I still don't understand the anarchist position. Do they want all the rights and no government? If so, who would protect their rights? Mafia?
Discussion
Anyone who believes that will work has never interacted with organized crime groups or extortion schemes.
Sure they have, thatās what the government is.
So how will we deal with the gangs that already operate entire neighborhoods?
Well, it depends. There are very few situations which have a universal solution. Iād need more information to tell you how Iād react.
I donāt self describe as an anarchist - but Iām very sympathetic to the position.
My comment was to point out that the fear of organized crime is silly because thatās already what most governments are. All of the worst atrocities throughout history have been endorsed by a government. Skip paying your property taxes for a few months, I guarantee the mafia will arrive to extort you.
Anarchy is ultimately about the freedom to choose what set of rules to be a part of - itās not a rejection of all order. You can create a community which voluntarily pays for policing, fire, health care, education, whatever. Thatās still anarchy.
Iām going to try to restate what you said in simpler terms and ask you to correct me if Iām wrong.
What I heard was small democratic governments with freedom of travel.
Thatās probably the natural conclusion of anarchy so yes, in most cases that is what would happen.
The word āminarchyā applies well, and I think itās much more approachable than anarchy.
The one distinction Iād make is that an anarchist probably wouldnāt support voting, since it wouldnāt be useful to society. Economic and legal interactions would be on a voluntary basis.
For instance, if my neighbor doesnāt want to pay for the private police to protect his house, thatās his right. But then the police wonāt come and heāll have to protect himself. There would be tons of different, competing models for how to structure this type of a system, and it would never end in a uniform, āone size fits allā outcome.
This is a bit strange to say - but I think anarchy is a better reflection of reality. Extremely strong and tyrannical governments overshadow this reality, but weāve always been free to interact with others in whatever way we wish.
Even today, I could choose to not pay taxes, not vote, protect myself, and reject laws I find unlawful. The reason why I donāt is because there is a giant state apparatus which would likely crush me.
A real anarchist just wants to live in a world where trade and ideas are the standards of living, not theft and violence. And they are usually willing to take risks and push boundaries to create that world.
I honestly think that the system you just described is close (in spirit at least) to the original American idea. The entire concept was a federal government that protected the borders and handled disputes between states.
Everything else was āleft to the states.ā Granted, people living in those states voted and enacted laws that applied to everyone, but governments handled much less, meddled much less, and the culture and values were much more homogeneous (along with population being much smaller).
It puts me in mind of a point from Montesquieu:
āIt is in the nature of a republic to have only a small territory; otherwise, it can scarcely continue to exist. In a large republic, there are large fortunes, and consequently little moderation in spirits: the depositories are too large to put in the hands of a citizen; interests become particularised; at first a man feels he can be happy, great, and glorious without his homeland; and soon, that he can be great only on the ruins of his homeland.
In a large republic, the common good is sacrificed to a thousand considerations; it is subordinated to exceptions; it depends upon accidents. In a small one, the public good is better felt, better known, lies nearer to each citizen; abuses are less extensive there and consequently less protected.ā
I am also put in mind of Franklinās first fire department, and library.
I certainly donāt disagree on the need to reduce and decentralize government - I think my difference with anarchists then is an issue of scale. I donāt believe man left entirely to his own devices will live peacefully (indeed I believe we would devolve into tribal warfare, and a might makes right attitude) but I agree that the current state of government is both too large to represent the best interests of any citizen, and far to powerful to prevent becoming abusive to the natural rights and freedoms of humankind.
Thank you for the education on some points on anarchism. I feel less put off by the word now, and see some common ground.
Thanks for the very thoughtful response and for hearing my perspective.
I love the original idea of America, itās a great system of government. Voting also wasnāt as foundational as they make it seem these days - America didnāt even have direct presidential elections until the mid-1800s.
With that said, there always has to be a foundation of true individual autonomy for a society like that to function long term. Itās the natural state of the world, and if we stray away from it, itās a very slippery slope into collectivist societies and a tyrannical government (as we have seen unfold).
I think youād be surprised by how few people would freely choose to act violently against their fellow man. Itās normally not in our self interest to do so. Plus, government itself still doesnāt stop the people who donāt care about laws from doing bad things to others.
Life is a very risky proposition which only ever ends in death, and when we sacrifice some freedom for the illusion of safety, all we will ever find is tyranny.
