Is there an implementation plan for Stefan's stateless solution?

[KarlJay]

I've seen many of Stefan's videos on economics.  When he 'debated' with Peter Joseph I noticed something not talked about by either.

 

I've seen Peter's solution and notice that he's been at it for a number of years, seems like about 8 or more years and doesn't seem to have a plan to implement the solution that would work without removing the current system.  Note that this is aside of the validity of the system, and only focuses on the implementation of the plan.

 

I also can't seem to find one for Stefan's stateless solution.  Best guess is that it's to raise awareness of the solution and get the people to act on that.

 

Q. Is there any detailed implementation plan for the stateless solution?

 

Q. Does it involve waiting for a crash and implement at that point?

 

Q. Is there any coordination of efforts on this?

 

Thanks, KarlJay.

[RCali]

The plan is to keep spreading philosophy and peace, and that one day, there will be no one left complying to the system, and so it shall fall, through ignoration.

[dsayers]

You can implement a lighting fixture on your porch. You can't implement a lighting fixture on your neighbor's porch.

[jpahmad]

Vote in self-defense.  Keep borders closed.  And spread peaceful parenting + philosophy.

[MrCapitalism]

About 500 years. The fall of the state will follow a similar profile as the fall of religion (which isn't even complete yet, and that's been going on for at least a hundred).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Start with our own lives. 

[B0b]

What about creating a stateless micro-nation, such as Liberland, as a proof of concept?

[dsayers]

What about creating a stateless micro-nation, such as Liberland, as a proof of concept?

The proof of concept is in your daily life. How many interactions do you have with other people where you achieve your goals by initiating the use of force? How many people that you interact with would initiate the use of force against you if the they were not afraid of State consequences?

[B0b]

I do not initiate the use of force against anyone and no one initiates the use of force against me (unless I venture in a bad neighborhood). This does not make my country more libertarian unfortunately.

 

WTO membership is voluntary, but since members are States, how does this make it a macro-nation? I agree that the idea is neat though.

[dsayers]

I do not initiate the use of force against anyone and no one initiates the use of force against me (unless I venture in a bad neighborhood). This does not make my country more libertarian unfortunately.

Countries don't exist. You asked for a proof of concept and you've been living one every day for most of your life, same as the vast majority of people.

[B0b]

Countries don't exist. You asked for a proof of concept and you've been living one every day for most of your life, same as the vast majority of people.

Ha ha, I am not a proof of concept. I do not attack people, but this does not prove that I am capable of anything else. If it was so simple, how can you explain that no stateless country has ever emerged?

[dsayers]

how can you explain that no stateless country has ever emerged?

No stateless State has ever emerged because something can not be itself and the opposite of itself at the same time.

 

I'm sorry you're not free within your own mind, but that doesn't give you the right to stand on a global stage and prophecy and champion perpetual human enslavement.

[B0b]

No stateless State has ever emerged because something can not be itself and the opposite of itself at the same time.

 

Could you please explain the sentence above? 

 

I'm sorry you're not free within your own mind, but that doesn't give you the right to stand on a global stage and prophecy and champion perpetual human enslavement.

 

Sorry? I prone human enslavement? Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else? When did I say anything remotely in that direction?

[Hi there]

Ha ha, I am not a proof of concept. I do not attack people, but this does not prove that I am capable of anything else. If it was so simple, how can you explain that no stateless country has ever emerged?

The concept of a state is used to motivate people to violent conquest, and society hasn't figured out a way to stop it, or doesn't care enough to. Could be due to ignorance.  Could be people in groups go for empiricism over objective morality. Greed. Dozens of reasons.  Is the state itself an indictment of the free market, in that the free market has not come up with a way to defend against the intrusion of people with statist motivation and access to weapons?  I'd guess since "free market" and "state" describe behavior and roles for people who might draw lines on maps and defend territory or be subject to others with guns (or choose not to), then yes, it is an indictment of the people that allowed or enacted the state intrusion from what was is in its absence the behavior of free people? I think I have that right.

[B0b]

The concept of a state is used to motivate people to violent conquest, and society hasn't figured out a way to stop it, or doesn't care enough to. Could be due to ignorance.  Could be people in groups go for empiricism over objective morality. Greed. Dozens of reasons.  Is the state itself an indictment of the free market, in that the free market has not come up with a way to defend against the intrusion of people with statist motivation and access to weapons?  I'd guess since "free market" and "state" describe behavior and roles for people who might draw lines on maps and defend territory or be subject to others with guns (or choose not to), then yes, it is an indictment of the people that allowed or enacted the state intrusion from what was is in its absence the behavior of free people? I think I have that right.

