FDR 2410 - Measuring an adversary's response as a feedback mechanism for change

[RuralRon]

Near the end of this podcast Stefan asserts this (paraphrased) principal: If you can't measure a negative impact on your adversary you must not be fighting effectively against that adversary. Lets examine that principle more closely. I'd like to do so by comparing two strategies of fighting adversaries: 1) Raising children according to UPB and non-violence to eliminate the state and create a free society2) Curing cancer or driving it into remission by means of controlling dietLet me say first that I believe strongly in item 1 despite the fact that the state continues to grow at an ever increasing rate. The effect of strategy 1 does not appear to be effective towards the goal of making the state smaller, or put another way there is no metric we can devise to measure the effect. If it is having an effect it is "in the noise" and thus defies measurement. Influences must be inferred.My primary argument is that one cannot always rely on feedback as a gauge in determining the effectiveness of a battle strategy. In scientific terms there is no way to draw a conclusion from an experiment if the data obtained from it can't be differentiated from noise. Another important aspect of my argument is that time must be factored in. It may simply be a matter of the time it takes to collect sufficient data to recognize a pattern or for a pattern to emerge from background noise. The effect may be accumulative and insufficient time as transpired to gather enough data to represent a meaningful sample. Given enough time I believe strategy 1 will yield plenty of empirical data to show Stefan is totally right about the cause & effect relationship between peaceful parenting and it's affect on the size or even the very existence of the state. The same might also be said of potential cures for cancer based on diet; however if it takes to long to obtain useful feedback for a particular dietary substance the patient may die. For strategy 2 time is a very crucial factor.You cannot know if the cancer is aided or thwarted by a particular substance without a means of measurement. Whether it can be measured may also be a matter of time and the number of samples taken. But these factors were not discussed in the podcast, despite their relevance.Does that mean we conclude strategy 1 is erroneous or invalid? I don't make that conclusion and I doubt Stefan would. Yet, based on direct empirical evidence and the scientific method that would be the typical conclusion. Isn't is more accurate to say "I don't know?" Why the arrogance of presuming it isn't possible? It is a matter of hope and faith that Stefan employs that strategy to end the state. He cannot prove it is having that effect by any metric of the state's size or influence.I'm well aware that "ending the state" is not the only reason people follow strategy 1; I agree with Stefan that UPB and non-violence is the best way, the only truly moral way to raise children and work towards the goal of a free society. So lets put those other reasons aside.Another example of a strategy to eliminate the state & work towards a free society is to drop out of the system completely. Stefan has asserted he believes that is an ineffective strategy. Does he say so because that strategy is counter to his own personal goals and how he desires to live in this corrupted society? In my view he takes an easier path through life rather than working out how he could follow the more difficult path of minimizing support of the state and living life underground. I'm not saying he is right or wrong in his choice; it is clearly his choice to make and most people never even consider that option.But many people do choose to drop out of the system despite the risks. They figure out creative ways to  achieve their goals while minimizing their risk of being discovered. Could such a person be a talk show host? Of course. Could that person fly all around the country and be highly visible and vocal about their opposition to the state? Again I say yes they could, though the methods they might use to do so may be too risky or produce too much anxiety for some to consider. The threat of going against the state's laws may cause far too much anxiety for some to go underground, while others realize in the eyes of the state they're all guilty of breaking the law anyway, so that doesn't matter to them. Whether such people are brave or foolish is a matter of personal perspective. Stefan's argument that morality is irrelevant when a gun is in the room could also be used to justify the methods of those dropping out of the system to do so. Before you quickly jump to the contrary conclusion that someone living underground could not travel freely and express themselves to a large audience, take some time to think about the problem. Don't criminals thwart the system, work towards their goals and take increased risks to do so? Don't they make alliances with other criminals and even get involved in legitimate businesses to obtain fake credentials, IDs or other "papers" to get the state's approval or to launder money? If you say no then you haven't thought about it deeply enough. How do you think the resistance movement in Germany under the Nazi police state existed? They figured out ways to live under that corrupted system because their goal of defeating it was more important to them than the risk. It doesn't matter if those people won the war the point is there were people that lived underground despite the risks and worked towards the goal of removing their oppressive, tyrannical government.

If such measures seem extreme but and a hardship to bare so what? Isn't that still a small price to pay for freedom, or peace of mind in terms of not being a knowing accomplice to state violence?And there are also rewards to those living outside of the system that cannot be dismissed, such as not paying most of what you earn in taxes or the elimination of anxiety that comes from knowing they're not contributing directly to the expansion of the state. Isn't that essentially what Galt's Gulch was, an underground society? The gun of the state can't be pointed at such people because the state can't "see" them. In our society they hide from the state in plain sight.As much as I love Stefan I have to push back on some of the conclusions he draws, as in this case.