I enjoyed this conversation immensely. Iām getting the sideways eye from a very sleepy wife or Iād go at it all night in this very constructive tone.
I look forward to future talks on the nature of man and forms of governance. š«
Have a great night friend! Until next time š«”š§”
You are on the right track here!
However, we need to understand why it's a "matter of scale".
And they reason why is because it's actually a matter of accountability and free will.
At smaller scale you enjoy of more accountability when it comes to violations of someone's free will.
We are currently working towards several principles that overlap with anarchism, and I believe that's what makes this discussion more interesting.
I don't think the problem they are pointing out is wrong, but it looks like their solution might be worse. Like Karl Marx wasn't wrong about the problems the working class was suffering, but his solution was basically making everyone poor, which technically solves inequality but at a much higher cost. š¤
Very interesting comparison! There is some truth to this. Ideas in theory are exactly the same as in practice.
Anarchy and socialism are pretty much direct opposites however. Anarchy is the individual acting in their own self interest, freely with no central interfering force. Socialism is the individual acting on behalf of the group, through compulsion and sometimes to their own detriment.
Letting individuals be in control of their own destiny will always be preferable to me, even if it produces bad outcomes. Since I know the opposite will guarantee failure, at least those who can manage the responsibility well with anarchy can succeed.
Yeah, they haven't interacted with the real world. I have heard arguments for both small government and large government, and each has some legitimate points. However, anarchy makes no sense.
There are entire neighborhoods where cops wonāt even go. I live within a short drive of a couple. This is why even though American founders like Paine agreed government was evil, they knew that some government was necessary.
āSociety in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.ā
Thomas Paine
Common Sense
Thanks to human nature (no, people are not by nature "good"), some restraint is absolutely required. I prefer social contracts over govt (early America had very little formal govt above the county level for the 1st 150 years).
Paine's problem is that once he sanctioned govt, he had to find a way to pay for it. His later tract, Agrarian Justice, gave following generations the justification to steal from their neighbors through property tax. Bastiat had to deal with it in France 70 years later.
I like Thomas Paine.
Anarchy is stateless and leaderless, but not ungoverned.
It's literally the opposite. See my comment above. You have no real life experience in anarchistic communities.
LOL
I have lived in anarchistic communities were gangs were supposedly "in charge" of the security.
Never had any problem with them. In fact I saw them helping the poor and trying to promote civilized behavior among neighbors.
In contrast, the government mafia, the police, every time they came they created serious troubles and I saw them abusing the citizens many times.
You guys tell a lot of tales to yourselves in your heads to keep their fragile "reality" alive.
Basically they argue that local voluntary law systems would emerge and arbitration would resolve differences across localities. It's basically government with extra steps, time and energy.
...but it worked for 99.8% of humanity's existence.
Nation States have ruled a majority of humanity for no more than five centuries.
Safe to say they're not delivering on their promises.
Our guns, for example. If you try to take away our #freedoms, we will take yours. We just want to be left alone. #Anarchism doesn't mean no rules, it just means no leader.
Or rather, yes leaders, no rulers.
Leadership strictly speaking is voluntary.
The way I understand it anarchism is the logical conclusion to minarchism. The best way to provide a solution is through voluntary exchange and market competition. That includes courts and security. Anarchism describes the relationship between free voluntary people who can choose to cooperate or not with one another
Private security firms paid into by residents of specific areas perhaps.
mafia is also a kind of government, there's no practical anarchism without EVERY individual practicing total sovereignty on themselves.
so to speak, #anarchism is quite utopia which might only happen if there's another May Flower landing on a new land.
Every individual practicing total sovereignty on themselves. That's what it is, you nailed it.
You only need one thing to do it: wanting to do it.
How is it done?
Do not accept any imposition.
Do not accept that which violates your free will.
Do not violate others' free will.
It's that simple.
Anarchy is a state of mind. When enough people share that state of mind government simply disappears.
For ancaps, there are ideas out there about how to decentralize and privatize essential government functions but it's pretty much based on a faith that the market will provide the innovation needed to meet those demands.
Most of them argue that the worst thing that could happen is already the status quo.
Sometimes the warped perspective sounds a little culty to be honest and I say that as a moderate libertarian.
I don't hate the overall direction they are pushing toward less government control. I think it is a net positive for us. I agree with you; there is a bit of cultish behavior that I also observe.
