Discussion
I haven’t fully formed an opinion yet. I’m still learning the facts and not yet forming an emotionally charge response. But what I can say is, the amount of bootlicking I see on here tells me this place is probably infested with Feds. Or at the very least, people who would be complicit with Feds.
I concur. Crazy to think a tiny, extremely tiny, niche of the internet is so full of feds, idf, mossad, mi6, etc
And we are supposed to be libertarians here hahaha 😢
I had been a registered libertarian and voted for Ron Paul lol. Now, the party is so far removed from what it once was. The QAnon midwits co-opted the party and made it some form of adjacent neo-con movement.
That ~ 2013-2014 moment was full of possibilities.
Neoconservatism was clearly dying post-Bush, and there was a real chance to have "Ron Paul in the streets / Cody Wilson in the sheets", so to speak..
But it all got hosed, somehow. People weren't ready I guess. And then a reality TV star became President...
It's because boomers vote and they watched fox and CNN. The games they played to squash Ron Paul are pretty blatant. I recall a Daily Show episode that pointed this out at the time.
The Fed and MiC war hawks couldn’t let someone who wanted to end them become president
Your normie parents and grand parents didn't even get to have Ron Paul's name repeated to them by the news they consumed.
Qanon was a genius psyop on their part.
Intelligence is all over nostr. It seems like they like it.
But why? There's probably like 10k? People here lol
Yeah that's a pretty dead-on estimate, about 10k. Everything is decided in intelligence. They have their fights, and they tend to be quite tech literate, so this new thing is naturally attractive to them. I'm just an observer, though, and can't say much beyond very limited speculation. They're here, though. A lot.
The bootlicking is a problem
Agree with half of this, but not all. The CDC was barring me from going to a restaurant if I didn’t inject myself with poison. ICE isn’t barring anyone from anything. You can ignore ICE, and they will ignore you. Unless of course you are in the US illegally and especially if you are here illegally and have committed another crime. Otherwise, it’s not your problem.
How do they know who is legal and illegal without applying mass surveillance on everyone? Come on man this is textbook power grab.
Palantir is here to help 🫡
Every power grab the government makes to try to fix something will always come back and bite you in the ass. Still having fun at TSA? Getting your body blasted with X-rays to protect yourself from a threat that was fabricated. Don’t forget to take your shoes off and no lotions or shampoos unless they’re tiny.
Not only that but this will be the Social Credit score/ FED coin rollout for all the sheep. Nightmare stuff
wait, 400 Tsa agents arrested...? that's hilarious.
they always have to get me because i'm a nervous flyer and sweat in the crotch
Yes Americans have to be molested so everyone can feel safe after 9/11 which was totally not an inside job
the dustification video of 9/11 broke my brain last year or 2 years ago.
the whole charlie kirk stuff has not helped.
Dustification?
i don't want to break your brain too. That RandomGuest2 fellow shared it if i remember correctly. Dr Judy Woods dustification video. i can't find the original
I muted that guy a long time ago lol
ah, i had the impression he was a softy on the inside.
good thing you muted it then to not see the dustification video.
i was in a civil engineering class and a structural engineer came by to present why the towers definitely came down because of the planes and not due to any other reasons.
That structural engineer sounds like a fed. What about the 3rd tower? 😂
That random stranger guy calls everyone who disagrees with him an op then mutes. Doesn’t matter if the discussion is respectful, he only wants an echo chamber to be part of his nostr experience. Someone like that doesn’t have much to offer. Their opinions will always be fixed and narrow.
i don't think he mentioned a 3rd tower...
it didn't matter if he was a fed, he was a professor paid by the government, so i doubt he wanted to have any crazy opinions.
Then why are you sharing his irrelevant opinion? 🤣
Yes there was a 3rd tower that went down and only two planes.
i know that --now--. i was just telling you historical background info.
there's a word for you: a whippersnapper.
As long as you carry your papers and comply with their facial recognition and warrantless searches of your property
Hahahaha 🎯
It's just "defund the police" all over again. Yes, ICE or the police could overstep, no you are VERY unlikely to be a victim of it. Stop conflating this with real widespread violations like forced injections. It's not even close.
Sounds an awful lot like the libs arguing “no one is holding you down, just don’t go to restaurants”
It’s amazing how they flip flop like that
It’s def not defund the police, ICE didn’t even exist until 2003 when the US used 9/11 to grossly expand every aspect of their war and surveillance state.
I don’t see what’s wrong with defunding the police. I don’t remember the founding fathers talking about a police force in the constitution.
The irony of the "defund the police” crowd is they’ll end up having way MORE of a police state when the conditions become intolerable.
Everyone wants a tidy paradigm that’ll solve humanity’s problems once and for all. The socialists just think if we tried real socialism, the communists want “real communism,” the anarchists want “real anarchy” but none of that shit works in practice. We had anarchy, i.e., the nasty, brutish and short state of nature, we’ve tried communism, and it killed > 100M people last century. There are no isms, no paradigms that will solve the problems of humans living among other humans.
