How to achieve Freedom.

[Victor]

In response to FDR-3555

 

People of low IQ don’t rely as often on Philosophy to determine what political positions they should adhere to. They tend more to look for clues and indicators of prosperity and agreeableness on the proponents, and for the opinion of other people of high status.

 

Societies are inevitably a mix of different IQ individuals. I believe that to achieve a stateless society anywhere anytime with any mix of IQ individuals, we need a concentration or a high degree of Libertarians with prosperity, agreeableness and high status in said society, plus a set of stateless institutions.

 

I believe that the path to political freedom is to first achieve wealth and prosperity, achieve great personal relationships, then set up a virtual society of like minds and wallets, build a legal refuge somewhere, bring business and production over there and then sell citizenships. It can be done in our lifetimes, and we don’t have to get dirty with politics.

[Will Torbald]

In a world with nuclear enemies, chemical and biological weapons, and radical ideologies - all a stateless society will achieve is become a sitting duck to be conquered by muslims/third world populations or destroyed altogether out of malice. Before that happens, wealth and prosperity will always create jealousy and resentment from the local losers - so dealing with them and their efforts to redistribute the wealth will have to be met by force - and if you need force anyway, that's an ironic way of saying that you can't get rid of it, just alter its name and shape.

[Mister Mister]

Interesting thoughts, but when you say "Societies are inevitably a mix of different IQ individuals," I think this is imprecise.  Because different societies have different average IQs; the average of a society like Japan being completely different from a society like Somalia.  And also because the disparity of IQ is also important; with multicultural societies like America or Brazil having a very wide disparity of low and IQ.

[RichardY]

 plus a set of stateless institutions.

Any ideas?

 

 

I believe that the path to political freedom is to first achieve wealth and prosperity

Has that ever worked though throughout history? The more wealth a person produces the greater the incentive to keep them under the whip.

 

 build a legal refuge somewhere, bring business and production over there and then sell citizenships. It can be done in our lifetimes, and we don’t have to get dirty with politics.

Is that in effect creating a country and state again? I think that it may be a good idea to try and create more competing states where possible, but getting dirty in politics in some way, is in my opinion unavoidable.

[Victor]

In a world with nuclear enemies, chemical and biological weapons, and radical ideologies - all a stateless society will achieve is become a sitting duck to be conquered by muslims/third world populations or destroyed altogether out of malice. Before that happens, wealth and prosperity will always create jealousy and resentment from the local losers - so dealing with them and their efforts to redistribute the wealth will have to be met by force - and if you need force anyway, that's an ironic way of saying that you can't get rid of it, just alter its name and shape.

[Victor]

In a world with nuclear enemies, chemical and biological weapons, and radical ideologies - all a stateless society will achieve is become a sitting duck to be conquered by muslims/third world populations or destroyed altogether out of malice. Before that happens, wealth and prosperity will always create jealousy and resentment from the local losers - so dealing with them and their efforts to redistribute the wealth will have to be met by force - and if you need force anyway, that's an ironic way of saying that you can't get rid of it, just alter its name and shape.

The availability of military technology works actually in favor of a stateless society. There's a world of difference between state coercion and self defense.

[Victor]

Interesting thoughts, but when you say "Societies are inevitably a mix of different IQ individuals," I think this is imprecise. Because different societies have different average IQs; the average of a society like Japan being completely different from a society like Somalia. And also because the disparity of IQ is also important; with multicultural societies like America or Brazil having a very wide disparity of low and IQ.

Societies vary in average height too, but they can all have world class basketball players.

[Victor]

Any ideas?

 

 

Has that ever worked though throughout history? The more wealth a person produces the greater the incentive to keep them under the whip.

 

Is that in effect creating a country and state again? I think that it may be a good idea to try and create more competing states where possible, but getting dirty in politics in some way, is in my opinion unavoidable.

In a stateless society all institutions are stateless. Stateless bank, supermarket, swimming team...

 

The Zionists give us an example of how to build a competitive country. It's a lausy example, but without all the fundamentalist crap I believe we can do much better.

[M.2]

Hi, Victor!

