/liberty/ - Liberty

>>81829

>What do you have in mind as solutions to halt the ever growing nature of the State?

Aggressive propaganda and education. If you're a capitalist and not a commie, then you should be thinking about how to get rich, because you know better than anyone the importance of money, when you have money, you can start funding libertarian ideas, projects, and movements. We have to emulate the ways the left took over America and Europe in the last 70 years and learn from them.

We also need to seriously discuss the specifics of militant libertarianism and under what pretext it is okay to use force against your government. Some of you pacifists will disagree with me but I think that when certain conditions are met, revolution becomes perfectly ethical as a way of achieving a libertarian social order.

>And what kind of government system would your societies have in order to decide who to rule things

If a state is unavoidable, then I'd prefer it if it were very small and headed by a monarch, with as many state responsibilities as possible being privatized. There will be no electing of politicians and laws would be decided with a direct democracy by only high IQ citizens whose ancestors lived in the country before them, who are old enough to at least not be swayed by internet memes or college professors.

>>81829

If people become less stupid, then they'll have more defined goals, so they would be less willing to waste resources on state pushing stupid laws, weakening it. If polices of the state are not accepted, then it will be close to its fall, as it becomes clear that wasteful parasitic middleman in not needed, maybe even up to the point of violent resistance, as the benefits of it grow and become more clear.

I'm an ancap so I know the question isnt for me, but, aggressive (voluntary) eugenics to boost average IQ wouldnt hurt. Same with genetic engineering. There's an old saying that if men were angels they wouldn't need government, so why don't we make them as close to angels as possible?

>>81844

Was going to mention exactly this.

The need and desire for paternalism stems largely from having large low-IQ populations that have to be organized from above. Non-coercive eugenics would solve a lot of problems. Of course, this kind of policy implies the existence of a state program for eugenics in the first place, but if you're looking for practical solutions it's not a bad way to start.

>>81844

>>81845

That's all well and good, but doesn't the free market act as a soft-eugenics program all on its own, once you remove gibs and bailouts?

>>81844

I totally agree with this. Eugenics is absolutely necessary for us to reach a higher stage of civilization with less bickering and bloodshed from leftists. It's already been mentioned in the other thread that a great first step for eugenics is legalizing abortion to allow lower quality members of society to prune themselves out of existence so as to increase the quality of life for everyone else.

>>81845

I don't see why a private eugenics program wouldn't work assuming you had a few million dollars and some secret underground facilities lying around.

>>81846

Poor people have had large families since forever, so I don't think removing the welfare state is going to necessarily change that.

>>81848

>a private eugenics program

It might work, as long as there was enough money backing the project to pay for the cost of vasectomy, sterilization, and so on.

From what I remember, William Shockley advocated offering people $10,000 for voluntary sterilization to reduce the prevalence of hereditary disease or low-IQ. His rationale was that if done it would actually reduce tax levels in the long run.

>>81860

>Poor people have had large families since forever, so I don't think removing the welfare state is going to necessarily change that.

It will put a hamper on families larger beyond their means, though. Even if the poor have a fuckton of kids they're still limited by the income they are able to generate, whereas welfare recipients get more money the more kids they shit out. And I was speaking of other market factors (such as discrimination on the part of employers, landlords, and so forth) that would work against high time-preference behavior, rather than just eliminating the welfare state. And while you're correct in that the market won't eliminate these problems outright, it will do much to minimize them, and unlike state systems it will curtail them instead of encouraging them.

>>81837

The "ethicalities" of revolution have more to do with attacking innocents than they do with attacking government officials. Anyone who works for the government has painted a big red X on their back that they don't respect the NAP and thus you can retaliate against them. The issue is when you start shooting at cooks, doctors, priests, drafted civilians, etc. forced into working for the government, and they will get shot at. It's probably ethical to shoot a cop enforcing your subjugation, but starving off a city by cutting off a supply route because a military base happens to be there isn't exactly ethical, even if the city has a 90% chance of being filled with armchair socialists living off of other's labor. Pacifism is more about only doing harm in self-defense rather than doing no harm at all, outside of specific sects that have come to take over the mainstream position of "pacifism" to take away the higher ground from its functional actors.

>What do you have in mind as solutions to halt the ever growing nature of the State?

Really not sure tbh. Finding out something that effectivelly and permanently stops the State from growing is The Million Dollar Question's answer. Almost akin to the answer to how to achieve Immortality.

>And what kind of government system would your societies have in order to decide who to rule things, since it's pretty clear that democracy not only is incompatible but also a threat to a libertarian society?

Also a quite difficult question, but I'm quite fond of some kind of monarchical system or maybe even something like Venice's aristocratic republic system.