Switzerland does not use the state for any violent conquest. They never ever attacked anyone. Therefore, if no state has emerged, it is not for the reason you gave.

[B0b]

The concept of a state is used to motivate people to violent conquest, and society hasn't figured out a way to stop it, or doesn't care enough to. 

 

I have to disagree with your premises. Switzerland for example has never used the concept of a state to motivate people to violent conquest.

[Hi there]

I have to disagree with your premises. Switzerland for example has never used the concept of a state to motivate people to violent conquest.

How do they enforce tax collection?  The Swiss conquered Switzerland at least once when they established a state and collected taxes, right?  Besides, I said "is used", not "is used always and everywhere".

[B0b]

It is the citizens in Switzerland who vote for the taxes. It is very decentralized. I have seldom heard of a Swiss citizen complaining about their system. The Swiss never conquered anything. They have been living there for ages, long before a state gradually emerged.

[dsayers]

Switzerland for example has never used the concept of a state to motivate people to violent conquest.

 

It is the citizens in Switzerland who vote for the taxes.

These are competing claims.

[B0b]

Suppose the citizens in a small country are all happy with their State, which work in a very democratic manner. The taxes are low and people are fine with the rules. Is such a State necessarily immoral?

[dsayers]

Suppose the citizens in a small country are all happy with their State, which work in a very democratic manner. The taxes are low and people are fine with the rules. Is such a State necessarily immoral?

Do you think that describing something as democratic makes it okay? Gang rape is democracy in action.

 

Saying theft is low is not the same thing as saying no theft. If consent isn't secured in advance then yes, a behavior that is binding upon another moral actor is immoral.

[B0b]

I said suppose all the citizens are happy with the system they live in. Suppose that all the people who don't like the system left long ago and that that the citizens do not find the system coercive since they approve it. I have been to Switzerland many times and have only found people who love their system, except for a few who would want more socialism. In other words, suppose your gang rape woman chose to have sex with the group of guys. Is the action taking place, which looks like a gang rape, immoral?

[dsayers]

More obfuscation. The measure of morality is consent, not whether somebody likes it after the fact.

 

You can say "suppose" all you like, but it won't change the fact that you're describing an impossibility.

[B0b]

Suppose that 99% of the people in a country are very happy with their system and do not plan on attacking any other country. Morality aside, is this fine to you?

 

Suppose now that only 20% of the people are very happy with a very moral stateless country because they cannot deal without rulers. Is this fine to you?

[Hi there]

Suppose that 99% of the people in a country are very happy with their system and do not plan on attacking any other country. Morality aside, is this fine to you?

 

Suppose now that only 20% of the people are very happy with a very moral stateless country because they cannot deal without rulers. Is this fine to you?

I like the end of both questions, "...to you".  Because that's what's material.  The recognition of the individual.  Each individual. Not "most of" individuals. 

[Worlok]

Double post

I said suppose all the citizens are happy with the system they live in. Suppose that all the people who don't like the system left long ago and that that the citizens do not find the system coercive since they approve it. I have been to Switzerland many times and have only found people who love their system, except for a few who would want more socialism. In other words, suppose your gang rape woman chose to have sex with the group of guys. Is the action taking place, which looks like a gang rape, immoral?

 

Steph just had a video this week or last where that capitalist swede or whatever said the people around him had never even conceived of the classically liberal economics.

 

To the OP,

 

From my reflection, technically no, and it will never happen. If it does happen, it will be on accident. That is to say, given enough time/energy/mass/fields/space everything that can happen, will happen. For such a society to be sustained, it would require a big brother state to sit in its defense as the likelihood of another state either wanting to invade you with a 10:1 mass or just nuke you off the face of the map in one fell swoop are extremely high. Supposing everybody in Mexico go aids and died off in 10 years, If America wanted to let libertarians make a stateless society on its awesome beaches, the entire world wouldn't let you get nukes for your own deterrence, so If Iran decided to kill all of you hippies off, You would require America so save you, assuming you aren't blitzed out of existence.

