Nostr Web Client

Which initial idea? Crypto anarchy?

You: "States have infinitely scalable violence"

Probably the widest spread of power from the state can be found within communist surveillance states. But I would argue, that with surveillance the productivity and reproduction of population will naturally decreas.

This means they will eventually fall into ashes and be eaten by a stronger form of state.

Evolution is also happening with states. Means the fittest form of state will eat the inferior states.

Therefore for sure many million people can life under repressive regimes. But repressive regimes are and will always be weaker than free states.

So yes I agree that voilence makes part of reality. But I arge that violence is a loosing game. Every single time. And the free people will win more land, more ressources and just leave no air to breath for violent states.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Comte de Sats Germain 5mo ago

I wish I could believe that. I really wish that. But you're arguing against a point that wasn't my point. Straw man, though I've seen worse examples.

States **_will_** have infinitely scalable violence. And we're helping them get that, since immutable money reduces material costs.

**_The state_** is not necessarily the current state. You're right that they undergo evolution, but the constraint is not the appeasement of the people, but rather their ability to extract value from the people without being challenged. Those are close, but not the same. If you start building drones and loading facial recognition software on them and assassinating people, you may be hated by everyone, but it won't matter because you have the power. You will become the state.

I am trying to **_avoid_** this happening. You're wasting my time because you argue the premise without solutions. You miss the forest for the trees. Get with the program, man. Tell me I'm wrong **_after_** we make this future impossible. Until then, you are actively aiding the enemies of liberty.

MAHDOOD 5mo ago

What is your solution?

freemymind 🇨🇭 5mo ago

Is your point, that in the future terrorism will be a sustainable ever growing force?

Since as long as violence is not tolerated, is brought toljustice in one way or an other, you are trying to kind of solve a nonexisting threat.

I mean yes someone is and will in the fututre kill with drones. But as long as the actor looses power, in my eyes all is fine. In the example of Putin we can see this clearly. He attacks and pays with all his power.

And like this is every act of violence. A threat actor can only hold power as long as he does actually use power rarely. A kidnapper, which just kills the kidnapped people, will not make no money.

So what is even the threat you describe? You really make very little effort to make me understand your ideas.

Comte de Sats Germain 5mo ago

Its not my job to "make you understand." I don't even want to talk to you. You're not a problem solver. I don't know what you're doing here.

freemymind 🇨🇭 5mo ago

Haha you are so charming. I am just concerned you start solving a problem, that does not exist in the first place.