 

What you propose sounds alright, but it is too theoretical for me. There have been a few attempts throughout history to build a free society out of nowhere from whom we could learn from. Modern Israel, which you brought up, is an excellent example I think. Other worthy examples are The Kingdom of Jerusalem, San Marino, The United States of America, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Old Paraguay, Taiwan, Hospitaller Island of Malta.

(All these countries were even capable of defending themselves against foreign threats at one point, or still are able to)

 

I think the one closest to your description is San Marino. Very Rich, very high IQ, tiny government, very business friendly, has very good alliances, and has been Independent since 300AD. It was founded as a safe-haven for persecuted Christians.

 

I am not quite sure what "stateless Society" means, since I cannot imagine people not being ruled by some form of government. Here I agree with Will Torbald.

 

In a world with nuclear enemies, chemical and biological weapons, and radical ideologies - all a stateless society will achieve is become a sitting duck to be conquered by muslims/third world populations or destroyed altogether out of malice. Before that happens, wealth and prosperity will always create jealousy and resentment from the local losers - so dealing with them and their efforts to redistribute the wealth will have to be met by force - and if you need force anyway, that's an ironic way of saying that you can't get rid of it, just alter its name and shape.

[Will Torbald]

The availability of military technology works actually in favor of a stateless society. There's a world of difference between state coercion and self defense.

 

Your enemies will use their superior collective force to eliminate you before you can defend yourself.

[os.motic]

In a world with nuclear enemies, chemical and biological weapons, and radical ideologies - all a stateless society will achieve is become a sitting duck to be conquered by muslims/third world populations or destroyed altogether out of malice. Before that happens, wealth and prosperity will always create jealousy and resentment from the local losers - so dealing with them and their efforts to redistribute the wealth will have to be met by force - and if you need force anyway, that's an ironic way of saying that you can't get rid of it, just alter its name and shape.

What do you propose? How do you reconcile accepting the authority of government is a threat on your life and the life of your loved ones, but don't push towards a stateless society? What is the middle ground? 

[Rventurelli]

Interesting thoughts, but when you say "Societies are inevitably a mix of different IQ individuals," I think this is imprecise.  Because different societies have different average IQs; the average of a society like Japan being completely different from a society like Somalia.  And also because the disparity of IQ is also important; with multicultural societies like America or Brazil having a very wide disparity of low and IQ.

Yes, however, within Japan, Somalia or whatever, there is a variance in the bell curve of possibilities, which happens in every country.

[Tyler H]

Your enemies will use their superior collective force to eliminate you before you can defend yourself.

Maybe you could then explain why the United States failed in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...?

 

Hi, Victor!

 

What you propose sounds alright, but it is too theoretical for me. There have been a few attempts throughout history to build a free society out of nowhere from whom we could learn from. Modern Israel, which you brought up, is an excellent example I think. Other worthy examples are The Kingdom of Jerusalem, San Marino, The United States of America, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Old Paraguay, Taiwan, Hospitaller Island of Malta.

(All these countries were even capable of defending themselves against foreign threats at one point, or still are able to)

 

I think the one closest to your description is San Marino. Very Rich, very high IQ, tiny government, very business friendly, has very good alliances, and has been Independent since 300AD. It was founded as a safe-haven for persecuted Christians.

 

I am not quite sure what "stateless Society" means, since I cannot imagine people not being ruled by some form of government. Here I agree with Will Torbald.

What we mean is a society where the initiation of force is rejected as a method of interacting in civilization. If you have a problem you don't use the shortcut of sticking a gun in someone's face to get them to comply. You find a peaceful solution. We all understand this in our daily lives but are propagandized by our rulers to exempt them from this simple principle. Not adhering to this principle is why governments continue to grow until collapse, no matter how small they started. They allow for the initiation of force to exist and can never contain it. Because they already accept the initiation of force as a viable option, some silver tongued sophist, good intentions or not, will find some excuse to apply their violent solution in another area.

 

Let me ask what kind of government you imagine and see if we can't think up some viable alternatives?

