Anarcho-Capitalism to change the viewpoint of the other countries given media and central state control and/or culturally enriched populations. With the Large Voter turnout, that's exactly why Iceland would be a good target, the people believe they can make a difference, whether they're persuaded to go Anarcho-Capitalist piece by piece, or all at once would be a question of strategy, commitment and sanity of Anarcho-Capitalism. Maybe, through one of the Business Companies or Organisations in Iceland they could rent or crowd-fund a Nuke from an established country as an insurance policy. Is there a better/happier alternative to Anarcho-Capitalist regions?

I concede the point on Anarcho-Capitalist "country". But would it be possible to have an Anarcho-Capitalist Region, with a large enough number of people that no longer recognise the Moral Authority of enforced government, especially after voting in multiple different parties in an effort to remove corruption and so do not pay taxes towards its upkeep. The Icelandic Prime Minister was recently implicated in having investments in the banking sector and so was in a situation to profit from preferential legislation. Why would the World have to be Anarcho-Capitalist isn't most of people's day to day lives based on voluntary transactions still?

I've been thinking a lot about the "Migration Crisis" in Europe, which if you think about it is more of a case of justice and the natural rights of its citizens. That rather than fight basically Marxism across the board, would it make more sense for people concerned enough with Liberty to focus on one country as a Proxy say Iceland. Although I have heard they have a "Nordic Welfare System" perhaps the people's IQ is high enough there to Embrace the NAP and disband or otherwise ignore the state. With a population of 329,100 it might be easier to focus on one country which can be more easily broken down into smaller population segments per number of Activists World wide, at least if there was one country that was Anarcho-Capitalist that could be seen as an example to the rest of the World, it might set a precedent for the rest of Europe. I was also thinking that given the financial crisis and the recent Panama leaks implicating the Icelandic Prime Minister the people may be more susceptible to no enforced government. Also given that fewer people hit their kids? and Iceland has the oldest parliamentary system in the world, would this be the best place to start? I also thought that if the situation in Europe deteriorates further into Mumbai Style open conflict, an example of a Free Society could provide the "Ideological Strength" to others throughout Europe, for example the Spanish Civil War.

Hello Anders Hansson, Welcome to the forum. Do you have a website address for Freedom Front? There's various groups in the UK and Europe that are probably very similar. My concern though is that they don't seem united in principles and are going to get picked off one by one, either by the state or by Islam.

Define Love: Not a biological preference for food, sound or an attractive mate, which I take for a biological given and not a choice to feel a particular way, does a black widow spider or amoeba love? So in order to love you must be able to choose between different options and anticipate into the future. In order to anticipate into the future there must be empirical information. So therefore love must involve some form of action or given and not be just a claim given by someone (which would mean the spiritual or feeling in Platonic Love to be incorrect). The action part I guess could involve doing something to benefit someones future welfare.

If it wasn't the arrests it would have been some other excuse, the fact that the bombings appeared to me as indiscriminate shows their out for blood and it doesn't matter who it is, as long as its mostly, not in their own communities, for now. Why don't they target the people in power making the political decisions "against" them? I think the high security thing is mostly an illusion, when there were riots and looting in London a few years back most of the police got sent to the south of the country and then looting broke out in other more northern cities. Tip of the iceberg though, how many more are just biding their time waiting for a time to strike. Maybe things might change if the Dollar becomes worthless or a "powerful" enough ideal counters Islam?

Hi Jake, what country are you in? I'm in England. I'm thinking signs might be effective, but they have to be short and stating truths so self evident that people barely have to think in my opinion, you could add a website for further infomation. Interacting with people as they walk past might not be the best option, perhaps a more direct way on engaging people door to door might be more effective.

Is Platonic Love Possible? Can someone love something without any action merely a claim to love, is this more an innate preference or temporary infatuation. If I were to say I love music can this be an accurate statement or an expression of preference. Can a person love profit from violation of the NAP and then claim to love the person effected by the violation. For love to be possible must it be "rational" and reciprocal, action and preference, or is, to love is to value as Ayn Rand put it.

Do children deserve to be saved from slavery? Does a moral person deserve to be saved from stoning or burning at the stake? What is the possible? What value are they to me? What is the price I'm willing to pay? When is enough bloodshed?......