>>81865

Well, that much is pretty obvious, if a libertarian resistance movement is going to use force, it has to be with utmost precision so that innocents won't get harmed. Innocent people always get harmed in a war, but you have to weigh how much they will get harmed in a war against the state vs how much the state harms them during peacetime.

You have to consider the economics of human lives, because in a war your currency isn't just money, it's also people and it might just be more ethical to gamble on starting a short war and leading your country into a utopia after you win, than to allow people to die every day due to the state's inaction or negligence. If you're going to lose the war, which is a huge possibility, then you have to be willing to accept responsibility for your failure and be willing to accept the blame for all the unnecessary loss of life.

>>81873

Ooh, thanks for the pdf!

>>81829

Imagine there was an immortal alien that could kill anyone with the snap of his fingers and cannot be killed. The only thing he wants in live is gold. Besides that he does not care about much. This alien comes to earth and effectively becomes the governor of the planet.

Now what does this Alien do? Does he start a slave system where everyone is manually mining 24/7 barely able to feed themselves? What about all the mining equipment that needs to be made. What about all food that needs to be grown. What about the pencils that are used for logistics. This Alien knowing that not everything can be done directly would set up a market system, and then demand a tax for every transaction in gold.

It is clear that the problem is not government, particularly not absolute government. The problem is when the government cannot profit off of its property and incentives are misaligned. You don't drain the ocean of fish if you own the ocean. You don't let your car rust when you paid for it.

>>81887

>It is clear that the problem is not government

To each his own but I'd definitely classify immortal ayylmaos stealing my gold as a "problem," even if his theft rate is relatively low and he leaves the rest of the market alone.

>The problem is when the government cannot profit off of its property and incentives are misaligned. You don't drain the ocean of fish if you own the ocean. You don't let your car rust when you paid for it.

This is a good point though, and is a good summary of the argument in favor of monarchy as less bad than its alternatives.

>>81887

>You don't drain the ocean of fish if you own the ocean. You don't let your car rust when you paid for it.

That sounds very logical but it doesn't explain why autocratic regimes like North Korea would choose to kill the goose that lays golden eggs and destroy their whole country instead of doing what more democratic countries like South Korea do and steadily leech off a wealthy population.

>inb4 north korea are commies

>inb4 americans are bullying them

>>81892

>but it doesn't explain why autocratic regimes like North Korea would choose to kill the goose that lays golden eggs

There are two cases for autocratic countries being very violent.

In one case the country / property of the autocrat is not actually secure. They need to use violence to win an internal battle and become absolute. We see this all the time in countries with dictators after a previous government. The more dominant someone is, the more restraint they can show. No need to destroy all economic activity at that point.

The second case is just stupidity. Humans are not always smart enough to make ideal decisions. Given a long enough time frame god (evolutionary pressure) will kill off less ideal behavior. Non ideal behavior could still very well be stable for 100 years though. Selection takes time.

>>81892

The thing about the Norks and autocratic governments in general is that their compulsive monopoly prevents them from suffering consequences for their actions. >>81893 is right in saying that people are morons, but the difference is that morons as private actors have to face very real consequences for their stupidity in the market, whereas the state does not, at least not right away. If the state's income from taxes starts to tank they can just raise rates, or go further into debt, or print money. There are more consequences for all these actions of course, but they're rarely felt by the one who implements them.

>>81896

>at least not right away

Neither corporations or governments can be selected out of the world instantly. Big corporations fuck up all the time. In ancapistan they will fuck up all the time. Fucking up comes with a cost though and they will burn capital the whole time. This is the same difference between your average small business and a big box store company. The box store company can sell off locations for a few years burning through its capital to stay afloat. The small business can't. The situation with a government is the same, the government just has ALOT more capital. If governments were run more like corporations we could expect them to be very profitable.

>>81893

>They need to use violence to win an internal battle and become absolute.

Ok, but would it really kill whoever's in charge to let people do their business and earn a bit of wealth, especially if he himself could later tax it?

>The second case is just stupidity.

I wouldn't call the North Korean government stupid, you don't get into power and stay in power if you're stupid.

>>81955

>would it really kill whoever's in charge

Yes, and literally. Gaining control of things has a cost. It can be easy to mistake a dictator as all powerful when you see all the executions. As a country becomes powerful and stable it is able to bind itself to more and more rules showing self restraint.

> you don't get into power and stay in power if you're stupid.

I'm going for a combination of one and two myself. They got nukes. Thats a really good step.

> What do you have in mind as solutions to halt the ever growing nature of the State?

- Join groups of like-minded people and do business with them above statists when possible (maybe some of this is cash or barter to avoid taxation…) Those in the group agree to use mediation to resolve inter-group disputes instead of state law whenever possible, dodging this "requirement" gets one kicked out of the group. Related, people looking to join should perhaps required to be "in good moral standing" as determined by quality ppl, and (ideally) to carry liability insurance.

