Considering the other ways to steal, printing is relatively humane.
Discussion
On second thought, I'm taking this one back. Printing is extraordinarily inhumane. It just appears humane in the first order set of effects. Second, third, etc order effects are mass homelessness, suicides, wars - all on a larger scale than simple theft allows. But that's also kinda my point, if people would please fucking notice it... Drones lower the cost of violence at an exponential rate over time, and as bitcoin makes material things cheaper, it will only assist in reducing the cost of drones. Simple theft will be more than enough to sustain a state.
Theft by the state, aside from money printing, actually requires approval by the majority. Even the most totalitarian of governments needs approval, that is why so much effort is put into propaganda and censorship. A small militarized group of people against enormous masses of people, like 1000x more, is ultimately what government is. So it needs citizen approval to steal from them (unless they can just print it).
The state can't get away with blowing up its own people directly, they have to use false flags. So unstoppable free speech like nostr hopefully, takes out their ability to propagandize people into allowing theft, and without theft, the state can't exist.
Good thoughts, but I feel like there's more. The Sovereign Individual predicted that violence would move to more frequent but smaller scale incidents, as opposed to the large scale violence of modern nation states. I wish I could remember how it said it... Hopefully that suffices. I think the people who control the state will change tactics, because we're forcing them to, but the violence will not end. Not because of bitcoin alone. We have to anticipate these changes. There's no crypto anarchy if you have the threat of violence hanging over your head, probably quite literally. So we need solutions to reduce the effectiveness of drones. Being able to print up our own drone swarms is an idea, but I don't think its a complete idea, since the computational load of intercepting a killer drone will always be much higher than the computational load of identifying a face and kamikaze-ing it with a little bomb on a pressure trigger. You can do that yourself - I'm kinda shocked its not already happening. We need a way to make that impractical, or everything we do now is wasted. We have to put our minds into solving this. We can't wait for it to become a reality first. Peace us secured now, not later. I don't have the answer. That's why I'm making a fuss about it, because it needsathe attention.
Your basic thought, that violence is could grow sustainable is a logical fallacy. Violence and extortion is a predetor. And it can only survive when there is pray. And since both pray and hunter are the same species, hunter are always fewer. Most people will always live in freedom outside of the hunter pray tention. And wherever is a overshoot of hunters, local economy will get weaker, if society can not get rid of the hunters.
That's a lot of assumptions.
You mention that you are surprised that these drones are not already used that way. Well they are used that way now by state-sponsored Jewish terrorists (IDF) in occupied Gaza. They are NOT, however, used by maniacal people with a vendetta against humanity. That imagined threat is almost 100% state propaganda, and is the narrative of choice when pushing for totalitarianism. Reality about human nature is not so bleak, it is not something we have to over-prepare for.
So people aren't motivated to be wanton killers. There just aren't any motives for it. On the other hand, the state absolutely has very clear motives: profit and legitimacy. But if killing becomes super cheap, the profit motive goes away, because you don't need an expensive military industrial complex to build cheap drones. However the other motivation of state legitimacy remains as long as people give power to the state. The state needs enemies such as (false flag) terrorism to justify its existence.
Good points. The state will probably prop up more terrorists to do the extorting, so they can steal while still claiming legitimacy. I agree that nosy people are good and won't do terrible things... Its the few that worries me. And the absolute nature of the prize of victory. The most ruthless psychopath will rule the world, unless we figure out how to defang them.
*most
Not nosy. Silly autocorrect
Simple thought experiment to show how theft is a loosing game.
3 people are on one island and 3 on an identical twin island. On one island everyone is fishing. The fishers fish 4 hours a day and the rest of the day they read, write, build ships, cut trees and maintain their common house.
On the other island only two fish, read, write, bild ships and maintain the house. The third invests all his time in forging weapons and train to be the strongest. To sustain he forces the other two to gift him fish and a bed to sleep in the house.
Even in the case the other two do never revolt and accept all supression, their island lacks at least a third of productivity compared to the twinisland.
So whenever one of thos islands will be able to sail to the other island, it is very clear which island has the better odds to win this fight.
Classic economics. It focuses on the one idea without any thought of what might break the model. These kinds of hypotheticals are only for learning the basics so you can move on to bigger models. I'd say you're at maybe freshman econ level - which is good, since you're trying.
Now, tell me one place on earth where slavery has never existed. Idk, maybe it exists. How about one place with no rent seeking behavior? No dominating special class of people?
Dude, even after we had this global second enlightenment and banned slavery, it only took us a couple of decades after finally ending its disguised form (Jim Crow) to reinstitute slavery on mass scale in the form of monetary debasement.
So your model is incomplete. There's something perpetually incentivizing a suboptimal, nonvoluntary form of organization. I have ideas, but I want **_you_** to have ideas. Seriously think about this.
Do you know the concept of superposition? Means that something that does not work sustainable in small scale, will not magically work at large scale.
You are kind of arguing that a boser with cancer would have a chance fighting a boser who has no disability at all.
Now, tell me one place on earth where slavery has never existed. Idk, maybe it exists. How about one place with no rent seeking behavior? No dominating special class of people?
I never made any argument that there is no violence or suppression.
But do you also know that slavery was lowered for economical reasons?