 

I actually have a legitimate plan. Collect a few guns and lots of ammo. Maybe even body armor. Get dry food and water enough for a year. Learn to hunt and survive harsh climates outside of your home. Make sure that you have faraday cages around your important electronics like the car in your garage. Once either a nuke or a solar flare wipes out the electrical grid, only top government locations will maintain electrical systems... And you. The US government estimates that such an event would cause 99% of Americans to die off in the first year. The rest of us would have very limited functionality of our vehicles, likely no more than 6 months as the gasoline goes bad, at which point you are effed in the A. Survive for a year and then congregate at any place that the limited remaining government has not collected to and BAM! Freedom.  This does require either a nuclear war or a extremely likely* massive solar flare aimed directly at us. Extremely likely based on a cosmic timescale.

[Sima]

its a smaller government project below, but they call it communism

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/world/europe/26spain.html?_r=2

[Chauncey Tinker]

The longer socialists are in power, the more the likelihood of a complete breakdown, bankruptcy, dictatorships taking over.  Arguing about the immorality of states may be correct philosophically, but I'm afraid that disengagement from the political process will just make it more likely that such a breakdown will occur.  In history such breakdowns have never led to a stateless society.  To my mind it is therefore immoral to disengage from the political process.  Surely it is better to try to convince people that reducing the state is a sensible and moral thing to do.  We could eventually get to stateless societies by this route, perhaps?

However I suppose its possible in future that if the prevailing ideas of the time were against statism, then such a breakdown might lead to a libertarian dictatorship, which might eventually turn into a stateless society?  The revolutions of the past tended to go along with prevailing ideas of the time on the whole.

The idea of Liberland sounds interesting to me, except for the obvious problem that there is barely a square inch of the world that is not already dominated by a state.
 

[B0b]

The idea of Liberland sounds interesting to me, except for the obvious problem that there is barely a square inch of the world that is not already dominated by a state.

 

There are countries that are closer to libertarianism. Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Bahamas and Chile are the top 5. better to move to one of these places for example than rotting for the rest of one's life in a socialist country that will soon economically collapse.

[John R]

The longer socialists are in power, the more the likelihood of a complete breakdown, bankruptcy, dictatorships taking over.  Arguing about the immorality of states may be correct philosophically, but I'm afraid that disengagement from the political process will just make it more likely that such a breakdown will occur.  In history such breakdowns have never led to a stateless society.  To my mind it is therefore immoral to disengage from the political process.  Surely it is better to try to convince people that reducing the state is a sensible and moral thing to do.  We could eventually get to stateless societies by this route, perhaps?

 

However I suppose its possible in future that if the prevailing ideas of the time were against statism, then such a breakdown might lead to a libertarian dictatorship, which might eventually turn into a stateless society?  The revolutions of the past tended to go along with prevailing ideas of the time on the whole.

 

The idea of Liberland sounds interesting to me, except for the obvious problem that there is barely a square inch of the world that is not already dominated by a state.

 

I like your Ideas.  It got me to write some of mine down...Please excuse the length, lingo and terminology.  I'm a little new at this.

 

My view:

 

A Free Society is a form of government, in the same way zero is a number.  Let’s say a Free Society is 0 and Socialism 10.  In this analogy, the Constitution would be numbers 2 thru 9 (1, being a Free State).  I don’t think the founding fathers created this tug-of-war, mob rule, government as an endgame, but a stepping stone toward a Free Society. Where Mob Rule only requires the majority of the participants to perform but a Free Society needs everyone’s acceptance to exist.  If we can educate the majority, we can tug the government to 2.  Then, we can transition into a Free State while the minority self deports.  Or we can let the government get pulled to 9 and into Socialism (or economic collapse).

 

I believe this government was working.  We were learning.  We were achieving amazing feats in the ways of culture, technology, social structure, economy and human rights that the world had never seen.  We survived a civil war and two world wars.  We ended slavery, and all citizens became equal under the law.  We were starting to become free, in a controlled environment.

 

But, a relatively unnoticed crack appeared in that controlled environment.  By 1850, voting was no longer tied to property ownership and tax requirements.  Then, the controlled environment collapsed in 1964, when LBJ implemented the 24^th amendment, adding this voting rule to the constitution. You no longer have to pay, to help tug on the rope.  The experiment became tainted.  The people that would have self deported in a Free Society were allowed to play the game.  Arguments, reason, and morals where no longer required in this experiment…all it needed were bodies.  Cue the Welfare state.

 

For 188 years the experiment was working. Then, with the nitro boost of welfare, it only took 52 years to produce a self proclaimed, socialist presidential candidate. 