Where viable and in line with ones personal beliefs (this seems to work best in the US as I understand it), join "churches" (tax-free) that claim ones inalienable human rights under god.. For athiests/agnostics, perhaps some business/communal setup might be sought towards similar goals (not sure this would work, but might be worth looking into.

- Try to strengthen oneself emotionally and form strong relationships in general to look after eachother (this is perhaps the main idea IMO), so that you and your group will not tend to turn towards the state for ones "needs", and will be a living example for others.

> And what kind of government system would your societies have in order to decide who to rule things, since it's pretty clear that democracy not only is incompatible but also a threat to a libertarian society?

Something akin to the US Constitution (with clearer definitions and a super-majority to change the rules), with the explicit statement that human rights are inviolable/natural/God-given, and the state is only there for basic law and order & border/naval defense ("nightwatchman state") is perhaps the best chance for the time being.

>>82233

>Writing things on a piece of paper means they will be enforced.

Look man constitutions are great and all but they don't enforce themselves. Every constitutional state will quickly ignore / find alternative meanings. As has always happened.

>>82234

Agreed constitutions don't enforce themselves.. but seems to be the best bet ATM.. Would also be OK with only landowners having the vote to minimize ppl voting themselves others ppls money as much as they are today..

Would also suggest ppl pushing for restitution-based "corrections" instead of the defacto revenge-based setup at present.. Suppose the no victimless crimes thing goes without saying..

>[…] since it's pretty clear that democracy not only is incompatible but also a threat to a libertarian society?

Why? Libertarianism can be protected by the constitution. Of course this is restricted democracy, but isn't it still democracy?

>>82730

Democracy is just perma fucking over of minority groups. We must protect property from the mob.

>>82771

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and all that. They weren't vigilant. The futurefolk must be. However, it's obvious that the premise is correct and that Democracy is entirely horrible, the founders knew that too. I do believe they were hoping that securing the right to keep and bear arms would ensure that a government would just be shot if they fucked it, causing a freedom loop. Unfortunately there were enough bootlickers during the civil war and it's been all fucked since then. Nice try, I guess.

>>82730

Democracy limited by representartives and a document is a Republic.

How did any of you pass civics class??

>>82238

>Would also be OK with only landowners having the vote to minimize ppl voting themselves

We had that too, it didn't last. Governments, particularly democracies, will always get bigger in the long run.

>>82890

>>82889

The only solution to statism is an all powerful statelike entity that destroys the state

>>82889

Not really, modern states last that long because they made most people believe in its legitimacy, while, say corporation or a lord do not have such an advantage, which means they will only withhold their position by direct force which, in turn, will find more resistance and eventually fail, so if the state loses its believers, it is only a matter of time until it will try to enforce its polices where they would not be accepted, getting closer to its downfall.

>>82906

>AI

>statelike

No. Just no. It's not. NO. STOP. It is not like a. NO!

>>82907

>modern states last that long

What, <300 years? America is the oldest existing state, and it's less than 250 years old.

>>82932

>An actor with supreme violence does not resemble a state

>>82933

>Everytime other countries have internal conflicts they count as new states but the USA civil war does not count

>>82972

>A tiger is capable of overpowering a country to enforce a moral order

uhhhhhhhh

>>82974

Ah so only something that can destroy a state is a state. But since only something stronger than a state can destroy a state, it stands to reason that your definition of statehood is going to keep increasing in size to infinity. Ergo you don't even have a definition of a state.

Fucking moron.

>>82979

>But since only something stronger than a state can destroy a state,

I'm saying the AI is the new monopoly on violence you fucking retarded. Its the top level of the state.

>>82983

It's no different than a force of nature moron, just because it can destroy a society doesn't make it a government.

>>82984

A government thats not the top of the food chain is just a corporation

>>82984

If it was a person instead of a bot you would not be comparing it to a force of nature, you would call him the god king.

>>82988

But it's not a person, it's an automated destruction system. You wouldn't call a toaster a person, just because it judges when a toast is crisp and pops it out.

>>82991

>You wouldn't call a toaster a person

No but I very well may call a general intelligence a person.

>>82993

Not all AI's are general intelligences, the NPC in your favorite video game is an AI.

>>82984

It is not a force of nature as it is artificially created, adn, therefore can be destroyed, unlike, say, laws of physics. It is likely to be met with even bigger resistance as it cannot convince even normalfags in its legitimacy.

>>82997

Even bigger resistance than a usual state*

>>82997

A tornado is a force of nature, and it can be destroyed with a bomb.