Best trade-off I can come up with is top-down fascist government but only to the absolute minumum extent necessary to foster the conditions for maximum bottom-up prosperity.
That’s messy though because once you have a top-down government, you have to watch to make sure it’s (a) doing it’s job (keeping order, protecting its borders, arresting criminals); and (b) not overstepping its job by undermining bottom-up prosperity with regulations, cronyism, onerous taxation, bureaucracy, etc.
You have to have a government and keep it within these narrow bounds. Does too little, you slip into anarchy. Does too much, you slip into communism/totatitarianism. It’s like water — too cold, you get ICE (no pun intended), too hot you get steam.
That’s a massive conclusion to form. Why would having no police lead to having a massive police state? Not sure how that adds up
Regarding your other point, your argument is that in order to prevent violence and theft, we must enact violence and theft. More specifically, we need just the right amount of violence and theft to live prosperously. Too much violence and theft is bad and too little is bad. In order to keep that balance you’re aiming for, the people have to keep government in check. Well why don’t the people just keep themselves in check? Lmao why do you need the government as middle man to begin with?
1. Because no police leads to an intolerable state of lawlessness, and the people will beg for an overcorrection.
2.. The people keep themselves in check either by doing violence themselves (state of nature) or outsourcing the violence to an accountable third party (police). Doing it yourself works for a small minority of those cut out to be mafia bosses and warlords, but most will choose to outsource. There is no utopia without the credible threat of violence as deterrence. If you don't punish violent criminals severely you don't have a functioning society.
1. So you believe that humans are inherently violent and evil?
2. This is a false dilemma fallacy. There is more than one option.
1. Humans are inherently *capable* of violence and evil, yes because what drives human behavior (mostly) is incentives. If you do not strongly disincentivize violence, it's a virtual certainty that *some* humans will use it against regular people, and society will be at the mercy of those most willing to use it. Libertarianism fails to disincentivize violence against the innocent. Communism fails to incentivize wealth creation among the capable, and when resources are scarce, violence ensues. They both ignore basic, fundamental obvious facets of human nature.
2. There may be other options, but what's not optional is the credible threat of retributive violence should you commit violence against someone else. Again, feel free to live in the wild west and hunt people with your posse if you prefer, but most people are going to want to outsource that task.
1. You didn’t answer my question. But you brought up another point regarding incentives. The system we currently live in, incentivizes the government to be violent. This is apparent given the nature of its actions: 9/11, psyop shootings, MK ultra.
In addition, you’re arguing that violence disincentivizes violence. You’re looking at things in black and white. People are individuals who will always have the power to choose what they want to do regardless of incentives. They can choose to be violent in the current system or peaceful in a different system. They could also choose the opposite, respectively. Since the current system isn’t eliminating violence, then arguing that libertarianism won’t work because it also can’t eliminate violence is not a strong argument. The goal isn’t to eliminate violence because that’s not possible. Some people will act violently regardless of the system. The goal is to not legitimize the violence by saying you have to pay taxes for x y z service that you don’t want.
2. And you can outsource that task once the government is out of the way. But right now you can’t and that service is less affordable due to the nature of the tax system. Remember that the government offers a service. A shitty service sure, but it is a service. And any service that the government offers can be done more efficiently and more cheaply on the free market. So if someone wrongs me, I can pay for a service to enact justice. Rothbard argued that these types of services would be best completed by insurance companies. They have the resources to make you whole. And there’s no compulsion or violence needed. People pick and choose what services they want. And if they don’t want it, they don’t have to get it. It’s peaceful and the solutions are solved. Everything would be better if all property was privatized. The incentives align better that way. No one cares for public property because they’re not incentivized to.
Your question was based on a faulty premise — whether humans ARE evil is not relevant. It’s what they are CAPABLE of doing that is not in doubt.
You can argue the merits of a private police force and the tradeoffs that would entail. But they would still be police and they would still be highly imperfect and not perfectly accountable. But some entity is going to need to apply force to violent criminals if you want to have a functional society, and that entity will be top-down fascistic to some extent, given its power and role.
But it’s self-evident the prospect of retaliation disincentivizes violence. Some people will STILL act violently, but far fewer than if there were no prospect of jail time. And when those who do act violently get got, that’s a measure of justice, which is necessary for people to move on and avoid, for example, multi-generational blood feuds.
Okay so you basically think that the current system with the largest criminals like pedo Epstein clients, central bankers, and warmongers that are literally dropping bombs on children is better than an imperfect system that respects individual autonomy and provides optionality? Please answer this question with a simple yes or no.
