tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post1384548132945698928..comments2024-03-22T17:43:18.211-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Conclusion…bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-49788751772939645642018-10-28T12:19:31.977-07:002018-10-28T12:19:31.977-07:00Hi ATL,
In no particular order:
"Any attemp...Hi ATL,<br /><br />In no particular order:<br /><br /><i>"Any attempt to attack their power base by giving the state more authority will end badly."</i><br /><br />Wholly agreed. Just to be sure: this is a critique of the leftist/statist position, not mine.<br /><br />What I'm saying is that freedom loving folk need to attack both. What I'm seeing more often than not, is libertarians focussing almost exclusively on the State. This partial blind spot, I find, is cause for concern.<br /><br /><i>"Yes, but don't these globalists require state power to keep building their wealth through central bank inflation and corporate protectionism?"</i><br /><br />In my book, a <i>"yes, but"</i> is almost a <i>"no"</i>. But hey.. here's where we agree, at least in part if you'd replace wealth by <i>control</i>. I really don't think that beyond the umpteenth billion, wealth is a big concern any longer. I agree that the globalist household brands have profited tremendously from the corporatist scheme still firmly in place today. But with that being true, what still concerns me is the prospect that there may come a point where they no longer need state power to carry out their plans for global control. As I said, states are being dismantled as we type, and it's not libertarians doing any of the dismantling.<br /><br />As to your remarks about states being vastly more powerful, I point to phenomena like the "Arab Spring" and all of these regime changing colour "revolutions," driven - at least in part - by stateless globalist NGOs. This is not to deny state power, just pointing out the bigger picture, and other places where power is concentrated at the cost of freedom. For it is the concentration of Power imo that libertarians should fight, not just power concentrated in the State.<br /><br /><i>"All I know is that Texas seceding from the US will be a big win for liberty"</i><br /><br />Hear hear. If any state should be dismantled first, it should be the US in my opinion. To the benefit of the world in general (less neocon wars) and the American nation in particular.<br /><br />So how's that Texit blog developing?<br /><br />Best from Amsterdam,<br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38360931858639073292018-10-28T11:19:44.922-07:002018-10-28T11:19:44.922-07:00Seem to have missed this one, but for the record:
...Seem to have missed this one, but for the record:<br /><br /><i>"Regarding decentralization, libertarians in the west have great news on this front: [...] the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands.."</i><br /><br />Three cheers if it weren't for Geert Wilders' party being an anti-Islam party first and foremost, and a staged/controlled one at that. Sorry, but no great decentralization news from Holland, sad to say.<br /><br />-SagAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-91695495650714223862018-10-26T06:16:36.285-07:002018-10-26T06:16:36.285-07:00BM: I think that there is a better than 50% chance...BM: I think that there is a better than 50% chance that technology makes government superfluous, but I have not said that I (or anybody) might like the result!<br /><br />I am -at times- rather black pilled on the (ultimate) future of humanity. And technology is a pretty big part of that.<br /><br />At other times I have a little hope...Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-88188189010950838592018-10-26T04:38:39.469-07:002018-10-26T04:38:39.469-07:00"...technology may advance to the point where..."...technology may advance to the point where it makes government superfluous. Which is something that is entirely possible imo."<br /><br />Of course it is possible. But we see that it is also used as a tool of repression - as has been true of this double-edged sword of technology for eternity.<br /><br />"How many divisions does technology have?"<br /><br />To make government (as we define the term today) superfluous will not happen due to technology but will come only when people decide it is superfluous and act accordingly.<br /><br />A good start would be to quit cheering and instead start booing when the F-16s fly overhead before a football game. In other words, we have a long way to go.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73945025310749252122018-10-26T01:02:51.467-07:002018-10-26T01:02:51.467-07:00Victor: If I understood that correctly, I think yo...Victor: If I understood that correctly, I think you should drop the term AI and replace it with 'technology'. It seems to me that you are saying is that technology may advance to the point where it makes government superfluous. Which is something that is entirely possible imo. But appealing to an implementation detail like 'parallel AI' does not make sense and -imo- just confuses the issue. (Seems like an appeal to 'magic' to me)Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-43374476976120854412018-10-25T08:25:13.940-07:002018-10-25T08:25:13.940-07:00What I'm keen to suggest is that it will be ap...What I'm keen to suggest is that it will be applied AI, rather than say philosophical theorizing, which will act as the basis for a transformation from the political to the consumer control of society. I think GPS / driver-less car technology is a great example of how this will work. In the US there are some 100,000,000 traffic stops per year. The driverless car eliminates the traffic stop and thereby eliminates the way in which most Americans interact with the state vis a vis the states armed enforcement caste. The traffic court is eliminated as well - an entity most Americans regard as little more than a shakedown operation. I mentioned blockchain based property titling previously because it similarly acts to eliminate a huge chunk