[M.2]

What we mean is a society where the initiation of force is rejected as a method of interacting in civilization. If you have a problem you don't use the shortcut of sticking a gun in someone's face to get them to comply. You find a peaceful solution. We all understand this in our daily lives but are propagandized by our rulers to exempt them from this simple principle. Not adhering to this principle is why governments continue to grow until collapse, no matter how small they started. They allow for the initiation of force to exist and can never contain it. Because they already accept the initiation of force as a viable option, some silver tongued sophist, good intentions or not, will find some excuse to apply their violent solution in another area.

 

Let me ask what kind of government you imagine and see if we can't think up some viable alternatives?

There appears to be this interesting notion you seem to have that violence springs out of completely irrational and unjustifiable causes.

 

As stated many times by philosophers, ​war is the continuation of diplomacy. ​When words fail, that is where violence begins. And I am sorry to tell you, but words... will fail. In that case however, as the americans and the swiss have been doing, we must be prepared to use force, even if it is against the government or our fellow citizens.

 

I have had a conversation about the government with my mother not long ago, and I took to convince her that the government should not initiate force against its citizens. But as usual, she introduced me to this thing called "reality" where governments exist specifically to enforce with force.

 

That said, how intuned the government is with its citizens, is another question. The more the agreement, the less the violence.

 

Here I like to bring up the example of China. The CCP, as we know, is a horrible totalitarian dictatorship that regularly uses force against its people. So, have you wondered why the chinese haven't overthrown their government yet? It is because the CCP is exactly what china needs. Were it not for the CCP, China would be embroiled in a brutal civil war that would take the lives of at least a hundred million, plus it would spread to other countries. So far, the CCP has taken "only" 40 million lives.

We, as westerners love our freedom, but you would be sorely mistaken to think that other cultures want that same freedom.

[Rventurelli]

Maybe you could then explain why the United States failed in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...?

 

 

What we mean is a society where the initiation of force is rejected as a method of interacting in civilization. If you have a problem you don't use the shortcut of sticking a gun in someone's face to get them to comply. You find a peaceful solution. We all understand this in our daily lives but are propagandized by our rulers to exempt them from this simple principle. Not adhering to this principle is why governments continue to grow until collapse, no matter how small they started. They allow for the initiation of force to exist and can never contain it. Because they already accept the initiation of force as a viable option, some silver tongued sophist, good intentions or not, will find some excuse to apply their violent solution in another area.

 

Let me ask what kind of government you imagine and see if we can't think up some viable alternatives?

How did the United States failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? In the case of Vietnam it was the weak hand of the U.S government plus the anti-war sentiment at home that led to the withdrawn, there was not a single battle in which Americans actively lost to the Vietcong. Not only that, when the United States got out of there, it was under the illusion that they had trained and equipped enough the South Vietnamese that they would be able to hold themselves on their own.

[Tyler H]

How did the United States failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan? In the case of Vietnam it was the weak hand of the U.S government plus the anti-war sentiment at home that led to the withdrawn, there was not a single battle in which Americans actively lost to the Vietcong. Not only that, when the United States got out of there, it was under the illusion that they had trained and equipped enough the South Vietnamese that they would be able to hold themselves on their own.

It is my understanding the stated goal was to prevent the spread of communism. They failed to do that while spending over a trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation), conscripting 2.2 million men into martial slavery, sending 60,000 to their deaths, 300,000 to injury, and countless more burdened with the effects of PTSD. By what standard could that be considered success?

 

Iraq and Afghanistan I assume are pretty self explanatory.

 

The only success these wars can claim was transferring wealth from the ruled to the rulers, which I believe to be the real reason for these wars. So yes, by that standard they were a smashing success.

 

 

 

There appears to be this interesting notion you seem to have that violence springs out of completely irrational and unjustifiable causes.

 

As stated many times by philosophers, ​war is the continuation of diplomacy. ​When words fail, that is where violence begins. And I am sorry to tell you, but words... will fail. In that case however, as the americans and the swiss have been doing, we must be prepared to use force, even if it is against the government or our fellow citizens.

 

I have had a conversation about the government with my mother not long ago, and I took to convince her that the government should not initiate force against its citizens. But as usual, she introduced me to this thing called "reality" where governments exist specifically to enforce with force.

