France did pretty well for themselves back in the day. They just went with the wrong coaching staff in a couple of critical games. Kinda like the British in the 1800sššš
I have been known to respond in such a manner when someone says I canāt or wonāt do something.
Thatās a little to much boom. Even for me.
nostr:nprofile1qqs9mrneedu78yetuntlc894t3p0eq7daz8k0s7k9jzfsgvd64ct8pcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uqsuamnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dshst4p32p nostr:nprofile1qqsyrr9g6k6yrsj3g8j2tprmjd4rer6puhafn2cv9pldkssuk64d9aspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kuegpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqj6cre2
Well that escalated quickly...
š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
But i dont disagree with anyting said in this thread..
Thatās what happens when engineers start bouncing ideas off each other.
Speaking of chemistry if one were particularly uncaring about innocent life thereās options. Horrific and Iām not endorsing in anyway. Thereās thousands of people out there that could do it though. Biological to. And both are only going to get easier and the number of people capable higher.
Got sulfur, wood and chicken manure? You to can make your own black powder with a little trial and error. And the right books on the subject of course.
I think all thatās happening anyway once we hit a certain point on the national debt and deficit. As far as a global power vacuum goes, this might be selfish of me but at this point Iām just worried about the 25 mile radius that is the corner of it that my family has been in for three centuries and will be in for another 300. Especially if worrying about the rest of it puts us at risk because of blow back and financial instability from the imperial infrastructure that has to he funded for that purpose.
Why would divided mean conquered? I guess given the times I need to change my profile picture from the marker of an ancestor with the same name killed during the French and Indian War to the ancestor with the same name that died in the 5th South Carolina Cavalry in 1864.
The federal government may have conquered the states attempting to leave last time. This time that would be after 50 years of deficit spending and 30 years of policing the world with a population less and less willing to die for some rich politician. I donāt think enough people have the stomach to force people to stay in and the government probably canāt afford to pay them to do it at this point. No one has the capacity to invade. Not even us if there were two continents this size with as many privately owned weapons and the same population. Even split into 2-3 countries.
I havenāt voted for president in damn near 20 years. They about to talk me into it.
If this were done by professional crews in a mass production manner in developments, we could build these at a production cost of 40-70K with say 12 base models.
A builder mark up of 25% would put them delivered at 50-88K. Make the avg lot size .25 acre - .5 acre and you could still deliver them with land in many areas for sub 100K all in.
Why can't that happen, one word answer, GOVERNMENT. Who claims to want to solve problems like poverty and homelessness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ksSj8UAFE4
#grownostr
Hmm. Iām looking at building something after I pay off my credit cards, I know I know, hopefully by the end of the year. Sooner if the government would stop taxing the hell out of all the overtime Iām putting in at the plant.
Thatās engineers for you. I shouldnāt talk my ability to zap comments is still in a state of disrepair.
āThe piper has to be paid.ā
I think thatās the important conclusion that nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl fails to make. I still pay a price to protect myself from violent people even with the existence of the state. But when the state doesnāt exist, the price I pay is cheaper. Why? Because 40% of my wealth is not extorted by the state, I have one less violent entity to deal with (the state), and the free market competes to provide me the best service at the cheapest cost (the opposite of the state). We also all pay a price in avoiding the violence of the state. People use privacy tools to avoid being spied on by dangerous people. Most of the time, it is the state doing the spying as Edward Snowden has shown us. People setup alarm systems in their homes and put steering wheel locks on their cars for a reason. Banks hire private security to transport their money not cops. Concerts and music festivals hire private security not cops. When you go to mall youāll private security driving around keeping everything safe. And the biggest one is your neighborhood. Most people do their best to live in safe neighborhoods to avoid violent people. Libertarianism doesnāt stop violent people from attacking you and it never claims to do so. But everyone is already doing countless different things trying to protect themselves from violent people all the time. Libertarianism is just an ethical system based on the simple non aggression principle. There will be violent people but there will also be solutions to dealing with these violent people on the free market. The free market will always provide better solutions to problems than a compulsory state can provide. This is a fact. When you accept this fact, everything you believe a state is good for is easily replaced by a superior and cheaper service in the free market.
Going back to your example from before about property disputes. When you accept the premise that a free market always provides better solutions than a state, it becomes clear that arbitration becomes the go to for such disputes. In fact, most disputes over property rights today are resolved outside of the state by independent arbitrators because they are more efficient. If the individual fails to accept the ruling of the arbitration, he can appeal to another arbitrator. He can continue appealing until he runs out of money. Or if he chooses to ignore arbitration, you can hire security and protection yourself. You can provide the rulings of these arbitrations to the agency because they donāt want to damage their own reputation by wrongfully killing the owner of the actual property. Notice the difference here with the state. The agency cares about its reputation and does extra due diligence to make sure not to wrongfully harm someone. In the current system, cops kill people all the time and the state doesnāt receive any consequences. The state doesnāt lose customers over their mistakes. What about the other personās security agency? Wouldnāt they battle with yours? No because the false owner of the propertyās security agency also has a reputation they need to preserve and they donāt want to waste unnecessary resources (e.g. lives of their men, ammunition).
