😆 Yes, he missed the part of the State depriving rebels and emigrants of their property. Under communism, everyone who is not licking Great Leader's behind good enough, is a rebel with no rights.

😆😅 Genuine truth.

Oops. Parysatis. Not party satis.

Allright, my nearest book happens to be Xenophon 'The expedition of Cyrus'.

Cyrus answered. 'If he really is the son of Darius and Patysatis, if he really is my brother, I won't gain this empire without a fight.'

Yup.

IP laws need to be given the anorexia treatment until they have been withered down to match a free market dynamic grounded in voluntary consent.

If far-reaching IP laws are allowed to exist, the result is a 1984 society where government + corporate surveillance and control reaches everywhere. The regulatory society is the surveillance society. Every regulation results in mechanisms to enforce it, hence totalitarianism.

Intellectual property rights are a part of property rights and should primarily be arbited via reputation. Engage in fraudulent behavior and your reputation will suffer accordingly.

Courts will be corrupted in a 1984 society and in a moneyprinting society the regular person often can't afford going to court, so we are left with reputational arbiting regardless which type of society we live in.

100%

The 'follow' label is not perfect but good enough, I view it as us having voluntary free subscriptions to a variety of feeds, from friends and acquaintances to both known and random strangers.

And the things we post are the tip of the iceberg of what we have on our mind. While we post a serious text we can have a good mood and a goofy humor at the same time. We can sense it when we know a person even if it is not visible.

Nostr is a completely mixed bag of cool, honest stuff and communication.

Ayn Rand:

"The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time."

Her statement seems highly plausible.

A government money monopoly + moneyprinting seem to be inevitable dynamics of a welfare state;

When politicians are buying votes in exchange for promising benefits to the majority 51% of voters, funded by taxes and moneyprinting, we can expect a regulatory superstate to grow exponentially.

As the State develop strategies to keep and expand its power, using moneyprinting to rig the markets in its favor, while blaming the negative results on 'free markets', and when that market is rigged at its core by the money monopoly, as unfree as a market can be, the inevitable result of far-reaching regulations is a matching surveillance system that enforces those regulations.

Welcome to 1984, where free adult agency is replaced by a system of individual licenses controlled by central planners that can allow or disallow your everyday life decisions based on the whims of the year.

When the road to hell is designed by the U.N.

TLDR:

When someone places you under their absolute control, you should expect criminal intent. They have announced that they are in a state of war with you and your liberties.

You have the right to self defense against anyone who seek to bring you under their power.

Some thoughts while reading John Locke's "Two treatises of government". Let's dive in.

".. it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction." (Chapter 3.16)

Here Locke identifies the practical necessity of evaluating and responding to threats. He is primarily considering the threats of an abusive government.

".. and hence it is that he who attempts to get another man under his power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him." (3.17)

This is real talk. Locke is using logic to identify when a person or government is at war with a person. The moment this happens is when one the aggressor seeks to make another person dependent and place then under their power.

Locke continues:

"For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom -- i.e. make me a slave." (3.18)

Locke brings pure dynamite here by invoking only his reasoning. Why would a voluntarist want complete control over you? He wouldn't. A voluntarist leaves you alone, except if you abuse children, but that's a violation of consent - only adults can fully consent.

The voluntarist therefore is not a threat to any honest, moral man. But the authoritarian, he that seeks "absolut kontroll",, that is a man who is not going to respect your liberties.

Let's return to Locke:

".. so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me." (3.18)

Locke expands:

"This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him;

Because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretense be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else.

And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e. kill him if I can; for that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it." (3.19)

My reflections.

Lockes logic is extraordinarily true when applied to Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. These policies requires the State to implement CBDC's, digital ID and social credit scores. When these are implemented, that regime is, following Lockes reasoning, in a state of war against every individual, since it seeks absolute power over every individual. Logic together with history informs us that such power will be abused -- it is at most a matter of time until it is abused.

The worst criminals are expert at gaining a high rank in a totalitarian society: they have no values and can therefore parrot every official doctrine of a regime with the convincing belief of a trained actor, regardless how immoral or absurd that doctrine is. We know therefore that the worst humans will always end up leading a totalitarian society. Therefore, a totalitarian society is by its own essence of absolute control, at war with liberty.

B-but where is uncle festerman?

Heh,I hate when you have to click every damn square to prove your non-botnicity.

Behind the green mask of climate change.

No.

😄😅

If Superman was a hero of the people.