Yeah the Prevent Strategy is completely insane, the whole "Extreme" or "Radical" terminology makes no moral or logical sense whatsoever. When you have "muslims" (Religion of peace etc....). holding placards saying "Behead those who insult the prophet" and "Freedom go to Hell". Condoning murder and slavery, what more is there to say? Action wise I only see 2 options. Option 1: Freedom of association, you don't associate, problem is the state forces you to through taxes, and should more "Radical Not muslims, but claiming to be Muslims" go on the physical offence en masse your forced to submit, die or run for your life. Option 2: Opposition, using philosophy as a unifying force to oppose an irrational ideology, and I think demonstrating the irrational ideology to be insane or incoherent I'm thinking "Monty Python", except I haven't heard of people threatening to decapitate John Cleese. And finally actual physical self defence, but being on the defensive I think you lose the intiative. On a lighter note, haven't been to the Lake District, but have been the Yorkshire Dales great bit of countryside.

From a Malthusian perspective to optimal I was thinking perhaps if a person needs, so much energy to sustain a non decreasing material standard of living, an energy standard could perhaps allow people to observe the energy transfers associated with said lifestyle and how income and expenses were changing. Storage could be a problem, although the energy could be used on obtaining various elements from less pure and harder to access ores, which could be priced in the energy required to obtain them. I guess you would be paid in energy credits linked to an amount redeemable in electricity from an energy provider. As for the technology maybe there someway of more directly using solar radiation from the sun as the most efficient energy source? and feeding that into an electrical grid. As for technology available to day or tomorrow I really have no idea, I guess whatever gives the most effective energy output for human labour invested is generally best. The less time someone spends working to get the energy they need to live the more they can spend doing other things. Even though I think technological progress would decrease if the worlds population was smaller there would be less pressure to work more marginal parcels of land and less rich resources intensively which would allow a greater material excess per captia at least in the "short term".

Hi I'm from England too, south Lincolnshire (The Bread Basket of UK). I agree with the 1984 bit. Not so keen on staying though, although I do think people in the UK are generally very charitable and friendly despite being crammed onto an island of 80 million people if you go by supermarket figures. One of the good things I can think of is the relative convience of getting goods in the UK, also if you live near Cambridge or London you can probably network with people very easily if you can afford to live there. Not seen that much of the UK but I hear its "Grim up North" the south though seems super expensive unless you can get council housing, The Midlands is somewhere in the middle for prices. Had a meal in a restaurant in hertfordshire recently and it was £12 for a burger! could get all you can eat steak plus wine and brandy for 15 EURO's in Northern Portugal.

I was thinking of what would be the "optimal" money to use in the future and whether Bitcoin, would be valuable or something that has a practical physical use, not just subjective value. Instead of perhaps a precious metals standard, link money to some form of energy standard.

Hello FDR community from lincolnshire!, had a few thoughts about money was wondering if anyone has some clarifying thoughts on the issue or the appropriatness of the post. Is Money an embodiment of the profit from work? Should money reflect survival needs, water and salt in a desert, chocolate, soap or cigarettes in a POW camp, or oil in Mad Max. Scaling things up to an interplanetary scale, should money be a form of "easily accessible" potential energy storage? If I spend X watts in energy to obtain X watts in potential energy which would bring in additional money, with an interest rate, reflecting "time preference and physical reality" to bring more energy into a grid, or store it for portable use. Bitcoin, really like better graphics cards and CPUs but is 4K high enough, also would the lag of sending Bitcoins from Earth to Mars and Back be "too" high or rendered useless if computing technology fundamentally changed, say an analogue processor perhaps using chemical transmission, by the magic of somehow. Or EMP activity effected the network. A two tier money system? Gold for aristrocrats. One ring to rule them all, power of gold to display influence, wedding rings, crowns and false grails etc. Copper for peasents to buy bread and ale. Is human ingenuity the ultimate currency and whether it grows or shrinks a question of ethics, rationality and preference? If people have access to large amounts of energy and resources easily say a fusion device how dangerous could that be, might it be a "good" idea to keep the technology hidden perhaps using force to carry that out.