I also agree with that. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just saying we're all responsible for the situation we're in. In other words, my personal character flaws are a microcosm of the flaws of my government. I can't expect my government to be fiscally responsible if I don't make that a priority. It's exactly what bitcoiners are good at pointing out, phrased differently.
I honestly can't answer that question, tariffs seem problematic for sure, and bonds are if not evil at least central to the banking system we're dealing with today.
It's a funny dilemma as a Christian, because the real ideal is absolute benevolent authority. But that's not attainable by humanity, so the next best thing is distribution of power through incentives. It's not that I don't wish ancap were possible, I just don't think it is because authority and power are baked in to the pie, and the only one who can fill that vacuum is Jesus.
As for why people can't just choose to support organizations that serve them, that can work for some things (courts and roads, maybe), but for others in which the good is necessarily collective (e.g. national defense), you can't avoid a tragedy of the commons. The atomic individualistic framework ancap assumes just doesn't fit how the world works.
"Forced funding" is not legitimate — I oppose property, sales, capital gains, and income taxes. The US was originally funded through tariffs on international trade and sovereign bonds. I don't know if this is exactly right, and I'm no fan of Hamilton, but it's categorically different from what we think of as taxes today. In the future, you could have a sovereign endowment of some kind, maybe bitcoin based, on which the government would subsist.
100% agreed, be the change you want to see in the world.
I'm also optimistic about the tools, just not so optimistic that I think power can be perfectly distributed or discarded through their use. Which is why I'm a minarchist — there needs to be a legitimate locus of power, or else there will be an illegitimate locus of power.
Freedom technology, constitutions, liberal arts education, cultural cohesion, and moral norms are all a part of restraining growing governments. In the end though, I'm pessimistic that we can entirely solve that problem. To think that after 6,000 years of human history we can figure out how to keep power from consolidating purely through technique seems naive to me. Governments grow because power and authority are essential realities of human society, and governments collapse because human competency and benevolence doesn't scale.
A beautiful articulation of what I hope nostr can accomplish.
What is that?
How do we get to voluntaryism without exercising power? I'm a minarchist, I don't think ancap is coherent.
Here's a more thorough explanation of my thought:
I would say more character than ideas, but yeah, the two are related
Can one not pay taxes? Sure, we're coerced to do so, but what's stopping you from exercising your liberty withhold payment, and face the the consequences? Your acquiescence to their superior power. That willingness to be subservient is a national character thing. If we as a people simply didn't tolerate tyranny, there would be no tyranny.
I had this thought this morning listening to the podcast linked below, where Peter describes the entrepreneurialism of the Taiwanese. They don't tolerate economic repression, and so it isn't implemented. This used to be the case in the US, but certainly isn't anymore, in general we now do all we can to comply with whatever arbitrary rules are assigned.
The state exists at the implicit consent of the governed. I don't mean this in the sense of social contract theory (which is bunk), but because short of a theoretical technology-enforced tyranny, the government is always vulnerable to reform or revolution, however absolute its nominal powers.
The state is also comprised of the governed. This isn't always or completely true, as in foreign occupation or deep class divides, but Sherrifs, IRS agents, bureaucrats, and voters are all members of the nation first, and members of the ruling class second. The character flaws inherent in these people that cause them to consent explicitly to their government are a result of the national character. Russians take bribes, therefore the government rules by bribes. Americans have become lazy and complacent, therefore the government rules by inertia.
This isn't how it has to be, but it is how it is because of the ones with agency — us (whatever historical circumstances we could also blam). Believing in the tenets of anarcho capitalism does not make the described utopia materialize without the courageous and self-sacrificial exercise of personal agency in the situation we currently find ourselves.
Which is why we're on nostr 😉
For people interested in individual sovereignty, people don't seem to like taking responsibility for the state of their government.
I'm not saying corruption isn't real, but it's up to the people to correct a government when it's no longer representative.
nostr:note1gw4ecn0cjtlxudawh95ef77xjmfahrmfz4rufzzz27ts303kpqcs9wqhmc
I'm still alive. Wasted some time trying to rewrite Iris from scratch. Now working iteratively from the old codebase.
New version at https://beta.iris.to/ has Vite build tools and Tailwind CSS, so it's easier to develop going forward. Almost ready to deploy, then back to sirius business I hope. Contributions welcome.
Now heading to Nummirock to enjoy the midsummer 😎
Oof, sorry to hear it, re-writes are hard
A government is a mirror of its people. Every elected or unelected official is also a citizen of his country. If you have a bad government, that is a reflection on the people it governs.
Not in the US, but that is chilling
Same! Twitter threads are so weird.
I feel your pain
Pretty much everything you need to know is in the link below. Also see NIP-32, newly merged.
https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Acoracle-social%2Fcoracle%20review%2Frelay&type=code