Technically, they are also not wrong. We are living in a very corrupt system. We need a bit of an antithesis to challenge the current thesis, so we can have some kind of synthesis. š¤
Ya, I would also like to move a lot in that direction.
Putting it as a dialectic makes it sound ironically that a Marxist said it lol
Look at argentina, a massive country where it is beeing implemented.
Mininalistic governance, security by private security and insurance
I'm not sure if this exact system is being implemented in Argentina, but what you just described seems like a very good middle ground. I think that's where I am also.
What are your thoughts ?
https://mises.org/wire/idea-private-law-society-case-karl-ludwig-von-haller
I bookmarked this and one from the previous user. I will read them properly, and I will definitely try to provide a proper response. Thanks for sharing.
I can conceptualize how it has worked in rural communities or small towns (think frontier societies) but Iāve never fully wrapped my head around how it scales in large urban environments. I would think you just get the emergence of city states.
Large urban environments are cancer anyway.
But anyway, I have seen neighborhoods being given autonomy and they become anarchistic, and it's pretty much a city within a city.
So yeah, you could make every neighborhood become autonomous, no problem. In fact that's the natural tendency of people.
right now you are extorted 50%, were not allowed to fly with your own medical choices, not allowed to even drink raw milk, if you stop paying property taxes wirh your taxed income you lose your house, they use that money to bomb ppl, I could keep going but you get the gist
Here you go. A real world example, not just some theoretical model.
It's really well readable, and interesting (econ) article diving into the problem of peacekeeping on the frontier in the Wild West.
https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west
It's very much in contrast in
*very much in contrast with what people assume.
People assume some for of universal governance is the most efficient, naturally emergent solution.
I'd argue that pretty much by the definition, even if it would ever be efficient, it can't stay efficient without being exposws to a free competition of the other governance models.
I've read some of it and also bookmarked it. From what I've understood so far, it appears to be a very high-trust society. Everyone was working responsibly, even if it was for their own interest. Do you think this kind of system can also be applied in societies that are not high-trust? Is it universal human behaviour acting responsibly without laws?
You don't have to give any scientific answer and just trying to understand your opinion.
Continuing your thought about high-trust. Seems like that would only exist in a society where work is rewarded. In the Wild West there likely werenāt many people getting a free ride through life. People are incentivized to do their best work, so you are able to trust people more. There will obviously those who committed crimes or tried to cheat, but overall high trust is built within a system that follows strong natural rules.
In history when weāve seen societies that depend on the community to provide all for everyone, they are paradoxically untrusting. In that society you donāt get your survival through work but through permission. So you are incentivized to police your neighbors to assure they donāt cheat the system. No trust.
I understand your perspective, but let me play devil's advocate. What if one of the province allows or engages in a child trafficking ring?
Do you think other provinces should have the authority to intervene and shut it down? Should there be some minimum moral principles that everyone must follow, or would you advocate for letting them run it with no oversight, which side you will be?
You don't have to answer it, it's also not a trick question, I am really just trying to understand.
Nobody intervenes outside their domains.
Every community takes care of their own domains.
That's how it's done in anarchistic regions.
It spreads as a culture, not as an imposition.
"Murica police of the world" is not a winning strategy.
Donāt you think that it could be influenced but the conditions of the region? In example, the control of a scarce resource.
Yes but the question was about morality.
I think that in a natural state people don't care much about what others do, sadly.
See for example Israel genociding Palestine and Adam Curry saying (literally) "I DON'T CARE" in his latest podcast episode.
"Justice" in its natural state only spreads through culture. Effective boycotts take a lot of time to develop.
My personal take is you do what it takes to protect your province/community and your children, provide anyone outside interested with the knowledge to do the same, and have faith that other people will see the truth that your way of living is the best.
People will do what they think is right, so many would engage in trying to shut down the sex trafficking by hunting down the people who do it. To ask whether people have the authority is in itself a slippely slope. Bc it entails that authority can/should be yielded onto other provinces
I presupose people are inherently good. But specially while there are communities who are punitive and authoritarian around, it likely would take a while for everyone to come to realize they don't wanna impose their will onto others; whether it be trafficking children or hunting down traffickers.
I believe that the end of Apocalypto exemplifies what I think ppl would - eventually - come to realize is the best course of action when put through horrible situations.