 

Phase 1: Voting back to our roots

When I use the term Right or Left, below, I am only speaking of the size of government, not necessarily the party affiliation (left = bigger / Right = Smaller)

 

Now, we can’t just start by voting Libertarian and expect to get any traction in mob rule.  We need to pick the most popular candidate that claims to be for the least amount of government.  We need to flood the government with these pawns on the City, State and Federal levels.  The Tea Party movement, for example, began this process but was shut down with propaganda.

 

This is where the spreading of philosophy is essential.  Propaganda only works on people who lack the ability to reason, or the ill informed.  The more people that are aware of this propaganda, the more steps to the Right we can take with each candidate. 

 

Another way to quicken this move to the Right is to get rid of the career politicians. Career politicians are squatters when it comes to change.  Never vote to the Left of any incumbent, but if the incumbent and their opponent share the same views, go with the opponent.  We need to use these people the way scientists use Fruit flies to study genetic testing…it just gives faster results.

 

During phase 1, we will work our government back to its original size.  We will revise the 24^th amendment to its original purpose of stopping the ‘poll tax’ (being charged an extra fee to vote).  This will insure only taxpaying citizens have the right to vote, and in-turn dissolving the Welfare state.   We will lower taxes and pay off our debit. We will spread philosophy, NAP, peaceful parenting and all the other essentials for a more intelligent society, inside and outside our borders.

 

If the Socialists don’t start a civil war in this phase, I will have confidence that our society can survive.

 

Phase 2: A Free State

A Free Society within our borders (Similar to how the Hobbits lived in a free society because they had humans protecting their borders).  I don’t know if the constitution will be dissolved, revised, or just become obsolete.  The only Government tax will be to maintain the military. This military will be a ‘defense only’ military with a missile defense capable of intercepting ICBM’s.  The military will not be allowed to leave American soil or police inside its borders.  This military will be necessary to defend America from the hatred that it created in the past, as well as the new mess it will create by not militarily defending its allies (if we have allies then).  With America not policing the world, I imagine a lot of war around the world, resulting in a drastic decrease in nations and shifting borders.  Hopefully, we won’t have to deal with nuclear winter.  Immigration will probably start highly regulated and slowly move to open borders as the world forgives or forgets our previous State.

 

Phase 3: a Free Society

I don’t know if we will just absorb other countries or there will be several Free States that will eventually merge.  I would assume the latter, on the fact that a Free State had sacrificed and shown their determination to be free (similar to Star Trek’s, Prime Directive).  Once we’ve consumed the world, we can dissolve the military and their taxes and end the Free State.

 

That’s my NWO plan for a Free Society.  It is my first attempt and full of holes, but it’s something to start with.

[Chauncey Tinker]

I had reached similar conclusions.  I think you are exactly right to tie the enabling of socialism with the end of property rights based voting restrictions (I think Stefan has made a similar point as well, can't remember where).  It took a long time to fully materialize, but I really believe that was the seed.  I think the one man one vote idea might have been born out of the "all men are created equal" thinking.

"Never vote to the Left of any incumbent, but if the incumbent and their opponent share the same views, go with the opponent."

That's a very good idea, hadn't thought of that.
 

[John R]

"Never vote to the Left of any incumbent, but if the incumbent and their opponent share the same views, go with the opponent."

 

That's a very good idea, hadn't thought of that.

 

 

 

Thanks, man.  Yea, Politicians are supposed to be the majorities Representative to act morally. The fact that we like the person is irreverent (and arguably the first line of corruption).

 

It is quite shocking how close we where to a Free Society (in the structured sense) in the first 70 years of the constitution.

 

The Fight against "taxation without representation" is the foundation of a Free Society.

 

In a Free Society:

The invested people of the community believe in common morals.

 

At the birth of the constitution:

The Property owners of the community voted on common morals.

 

And when the government realized it needed an army from invading forces (I believe the war of 1812):

The tax paying citizens of the community voted on common morals.

 

All we needed was to turn the majority into the whole society.  On a long enough time line, anything is possible.

 

It could be argued that not voting on moral issues is immoral.

[dusty frog]

 

Q. Does it involve waiting for a crash and implement at that point?

Vote in self-defense.  Keep borders closed.  And spread peaceful parenting + philosophy.

About 500 years. The fall of the state will follow a similar profile as the fall of religion (which isn't even complete yet, and that's been going on for at least a hundred).

