Subnostr

Interesting you said parallel system though I can’t lie… considering my whole point of replying to these post was my scepticism on whether or not society can actually function without some form of governance.

StackSats.IO 1y ago

I’ve gone back and forth on this. Have consumed a lot of AnCap literature which says we don’t need a state but I’m siding with the neo-reactionaries like Curtis Yarvin and Pete Quinones (even though I have my disagreements).

It’s not that we need a State, it’s that we need a hierarchy because we have shittons of retards who will just become spanners in the works once we get ride of the State. Without it, we will be taken over by leftists (see note: nostr:note1cues8lh3kkvfll5zmmp2uz82up9yhhahk0pjsaqrt4wklg9wx8ps9j6fjx )

The only Defense is to have a well articulated alternative that normies want to adopt. That normies will self-enforce this if given the remit and the means which means self-responsibility and gun rights.

We’re not all equal. If you’re here on nostr engaged in deep thought on a Bitcoin future you are probably top quintile - the future financial elite. The very people who will run such a system. The bottom quintile who need their base instincts curbed are not here yet, they’re still on Facebook and Xitter and Reddit demanding everyone accede to their retardation and give free stuff to them.

You can’t get elected via fiat rails and implement this stuff. It’s only feasible to be built as a parallel system which people opt into.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Kano 1y ago

So if we do need hierarchy as I’ve stated, it seems pretty plausible that ending the "State" is virtually impossible.

You create a new state in which values are resorted based upon the key values we’ve spoken about, this is where I was trying to get at in the first place tbh, the state is ultimately a value system built by people. The current state is a direct reflection of the values and incentives we have at hand, dogshit.

Spanner’s will always arise at some point, I think that’s inevitable.

StackSats.IO 1y ago

Wrong. We don’t need a state. We need rules, we need structure/hierarchy, we need elites that people want to look up to.

None of that necessitates a State.

Think of Balajis Network State built on nostr with Bitcoin as Proof of Stake for participation - that’s not a State, that’s an entirely new way of being

Kano 1y ago

It doesn’t, but I just can’t see how it wouldn’t, hence the reference to it being a pendulum swing, you want rules without rulers, but also a hierarchy of people of with importance…

Let’s say technology gets out of hand, a 17 year old kid develops a bomb to inflict harm, what system is better equipped:

1. A collective group of elites who are top of the hierarchy to control impose control measures like security?

2. An anarchic society who wants nothing to do with rulers, allowing the opportunity for power projection?

You sir, have the foundation of a state, albeit if based upon the values discussed a good one.

I know what the most likely outcome will be chosen.

Kano 1y ago

Ignore the first control lol