 

That said, how intuned the government is with its citizens, is another question. The more the agreement, the less the violence.

 

Here I like to bring up the example of China. The CCP, as we know, is a horrible totalitarian dictatorship that regularly uses force against its people. So, have you wondered why the chinese haven't overthrown their government yet? It is because the CCP is exactly what china needs. Were it not for the CCP, China would be embroiled in a brutal civil war that would take the lives of at least a hundred million, plus it would spread to other countries. So far, the CCP has taken "only" 40 million lives.

We, as westerners love our freedom, but you would be sorely mistaken to think that other cultures want that same freedom.

I'm failing to see how anything you said has anything to do with anything I said.

[M.2]

It is my understanding the stated goal was to prevent the spread of communism. They failed to do that while spending over a trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation), conscripting 2.2 million men into martial slavery, sending 60,000 to their deaths, 300,000 to injury, and countless more burdened with the effects of PTSD. By what standard could that be considered success?

 

Iraq and Afghanistan I assume are pretty self explanatory.

 

The only success these wars can claim was transferring wealth from the ruled to the rulers, which I believe to be the real reason for these wars. So yes, by that standard they were a smashing success.

 

I'm failing to see how anything you said has anything to do with anything I said.

Basically, I made a case for the initiation of force, and force being an absolutely necessary option in the real World. The "who threw the first punch?" attitude is not viable in geopolitics nor in daily life. You detect threat, you make a 2 second choice, you pull the trigger, then you can afford the luxury of hindsight, and that is how our species has survived until now. Philosophy is a very good thing, but one ought to be caruful applying it to real life.

 

In other topic: I wonder why you didn't mention the Korean Wars. Does it not fit your narrative? How about the US presence in Taiwan? I'm quite sure those people who live there are of different opinion than yours.

[Rventurelli]

It is my understanding the stated goal was to prevent the spread of communism. They failed to do that while spending over a trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation), conscripting 2.2 million men into martial slavery, sending 60,000 to their deaths, 300,000 to injury, and countless more burdened with the effects of PTSD. By what standard could that be considered success?

 

Iraq and Afghanistan I assume are pretty self explanatory.

 

The only success these wars can claim was transferring wealth from the ruled to the rulers, which I believe to be the real reason for these wars. So yes, by that standard they were a smashing success.

 

 

 

 

I'm failing to see how anything you said has anything to do with anything I said.

 

The proclaimed goals in both Iraq and Afghanistan were reached: they got rid of Hussein and Taliban control in Afghanistan. Those Wars were stupid and gave rise to ISIS and the migrant crisis, but they were not lost. 

[Tyler H]

Basically, I made a case for the initiation of force, and force being an absolutely necessary option in the real World.

Uhhh... no, you didn't.

 

In other topic: I wonder why you didn't mention the Korean Wars. Does it not fit your narrative? How about the US presence in Taiwan? I'm quite sure those people who live there are of different opinion than yours.

 

I thought it was pretty clear that I was responding to Will's assertion that militarily superior nations will defeat a stateless society with examples of militarily inferior nations/juntas successfully defending against the United States. I wasn't making any claims about military conflicts in general or how their effects are perceived. Have fun with your straw man, I have no interest in continuing this pretense of a conversation.

[Tyler H]

The proclaimed goals in both Iraq and Afghanistan were reached: they got rid of Hussein and Taliban control in Afghanistan. Those Wars were stupid and gave rise to ISIS and the migrant crisis, but they were not lost.

 

You're right, thank you for the correction. I was conflating those wars with the "war on terror".

[M.2]

Uhhh... no, you didn't.

I thought it was pretty clear that I was responding to Will's assertion that militarily superior nations will defeat a stateless society with examples of militarily inferior nations/juntas successfully defending against the United States. I wasn't making any claims about military conflicts in general or how their effects are perceived. Have fun with your straw man, I have no interest in continuing this pretense of a conversation.

There seems to be a very big obstacle that prevents you from understanding what I write and from responding with the same courtesy that I do to your passive aggressive tone.

If you are to accuse me of making a bad argument, you had better make a good case, otherwise it is just an insult.