Search the Community

I'm building a MobileApp similar to Uber which will enable everyone to have access to all forms of security services & become a provider themselves. The goal is to change the monopoly of Government provided safety services, by building a decentralized (unstoppable) safety services exchange w/ service provider reputation, similar to Uber. What Uber has done for taxis UberGuard will do for safety, including "collective defense" or large-scale threat mitigation. This system will implement ideas based upon: DROs - Dispute Resolution Organizations - typical 3rd party arbitors which can used by freemarket participants to define who will resolves disputes Safety centric Insurance - restitution for all losses, provides public records (similar to credit scores) for thieves so they are motivated to pay back their debt from theft or breach of contract Independent Bodyguards - this service will provide a complete exchange & reputation system so anyone can provide bodyguard services for those who desire them. Security guards - larger scale security operations for corps or neighborhoods Private investigators (PIs) - function as they do today, but without constraints of current gov controls, they are responsible to you & the market. Fire services - similar to today, however they will be much more efficient & likely organized by or funded by insurance plans We'll have more on the development as it matures, along with videos every step of the way to explain it to other developers & the users. Our goal is to build all the freemarket solutions necessary to actually implement freedom today. By using the leverage of market realities, we will drive people to behave rationally (non-violent) as they will not be able to compete / survive in the world, unless they do. Our decentralized p2p centric solutions will build a system of incentives & disincentives which drive non-violent behavior & irrational actors will be priced out of the market & forced to adapt. Join us: Like, Subscribe, Share, Donate to fuel the development of Freedom, today. https://www.youtube.com/c/freedomsolutionsdao

I have heard many FDR podcasts where Stefan suggests call the "authorities" or call the cops in situations of abuse. I always find this irritating. From my experience, the "authorities" are most problematic in areas where abuse is most common. I live in an area now where I hear neighbors fighting. I have heard people yelling on another block when I had the windows closed at night. I see little children, clearly neglected, smashing up abandoned houses that are dangerous. I have heard stories about little pre-kindergarten children killing feral kittens. I did not call anyone and won't. I see the police as some of the most despicable thugs around. I try to be friendly to people especially children. I figure the best thing to do at this time is just interact in a positive way so they see a positive communication modeled. I'm not great at it, but I think it's worth trying to communicate in this way so they see that there are other types of people in this world. Not surprising, I have heard rumors spread about me being abusive. These rumors appear to come from the neighbors who I imagine are the most abusive based on the behavior of their children. They are projecting their abuse onto me. I believe Stefan's only argument for calling these people into an abusive situation is they are the only option we have right now. This argument is only valid if it is believed that the police are actually beneficial and are working for the ends they claim. They are not. Their stated goals only serve as cover for their predatory behavior. Their only purpose is to intimidate people into complying with the dictates of statists including themselves. They make up false accusations to get arrests. They cowardly target those who pose no harm while ignoring those who are a real danger. They prey upon those who appear unable to defend themselves. Sounds like the behavior of an abusive parent, right? The victims of the abuse hang onto the delusion that their abusers are there to protect them. The state is clearly just an extension of the dysfunctional family. To call in predators to deal with predators is to support predators. It's possible that my experiences with cops and other similar types are very different from what many others experience. The Ontario and British police may be mostly nice fellows in some areas. Maybe Stef's suggestion comes out of his wishful thinking that calling them will be productive or that someone could have called and prevented abuses done to him. Maybe he is still hanging onto the myth of a savior coming in to solve a problem. Letting go of this faith in imposed authorities leads to the uncomfortable reality that there is no protector. If we can tolerate this reality, we can begin to form new solutions that may actually benefit those who are being abused. It will take a long time to get these solutions to a productive level, but we have to begin. And we can't begin if we continue to live in the fantasy of a cop or CPS worker coming in and saving children. Building a free society involves de-normalizing abuse and seeing it for what it is, and those who tolerate abusive "authorities" are those who have normalized abuse. This meme of normalizing abuse is what needs to be destroyed. The meme of attachment to an abuser as is so common in the most abusive cultures must be destroyed. I'm sure many of you have noticed that insulting a person's mother is taken most personally by those who have the most abusive mothers. This is a painful reality that musty be exposed. So what are the solutions? I don't know. But focusing on spreading new memes is the best solution right now. Model positive interactions. Break down the free society, or more appropriately a transitional society, into the memes that comprise it. Advertise these memes so thoroughly that children who are unsatisfied will begin to question societal norms. Make the questioning of parents a normal behavior. Get it into discussion. Some ideas I have are posting billboards with lines such as: "Mothers who love don't hit." "Mothers who love don't yell at children." "Respect Children" "Break the cycle. Respect children." A business idea I have had that is probably not yet possible is a business made up of people who go around to homes where abuse is suspected and simply discusses peaceful parenting while empathizing with the frustrations of the parents. It would take the right kind of people to do this, something I am not. I think it may also have to wait until after some of the memes of questioning parents have been promoted sufficiently. This would also have to be funded on a donation based model something I also cannot afford. I have other ideas and am open to suggestions from anyone who is interested in this idea. Your feedback will be appreciated.

I've brought up a couple statistics and facts about cops. The domestic violence statistics, how addictive and dangerous power is on the scientific level, how the system is broken (it's immoral, worsens the problems it tries to solve and is a recepie for corruption, violence and injustice), but the party we were at moved forwards and I wasn't able to further the conversation to the NAP. We are hanging out more and more though, and this conversation will come up again. He brought the conversation to me- knowing I'm an anarchist. He is open to reason, and he is willing to talk to just about anyone to learn other points of view. I'm not certain yet if this is an appeasement tactic or a genuine search for knowledge, but either way he dialogues with me so that's a plus. Additionally- he takes correction very well, he conceded a couple points to me, which is why I have hope to bring voluntarism and philosophy to another individual. Does anyone have any experience with these kinds of situations? What works? What doesn't? I'm going to bring up the "against me" argument, as well as Kokesh's "do you own your body" argument. But I want a couple more tools to help illustrate the philosophy. I can bring utilitarian points all day, but I want to avoid those points until after he has universal principles and the NAP down. Any help, would be massively appreciated. I also remember a couple points that he brought up if that helps- he is statist, and he thinks he is a 'bad kid' for the basic spectrum of nonviolent crimes, but thinks he can help and protect he and his family best if he is on the side of the state. He loves the tools of the police, and their ability to hunt and track down drug dealers, as believes that with the growing threat of domestic and Islamic terrorism, that militarizing the police is justified.

At 12:32 and 33:44 of this recent discussion Stefan's approach to changing the world is challenged as the best approach. The reason I'm posting this topic is to have enough of the FDR community chime in and rate it up, in the hopes that Stefan will review the video in one of his own videos, where he can have a rebuttal against the two approaches outlined in the discussion and to defend his own approach. Direct link to 12:32: http://youtu.be/BmsH2RFlYbQ?t=12m32s Direct link to 33:44: http://youtu.be/BmsH2RFlYbQ?t=33m44s What are everyone's thoughts? And if you want Stefan to make a rebuttal video, vote this up! Cheers