of state bureaucracy and attendant government legal proceedings. A hybrid 'smart contract' is emerging which combines AI and blockchain - a trend which will further insulate economic activity from the intervention of state courts. Now I'm not advocating anything as grandiose or 'recherche' as Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist Movement. In fact I'm very apprehensive about 'public intellectuals' wielding power. Rather I would say that AI processes, for lack of a better term, will spontaneously emerge and which like language have no author. Furthermore these authorless AI processes intended merely as a navigational aid in the case of GPS, nevertheless have far reaching consequences which tend toward the elimination of the state and of political power. It is along this dimension that I am optimistic about AI - and whether intended or not - being able to shape and deliver a libertarian society. Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985538497409080098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-61298490571380850822018-10-24T20:41:54.981-07:002018-10-24T20:41:54.981-07:00Sorry to trouble you, Bionic, but I forgot to wri...Sorry to trouble you, Bionic, but I forgot to write "con't" on the first part of my comment. The last part begins with the sentence, "The other reason is that libs are too polite to say that..." Would you please put them in the correct order if the are reversed? jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09018815829884467223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-60163124233369550772018-10-24T20:35:04.106-07:002018-10-24T20:35:04.106-07:00The other reason is that libs are too polite to sa...The other reason is that libs are too polite to say that the only people around here that are suppressin’, stealin’ and stereotypin’ are thieving lefty bigots. Even though libs could, likely would, phrase that politely. Because libs don’t, the alt.right is attracting libs because they say just that, often more impolitely. <br /> <br />I am also saying that libs cannot get their act together to oppose leftism, because they cannot explain that the origin of human action is not value choices, because they, as do leftists, as do most people, conflate values and action, as values originated human action. However that is not true, rather the origin of human action is _a choice of action in physical pursuit of values_, which is necessarily cooperation or aggression, criminal or politicized, as the only two forms of social interaction available to get whatever one wants from whoever has it. <br /><br />The last paragraph was condensed into three paragraphs in my reply to ATL, (October 18, 2018 at 8:51 PM, on the page entitled “Is Libertarianism Sufficient for Liberty.”)<br /><br />So the answer to whence sprang leftism, is that it’s been around since it was first recorded as “tribalism.” Always as values originated human action, with the idea of a superior value, that of the abstracts, tribe, country, nation, race, gender, etc. conflated with political action, resulting in endless hostility and violence over which superior abstract must suppress which inferior abstracts to save civilization from the barbarian hordes. The results are that political leadership gets into a tiff with other leadership and sends their soldiers off to war to settle it “for the good of the tribe, country, race, etc.” The two sides try to annihilate each other, and the side with the most survivors gets drunk and rapes all the women. Rinse and repeat. <br /><br />Would you please confirm or deny what I have gotten wrong about either you in particular, or values or politics in general? And please be aware that I, as are you and the rest of your commenters, am in search of a mutual give and take discussion in which accurate thought is the winner, not any person, then carried forward as the sociopolitical action necessary to libertarian ends. <br /> jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09018815829884467223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-19621488333418365202018-10-24T20:34:16.883-07:002018-10-24T20:34:16.883-07:00Bionic, Honestly as short as I could get it and st...Bionic, Honestly as short as I could get it and still get it all in. It occurred to me, you might be thinking I am using what I call “philosobabble” as a self enhancing sabotage of your blog’s credibility, so decided to use familiar terms. Just failed to consider these terms wouldn’t be familiar to many others. <br /><br />So, I am dividing politics into “libs,” including this blog and its commenters and “leftists, as there is no such creature as a “left libertarian.” <br /><br />Christian, Western libs’ values hierarchy is the Christian God, His commandments, Jesus, then Western cultural traditions as their highest values, respectively. They recognize that “country” is an abstract, often thought to be a higher value than God and cultural traditions. Libs recognize that “country” is an abstract thought, of no physically existing value to anyone, but is often mentally hardened into a universally superior value, then used by political power seekers to validate any kind and degree of exploitation as necessary for the “good of the country.” <br /><br />Libs, including you folks, are not demanding either a theocracy or politically imposed monoculture. Instead libs want freedom from both, for those of every religion and culture. This is also freedom from leftist politicized Christian persecution and politically enforced favoritism/discrimination of multiculturalism, as well as the incessant leftist social demonization of both Christianity and Western culture. The results of lib _political action_ is self segregated values oriented communities, defended rather than prohibited, because values oriented self segregation is not social hostility, but harmony. <br /><br />Libs separate both cultural traditions and religions from political action, consciously or not, realizing that neither of these two _values_ are oppressive, just as sharing a Thanksgiving dinner or