 

Well, keeping borders closed didn't work in Europe. Over 1 million influx of intolerant aggressive carriers of destruction only in Germany. There simply no time to wait for a crash or 500 years either. As there will be no nation or mono-ethnic group left that will be able to make the required changes in a one to two generations from now. Also, the current collectivists governments will fiercely fight against any sizable attempts to build a stateless territorial entity as their shadow puppeteers would lose power over it.

[dusty frog]

Phase 1: Voting back to our roots

 

Libertarians were below 1% almost all the time, they will hardly ever get 50+% in a foreseeable future. Both major US parties elites (D. Trump excluded from that definition) are running strong state (collectivists) system. If democrats win this time as expected, that would mean unconditional disability to stop the trend of ever increasing power of state. A collapse or essential degradation of the totalitarian state power may take another hundred years. Nuke would practically eliminate a prosperity of any society, maybe except rats

[John R]

Both major US parties elites (D. Trump excluded from that definition) are running strong state (collectivists) system. If democrats win this time as expected, that would mean unconditional disability to stop the trend of ever increasing power of state. A collapse or essential degradation of the totalitarian state power may take another hundred years. Nuke would practically eliminate a prosperity of any society, maybe except rats

 

Yea, it's looking pretty bleak.  The corruption is so rampant it is sickening.  We need to change our Morals...Fast!

 

On a similar note..I gave my views on how to get to a free society, but not the “common morals” side (the dreaded word: religion).

 

I’ve only been thinking about this topic since Friday Night (3 days).  The idea might be a little rough, but I believe it is far enough along to start sharing.

 

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This is a depressing statement.  But if it is true, then Absolute Power trumps Power (You don’t need government if you have religion).  So, all we need to do, is take the corruption out of religion (underlined for your laughing enjoyment).

 

An ‘enlightened religion’ has accepted that moral beliefs cannot be forced upon someone.  Moral beliefs are the choice of the individual.  For this reason, they do not punish non-believers.  The founding fathers based the religion of the Constitution on Christianity; the most common, enlightened religion on the planet.  We started with a minimal government, but only grew.  I believe any other existing religion would have had the same fate, just at a quicker pace.  Corruption is the root of all evil, and deceit is the cause of corruption.  No one can be perfect in their morals, therefore we can deceive.  Cue the Non-aggression principle.

 

The NAP shows up in Judaism, Christianity and even Islam.  How could this one principle be in so many different religions?  Corruption!  As a principle, The NAP is just a general law that can be used whenever convenient.  As an Enlightened religion, The NAP is incorruptible.  Any attempt to manipulate it or disregard it would be deceit, and therefore a violation of the religion.  Because NAP is incorruptible, religions only use it as a principle, and build a system around it, for extortion purposes.  Telling its followers, “This is what we believe, but…”

 

Currently, there are two basic types of people that use the NAP.  The first type of person uses the principle when it fits their needs.  This person could belong in any current religion you see today.  The other person is so afraid of the NAP getting corrupt by other religions, they hide their view of calling it a religion.

 

The second group of NAP users I described are like the Levites of the Bible.  The closest people to God, but unable to be free due to all the laws they need to follow to keep their religion thriving. Except, the NAP users are unable to be free due to all the laws they need to follow to keep their religion hidden.

 

The Awakening (working title)

 

NAP is the uncorrupt version of all three religions I described earlier (and probably many more).  Because NAP is the universal religion, what I'm about to say can work with any current religion dealing with NAP. I’m Christian and Christianity is ready for the next best thing, so I will be using it for the example.

 

God is NAP

 

The easiest way to help show this, is to read the Bible and replace ‘God’ with ‘NAP’ and replace ‘Jesus Christ’ with ‘enlightened NAP’.  It just makes more sense.

 

There is a lot of corruption written into in the bible, but by using the theory that NAP is incorruptible, you can use it as a tool to remove the corruption.  The New Testament corruption is harder to untangle then the Old Testament.  Jesus Christ had to bring Enlightenment for the society to be free, but they sneaked in ‘absolute forgiveness’ to everyone that says they will convert (what I like to call: The Moral Pardon).

 

If you want to see a great analogy of this, check out Daredevil season 2 on NetFlix.  The Punisher is God (NAP) and Daredevil is Jesus Christ (enlightened NAP).  The majority of Season 2, episode 3 is a fascinating argument about their same-but-different beliefs. And episode 4 shows how they can work together. I’ve only seen the first 5 episodes of season 2, but, I think elektra represents the Devil (Deceit).  

 

Is that far enough outside the box to save the world?!