One flaw that people immediately point out is that these entities function like a state and therefore will eventually centralize power and act as a state. But this ignores the fact that the free market always competes with the shortcomings of other businesses. If any of these services try to abuse their customers, an opportunity for a new service to step in and take those customers has just opened up. The best checks and balances for a society come from the natural functions of the free market.
Couple things. Some of us wonāt have security agencies. At least at anything beyond a basic tier. Thereās other options. For some of us anyway. I got thousands of relatives in this county and the adjacent one. Call it a 50 mile radius. Weāve all got weapons. That can be a ready built equivalent for those eligible for membership but one based on the honor system. Settling it in court also assumes both parties, whom presumably think they are in the right, are willing to accept part of the whole as a compromise or abide by a ruling against them when no one can really intimidate them into it. It also assumes they value giving up what they see as their legitimate claim over spilling blood. Small stuff? Sure. Big stuff? How much blood we talking? How much of it is on the other side? How much is on your side? What are your chances of victory? Those conflicts happened all throughout history in the absence of a state. Maybe they donāt if we get rid of the state but I wouldnāt count on it.
I was talking more about paying the piper in terms of the blood on oneās hands. Government advocates being culpable for everything the government does to keep order. Anarchists like myself being on the hook morally for things like duels and feuds that might very well be inevitable under our preferred system when we could prevent them by exercising violence against everyone on a lesser scale constantly to prevent large flare ups here in there by having an organized force with an effective monopoly on force. Us anarchists making the decision that a certain amount of blood being spilled in disputes where both parties think they are in the right and have sufficient force projection to prevail flare up as the cost of our system being in place. Just like statists should accept the moral negatives of the state as the cost of implementing a system that puts the kybosh on those flare ups.
Regarding the mental illness, Iām drawing a blank on the solution. I guess itās like addiction. Be there to help people when they are ready but the amount of resources including time and energy you are willing to sink into it will depend on how close they are to you or how much of an impact they have on your life. In this case it also means setting up your life so that things you canāt change affect your life as little as possible.
I actually can think of a couple of āsolutionsā that might work. I donāt have the stomach or ethics to implement any of them and would consider the cure worse than the disease at worst and a Pyrrhic victory at best.
I wish I could find it on YouTube now but years ago I watched a video of a man and woman in public taking turns being abusive to each other to see how many people intervened. The difference was night and day. Their colleagues even stopped people that passed by and talked to them. One of the guys they stopped who walked by the woman being abusive to the man was an off duty cop and even said he would have stopped if it had been the man acting the same way to the woman.
People seem to have a tendency to infer motives to why people do or donāt do things. Are people giving someone a pass based on gender, either way, or are they giving a pass they would give to someone of either gender. Is it because they donāt believe the other person for reasons that have nothing to do with the relative genders?
Itās like all the culture war stuff. If you think everyone is looking at world a certain way youāll find plenty of examples that are false positives.
In the absence of a state which completely changes the equation because people canāt contract their violence out to the state? Dunno. Some people would likely be more violent. Once those people are likely killed, they likely wonāt be jailed which is a continuous drain on resources that is less likely to occur in the absence of taxation, the violence drops off. Thatās the problem. We donāt see the violence now because itās all one sided and we call it things like taxation.
In the absence of a state you have to respond to all sorts of things that not responding to now is an option. If you look like a coward thatās a giant come fuck with me sign. So the answer is likely in some ways more violence and in some ways less.
If weāre talking about in the presence of a state the violence is spread out. The state handles it all and has enough power that most people are forced into compliance which is violence when used in a way that would be violent if done by other people. Taxes. Fines for things like allowing smoking in your restaurant. People that support having that state as the alternative to an anarchy get to own all that though as the cost of doing business. Whether they work for the government or not. None of us get out clean. Whatever the system the piper has to be paid.
Depends on the circumstances. And the individual. Some will be. Some wonāt be. That is different people will have different thresholds on when itās not worth exercising violence to defend themselves. I canāt answer that question for anyone but me. Iād generally be more inclined because itās less likely a group would have sufficient power to make resistance to their aggression futile.
Iād have the same right to use violence to stop someone stealing an apple from my tree if I catch them at it as I would to use it to stop them if I caught them at digging up the gold that is my lifeās savings buried under that same apple tree. In one case I probably wonāt consider it worth it. In the other? Depends on if Iām armed.
A system with a state is inherently violent. A state is merely an organization with sufficient means of violence that no one challenges them. Itās just not worth it. Until it is.
In the absence of a state each individual/group gets to decide when it is or is not worth it for themselves. And in the absence of the state would have all the weapons they want and likely be more skilled in the use of them than is the norm under the jurisdiction of a state that has a functional monopoly on violence.