Child trafficking*
It is universal, yes.
I have seen it with my own eyes.
It takes about 30 years to turn any low-trust community into a high-trust community just by the weight of consequences themselves.
nostr:npub1494rtg3ygq4cqawymgs0q3mcj6hucvu4kmadv03s5ey2sg32df5shtzmp0
(they kill each other until they realize that honor is a superior method to resolve conflicts)
Look at this video about private law society, it's fascinating:
The question of "who will protect my rights" is equivalent to "who will build the roads". The point of a private law society (in its different forms) is that free competition by security providers will give you cheaper and higher quality security (deflation). Government monopolies and regulations do the opposite
All societies naturally trend towards some form of hierarchy/governing body. Even animal species have a natural order of hierarchy. If government was completely eliminated, some replacement form of a governing body would eventually form in its place. So there could never really be prolonged anarchy in the true sense of the word.
I couldn't agree more with you. I believe there's a strong biological explanation for this phenomenon. The power vacuum is indeed a very concerning issue, as we've witnessed examples of it worldwide. In many instances, it ends up being filled by some of the worst individuals (for that society)
Yep, Iām not denying many of todays government functions are useless, but complete anarchy is almost impossible to sustain. In an anarchic state all it takes is one bad actor/group to commit a crime before people decide they need some form of organized protection. A group of protectors forms and needs to be paid by the people they are protecting one way or another. For the group of protectors to work efficiently they need a leader/leadership group. Now you have an armed group with a leader. Who will the leader be? Will he be self appointed? Will he be elected? How do you keep the leader from abusing this position? What are the crimes this group should protect against? Who will decide whether someone is guilty? Shouldnāt there be a process for the people to decide the answer to all those questions? Shouldnāt the people be able to decide who runs the courts and what the laws are? Eventually legal system forms, courts form, an election process forms, rule making forms. Now youāve already left anarchy and have entered the ānight-watchman stateā AKA minarchy. One bad person enters this minarchal system, abuses it and it expands - āwhat if I can convince these people to give me a little more money and in exchange Iāll build some roads for them, Iāll pick up their trash, etc?ā People will buy in. The rest is history.
You are confused. "Leadership" implies consensus, free will, and accountability. None of which a "government" has.
There is no "power vacuum" if you give the power back to its rightful owner -- the individual.
We already have a "replacement", it's called "contracts".
And it's been done for thousands of years.
Hierarchies are OK, but giving them power that's another story, that's called "rulers".
Also what do you think happens when you're far away from modern cities and the presence of the State is nothing but symbolic?
Do you believe everything magically disintegrates into chaos? lol
What is more capable of governing a large group of people, a coherent culture or rule based top down technocratic government?
Rules without rulers, just like Bitcoin.
A void eventually gets filled. Optimal is better debate and better governance at the local level. It is our duty to be involved in the process.
anyone and everyone. protect your own rights, private security, police, courts. if a society wants police, they will pay for it.
I'm not an anarchist, but that's the gist.
They told me anarchists were reckless and violent anti-social predators. Turns out that anarchists instead care more about my human rights than I did.
I think the word anarchy has several vastly different meanings. Iād say violent anti-social predator is a good description of the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin.
Sometimes I wonder what a world would look like if everyone had a magic wand to make them invulnerable to attack of any sort. Then there would be no need for the state or protection agencies or whatever. Maybe this is the utopia that anarchists yearn for? Obviously this is impossible. But perhaps it is possible to move in that direction by giving us tools so we can better protect ourselves. One might even say that this is precisely the reason that Freedom Tech exists.
The only attacks I suffer are FROM the government. All the time.
People living in anarchy is totally fine, because most humans are good, we sort things out.
The government is not human. Not its spirit at least.
The first step to an anarchist society is for the individuals to take on the responsibility of security, welfare, health etc. probably why it will never happen everyone likes the idea but doesn't want the responsibility
It happens all the time, you won't see it on the news.
There is a good documentary called āThe Anarchistsā. Itās hard to watch, but itās a great cautionary tale.
What do you think rights are?
You are born with the rights already, you don't need any government to "give you rights".
So no, we don't "want all the rights", we already have them.
Even if I don't agree with complete stateless society but I don't think you are standing on a wrong side of the history.