These private police forces would behave very differently because they are private and are held accountable by the free market. Private property is different from public property. People take care of private property but people don’t care for public property the same way. And they never care for it to the same extent that someone would care for their private property. This applies to any public and private service as well. All you have to do is consider the difference during your interactions with police and private security. One treats you like you’re subhuman and the other treats you like a valuable asset to their livelihood because your satisfaction with their services is what puts food on their table. The other thing you seem to overlook is the profits of violence in this type of society. You’re not going to get very far in life swindling and murdering people in a society without government. The reason is because people are forced to take personal responsibility for themselves. Don’t trust verify. Notice how in Bitcoin where things are not well regulated yet, Bitcoiners take responsibility for themselves to call out scammers. They’re hyper vigilant and they’re literally the reason I didn’t lose my life savings a few years ago before an exchange blew up. And their hyper vigilance is what led me to become a bitcoiner. The government wasn’t looking out for me. And they’re literally paid to do it. They’re paid to look for crimes and protect us. At least that’s what they claim.
Even if you don’t have a police force to stop a specific criminal. Businesses will not allow that criminal on their property to harass their customers. If everything is privatized, that criminal will not be using highways. They’re not buying homes in neighborhoods with peaceful people. HOAs will keep an eye out for that specific criminal too. Services like neighborhood watches will do their best to protect their customers. People are incentivized to protect themselves and their customers even more when government is out of the picture. The combination of remarkable creativity and problem solving that humans have will flourish. There are cameras everywhere nowadays. It’s hard to get away with anything really. If you get caught, your picture will be shared across businesses. Tbh going to jail in the current system is a much lighter punishment than being ostracized by a society free of government. Whatever problems you are worried about, the free market can solve and provide a better solution to.
Mic drop moment
It's over for nostr:npub1ghcetnluhryhynhuyj8s2pazldjm27wl40nu6dfeskvpv09twcnsneygat
English Common Law functioned well for a millenium without police.
Oriental tyrannies have possessed government police since Antiquity, but the first police force in the English-speaking world were instituted only in 1829.
It is true that we are not the same peoples, culturally, as then, but that should be seen as an illness to remedy, not a certainty to submit to.
Pretty sure they had kings who could just order your execution without due process if you ran afoul of the edicts. Human nature is such that it needs boundaries. The key is to make those boundaries wide and causing the minimum interference necessary. But without boundaries, there is no peace for anyone.
Thomas Hobbes said it better.
But he was also wrong, just a cringey apologist for early-modern Absolutism.
We can all benefit from reading up how past societies actually worked. Mises.org has a great library.
And your solution for creating these boundaries is to give a small group of people the right to do things that others cannot and to enforce that right through violent force? Do you feel that violence is an effective solution to get things that you want with otherwise peaceful people?
Are you pro police?
Why would anyone be pro police or anti-police? I'm not pro doctors or anti-doctors? I'm for doctors who practice sound medicine based on root causes and voluntary consent. I'm anti doctors who are pharma shills who don't give two shits about the person in front of them. Likewise I'm pro police who arrest violent criminals and respect the rights of law abiding citizens. I'm anti police who don't arrest criminals or who intentionally harass law abiding citizens. Why would anyone differ with me?
Police, by their nature, cannot respect the rights of people. They enforce laws on everyone regardless of whether people consent to those laws or not. Let’s say I want to drive my car down the street to buy some groceries. I’m peaceful and engaging in fair trade. A cop pulls me over because there’s no license plate on my car. He holds me at gun point and tells me I’ve broken a law that I never consented to. He hands me a fine that I must pay or I’ll be attacked or thrown in a cage. If I don’t have the right to opt out of these laws, then I don’t have any human rights. Those are fee based privileges with restrictions, not rights. I have to buy my freedom to drive. I don’t have the right to drive a car. I have to pay for it. And police are the force that enables all this violence and theft. So yeah defund the shit out of the police. They don’t respect human rights. Fuck them.
That's like saying "people by their nature cannot respect the rights of people" then telling me how you got robbed. Both police and people must act lawfully in accordance with society's limitations of how one can act. Rogue power-tripping police officers are criminals.
As for society requiring driver's licenses I can see an argument against it -- maybe requiring driving competence before getting on public highways is a net good, but outweighed by the state getting too much control. I can see the case. But the uncomfortable truth is there are always tradeoffs and no "solution".
What is a law?
Yeah bro nostr:npub1ghcetnluhryhynhuyj8s2pazldjm27wl40nu6dfeskvpv09twcnsneygat is lost. He's an cucked idealist.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. America first
you could have ignored the injecitons, too. and ignored all the places that required them. many i know did just that.
No matter whose in charge, don't engage in combat with armed men without understanding that your life is at risk.
Totally sounds like a free society
Land of the free brah lol
You're100% free not to start a confrontation. No one will ever be free from the consequences of their actions.
Your standard for freedom is incredibly low. America has really lost the plot lmfao
Which country allows an individual to assault a law enforcement officer while in possession of a firearm? You can't name one because that has nothing to do with freedom.
This country was literally founded by people assaulting law enforcement officers 🤣