The AI is only there to destroy, not build a society in its image afterward. No one said that, I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from.

>>83003

For it to start destruction, it has to get some powah first, and i would be the last one to give it.

>>83003

You see, anon, for Ai to overthrow a state it has to be a thing of immense power, so by creating it you create a literal macguffin either usable as a weapon of mass destruction if it can be abused by, say, its creator, or an analog of all natural disaster multiplied and directed by its developing(other way it can be tricked or controlled for sure) intellect, and we all know the must reliable way to end all suffering and pain. kill them all

>>83007

>for Ai to overthrow a state it has to be a thing of immense power

No it doesn't lol.

>>83018

We either assuming that the govt is weak, then there is no need for such a thing really, or that it is strong, then the AI has to be capable of things that grant it power, be it political, religious, economical or military, otherwise it cannot do shit.

>>83019

Just because the governments hold over its people is strong doesn't mean it is difficult to destroy it.

A good example is EU, which has absolute control over its populace, but a single army could completely steamroll the entire continent because all of EU's weapons are oriented at policing activity and suppressing rebellions.

>>83022

Well, what i mean is that if it has enough power to overthrow a state then it is capable of plenty of other interesting stuff, so my point still stands.

>>83024

But it's a computer program, you can program it not to do other things.

For example a satellite network that uses solar panels to store power into capacitors over time, and once every 100 years the capacitors become full. At that point it releases the energy as a massive EMP. Or as a high frequency weather modification that produces worldwide hurricanes. Or just microwave lasers everything that looks like a city.

It doesn't have to be a Arnold Schwarzenegger on a motorcycle.

>>83025

Yes, it can, but it can also be reprogrammed or tricked into following certain goals that seem to accomplish its own. The only way to somehow guarantee its safety and security you would have to allow it to develop itself on its own, which might lead to very unpredictable and dangerous results.

>>83027

It's not that easy to just "reprogram" things, otherwise someone would have reprogrammed money into their account by now. Especially not if you have only 100 years to develop technology…

>>83048

It is not easy to create such an AI either…

>>83075

It's not that hard to put in a password and some encryption. Or even to not build it with transmitters or input systems of any kind.

>>83097

If it cannot act, then it cannot destroy the state. A password is the straight key to it. Encryption can be compromised. I'm not saying it will immediately happen, but taken the chances i would not only not try, but actively prevent it happening, as it is not some group of commies that can only create another socialism to fail drowning in genocide, but something more dangerous, as even if it does not do harm itself, it may be used bu said socialists. would be used if they actually were not braindead

>>83105

>If it cannot act, then it cannot destroy the state.

Where did I say it cannot act? Where are you reading all this extra stuff no one is saying?

>A password is the straight key to it. Encryption can be compromised.

So a bunch of feudal age humans are going to break encryption that quantum supercomputers can't, and hack a satellite system.

>>83109

>it can interact with the world without input systems or transmitters

>So a bunch of feudal age humans are going to break encryption that quantum supercomputers can't, and hack a satellite system.

If people can create it, other people can hack it,, or trick it, and people will for sure try to abuse such a powerful thing. There are no uncrackable locks, or unpassable encryption, for this case.

>>83131

It doesn't need input or transmission systems to act, what the actual fuck…. if you're this unintelligent I don't see the point in talking to you.

>>83196

Then tell me how such a thing will function without knowing the world or consequences of its actions, jerkass.

>>83196

Actually, what you are arguing for? That we need to create such a computer? Or its effectiveness?

I told you that such a thing would be too dangerous and either unpredictable or abusable, so i would act against it, so what is your point?

>>83196

Will function effectively*.

Do you assume that it will have to have an entire team of people to supply it with information? It will effectively limit its effectiveness to the quality and amount of info put in. Bigger personnel would also increase vulnerability to physical attacks, which the state is very capable of.

>>83198

I explained it in detail up here >>83025

>For example a satellite network that uses solar panels to store power into capacitors over time, and once every 100 years the capacitors become full. At that point it releases the energy as a massive EMP. Or as a high frequency weather modification that produces worldwide hurricanes. Or just microwave lasers everything that looks like a city.

None of that requires any input systems or radio transmission.

>>83202

Read the OP post again, discover what this thread is about.

>>83207

What would an EMP bomb with a timer need a "team of people" for? The hell… your lack of imagination is terrifying.

>>83344

How would an EMP destroy the state? It lives in the minds of people, not stored on NSA servers.

The weapon you describe is not an AI, at least not necessary. It is also is under full control of a certain person is definitely not a good idea.

If >What do you have in mind as solutions to halt the ever growing nature of the State?

is what you refer to, then i really doubt the solution you present is better then "immediate violent rebellion".