We can already see the world as a Stateless world if we begin considering the current governments as very old companies that got really good at brainwashing the masses.
The natural evolution is opting out of them, and opting in alternatives.
Oligarchy may make a comeback, then cooperativism, then totally decentralized free market, then complete autonomy of the individual.
It will be gradual and many systems will be overlapping for a long time.
Meanwhile the State cult will insist that they're still relevant and "the only" system in place.
I'm am anarchocapitalist, but at the community level. Communities can decide their own rules and have pacts, trade agreements, accords, etc with other communities or declare accordance with simple predefined standards. Individuals can choose which communities suit their ideals. This optimizes human choice and allows some to opt to be under their chosen governance.
Have you talked to any anarchists directly about this?
I can try to paraphrase, but it'd really be better to get the info from a primary source, or at least a secondary source.
The idea is that people generally think that living under ganglords would be bad. When thugs come in and try to shake down the people, the people would spontaniously bond together to deal with the aggressors. So in a sense, it is gang rule, but the gangs would only exist for moments, when needed, then everyone would just go back to doing their own thing.
It centers around the idea that everyone will do what's in their best interest and forming gangs to kill one another really isn't, nor is accepting gang rule (in the traditional sense).
I'm not supporting their philosophy, just explaining it as best I understand it.
Also, most the replies here seem to be mainly from people who oppose anarchism without having actually talked to any anarchist, so those replies hold no weight in my mind, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how well informed.
Check out https://theanarchistlibrary.org if youāre really interested.
Anarchism is predicated largely on the restructuring of hierarchies and rejecting unjust hierarchies and structures of power. This includes things like private property (aka property for the purpose of profit, as opposed to personal property). Itās not to dissimilar to communism in a lot of ways.
Unless youāre talking about AnCaps in which case yeah they basically want to be beholden to a mafia of sorts.
gov doesnt give you rights. and it has been failing to provide personal security lately yet they keep extorting us for our money. why would we pay for services that are not being provided? oh right, because fucking retards like you still think government is somehow helpful to anyone.
Gov is worse than mafia.
We donāt necessarily need to go back to a pre-state form of organization. Maybe developing a stronger and egalitarian system based on regional governance and supranational structures could provide a good alternative for the current state-centered system, and could be more viable in dealing with the rapidly changing political and social contexts of ou time. The Westphalian framework on which the current system is based is outdated, distorted and falls short from addressing the challenges and imperatives of our time (climate change, human rights, technological development etc). In my opinion the concentrated Nation-state model is neither viable nor compatible with the values, ethos and aspirations of humans at this stage of history.
Great discussion! I'll just add a few #anarchy memes and quotes here:
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=1024x768&blurhash=%23CAKjc*F9ra3DQMMMyWAoNt7ayM%7BWBj%5Bj%5Bt7j%5BofM3MMR7kTpFx%5BxuofkAjZoMRjaxofj%5BofWBt7afjbaybGbFayj%5Bj%5Bjsa%7BkBofj%5BayayWBjtaySvXNtQn%2Cepe%3BRjWBjZ&x=56a87e04a9e081472afbc8bedc1a237b674eb223f170cb6ccc735467c9eefdfb
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=480x385&blurhash=%23KI4%3BL00_34n-%3BROx%5DIUtR%7EVIUI%3BxaNGxuV%40kCV%40V%40M%7BNGt7ofkCs%3AayRkxvV%40Rjt7e.WBj%5BjZWCozofoLj%5BjZWBWCj%5BjZafofoJj%40j%5Bayfkoft6RiayofjskCayayofoL&x=5858045d62ed86acc5ea9c106558e041536570594281dcfa543bb30ac694c841
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=387x403&blurhash=%7CFFhbN%5E40zx%5BMyt7I%3At6RkNaIq9uR%2Bw%5Dafofj%40kCGwJAeTRkoHWCRjRkoJ%3FG%250-Ps.ENozR-WCt6xtaLniWXIWoyxZs.oftmNHM%7CxZV%40Rkt6afay4noef%2Boe%251V%5BX9R%2Bj%5Dxas.R%2BIqj%3FxYs.kBR%2B9Ej%3FofafWYs%3AxZj%40oy&x=eb88c62d7145f56df824db4f3a206e8f4fc8fd369ddfce788fb74adcf60ee759
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=959x959&blurhash=U5B3%2Bs%7EpDjj%3B%251%25KjsIV00IU%3FaM%7DocM%7DWB%251&x=d7712d9d01bfeb935a1e1c2c2af6d5a1d2e0c57a084168db624d16ce4db81aa4
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=480x477&blurhash=%7C5Ci%7E%3Bxu9F-%3BD%254nfQM%7Bay9Ft7-%3BxuIURjt7WB%25M-%3BRjIUIUM%7BxuWBRjWB%3FbRj%25MRjD%25t7RjayWBD%25t7M%7BM%7Bt7ofxut7Rj%7Eqofj%5BRjIUayRjWBRj00Rjofxu%25Moft7ofay%7EqWBRjj%5BM%7Bt7WBofIUM%7Bt7j%5BRjxuayofofRj&x=2c8b9782bfb8842346d14280c8652598c2f25af2894c1bad1134a5cd0c287308
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=409x345&blurhash=%3B5RfkA00IT4nM_V%3Ft6xaRP%3FbM%7BD%25a%7BM%7Bayt7f7t7IUxut7IUt7RjRjWBt79FRjfkIUt7WBf6j%5Bt7kCRkf8t7RjWBt7RjWB00R%25_3oft7Rjofayae00%25MxuWBxuRjt7Rjt7%7Eqt7IUM%7Bt7t7f6j%5Bju&x=01e627105e62269a9ab42d87cc70d47276e1a260dad910031396d176cafe05f8
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=621x621&blurhash=UEE%7BkOM%7B00of%7EqRj-%3BofIUWBRjWBt7Rjt7WB&x=fec1154bd2719648fff1396a6a7de9af0a2dc7e692987974db9fb256db780914
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=720x540&blurhash=%23BG%5B_.V%5BE0E0M_-rInxbM%7BRhkCImRjNFafWCWUs%3B%3FwR*IUxuM%7BNFV%5Daxxat8afxH%252jFaybERjWn9EoffkR%25xat6fkRjWCo%23ofInM%7CNFWAoLj%5Day00s%3BoLoKM%7CM%7Cxtt7s%3B&x=fcb86abb8012ebafccfc5679164a275c809b8de22546eeb2e136a8ae722d999b
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=540x546&blurhash=%7CBE%7BUeWB0NRk4%3Bt6MxbG%24%7CV%40xZ-%3AWCIrRlngxYkC00WCxtbHxZoKx%5Bay9a9doe9Fj%5B%3FCs%3AtSNIRn_NM%7DaIxsRkWXIWj%3F-%3B%3FZt5xvj%5Bt5j%40E3Rks*DjRk_2a%7Dt7oKIUaeIV_2t5IBWCIWWDsjs.IpV%5BayD%25R-WBt5-%3AbHWB&x=09a0f97b743f7ac557b96fe5459711d27d8987afa9b58544df80fdacdd46abf1
Just found this anarchy hell thread and loved it.
Bitcoin.
You control your money. Send it to whomever you want. Deal, collaborate, and lock funds with whoever you want. You hold the responsibility to secure it. People themselves figured out how to interact with each other efficiently and beneficially, increasingly so. Permissionless.
Nostr.
You control your identity. Talk about whatever you want, to whomever you want. No one can silence you. You hold the responsibility to secure it. People themselves figured out how to interact with each other efficiently and beneficially, increasingly so. Permissionless.
Nomen.
You control your name.
Mesh internet network(s).
You control your internet connectivity. Everyone is an ISP.
Umbrel (and similar).
You control your data. You're your own cloud/server, and service provider.
Human beings are born free and strive to become free when there's a force that halts it. This is evident all throughout human history, and even now with the above mentioned examples in our cases/context.
With that said. An extra note:
The rise and fall of a government system is in the hands of the top force entity. The rise and fall of an anarchist/ancap system is in the hands of the people's voluntary collaboration.
Yes. we live in an anarchy. Goverment is the Mafia... pay or else...
@note1ky47c373gs35ueujzc92r8edkgyh065379nqf8za3tjhcsff8myqrmv46z
note1ky47c373gs35ueujzc92r8edkgyh065379nqf8za3tjhcsff8myqrmv46z
The government doesn't grant me my rights, it only tries to restrict them. And the government (US) is the Mafia with a monopoly on violence.
You protect your rights yourself
Have you considered them being idiots?