a prayer are not oppressive. Leftists, including the pseudo-libertarian left, conflate political action with the twin stereotypes of non-existent oppressors/victims, so as to claim non-existent political exploitation has created a non-existent inequality in social status and financial disparity, that must be equalized with enforced redistribution of incomes and opportunities from oppressors to victims and enforced integration. Because stereotypes do not exist, the _political action_ enriches some individuals who suffered no oppression, with the profits and opportunities of other individuals who oppressed no one. This arouses massive hostility over class redistribution and leftist identity politics, as the stereotypes of classes, cultures, races, genders, etc. neither exist, nor are identities, nor knowledge of who oppressed whom and who oppressed no one. <br /><br />_I_ am saying there are two reasons the left now owns the Libertarian Party:<br /><br />One is that libs cannot bring themselves to murmur the word “stereotype” and neither leftists nor libs understand the synonymous phrase, “categorized sets of values reified into opposing, collectively determined groups of collectively acting people.” <br />jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09018815829884467223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-62193124485518005702018-10-24T10:37:30.338-07:002018-10-24T10:37:30.338-07:00Victor,
"My hope is that distributed paralle...Victor,<br /><br />"My hope is that distributed parallel AI can take over and administer this planning aspect."<br /><br />Why the emphasis on AI? Why can't it just be "I" as in you and I? Why does the introduction of a machine imply a better solution to the problem of economic forecasting?<br /><br />"The AI administered corporation represents a pro consumer challenge to the globalist model."<br /><br />What if it's the globalists agenda that the AI pursues? AI will undoubtedly be developed by engineers funded by these deep pockets either indirectly through the state or directly through a private corporation. Either AI will 1.) be developed to achieve the specific ends of its designers, undoubtedly funded and directed by the globalist cabal, or 2.) it will break free of any designed parameters, attain consciousness, and pursue ends of its own choice. In neither case can you assume that it will serve customers any more justly than do the globalists.<br /><br />Ethics<br /><br />A machine is only as ethical as its creators intended it to be, and if it is truly intelligent and can learn and adopt behaviors the creators did not intend, then it can be just as unethical as the worst of us. Just as in the Isaac Asimov book "I Robot," AI can have unintended consequences even if it is bound by the "Three Laws of Robotics." The AI in this story turned into the worst sort of totalitarian 'do-gooder,' or as Isabel Paterson phrased it, "the humanitarian with the guillotine." <br /><br />Economics<br /><br />Forecasting human action is impossible unless you override free will with totalitarian oppression and control, and even then you run into all sorts of feedback problems and unforeseen consequences: diminishing living standards, starvation, war, insurrection, mutiny, emigration, nullification, revolution, etc. AI won't be able to do this any better or more ethical than people can. Like being a musician, there are scientific or mathematical aspects of being an entrepreneur, but much of an entrepreneur's success depends on the artistry of his craft - in anticipating the free decisions of consumers, organizing the factors of production and delivering products they will enjoy and purchase.<br /><br />In order to be an entrepreneur, you need to anticipate the agency of others. To anticipate the agency of others, agency is required. To have agency is to have free will. Free will needs moral guidance. Moral guidance has historically been best offered by religion. Will AI's have religion? I'd rather put my faith in humans than machines. Humans were made by the Master of all creation; machines are made by amateur and myopic tinkerers in comparison.<br /><br />P.S. Bitcoin, and blockchain technology in general, is very interesting, because far from being anonymous, it uses a distributed track record of all transactions as its primary security feature. This points back to the idea that freedom and anonymity do not go hand in hand. Anonymity in today's world only has elevated value because of the state. To defy the state, it's often best to remain anonymous, but anonymity brings with it many other problems, not least of which is increased social degeneracy. In the free world, 'onymity' (it's a word!) and the groups certifying your name, character, and history will become the primary tools of social and political regulation.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-59879671664945557702018-10-24T08:27:48.692-07:002018-10-24T08:27:48.692-07:00Victor, are you suggesting something like the Zeit...Victor, are you suggesting something like the Zeitgeist movement?<br /><br />Also, what kind of AI are you proposing? There are many flavours, and depending on the definition it may not even exist yet.<br /><br />I remember that in the late 80's AI was expected 'soon'. They even suggested that SW engineering could be a bad career choice!<br /><br />All in all, your AI vision presupposed that demand can be modelled. But economics is a chaos "science" and it is impossible to model. I would suggest the book "Debunking Economics" from Steve Keen. (There are no such things as a demand curve or supply curve)Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16461088584374129252018-10-23T08:55:41.165-07:002018-10-23T08:55:41.165-07:00Totally agree Texas. And thanks for correcting my ...Totally agree Texas. And thanks for correcting my errant thinking on AI and economics. What I was trying to think about was the situation once the entrepreneur 'reads' the consumer. I think once the entrepreneur figures out what the consumer wants, the rest is a planning problem. My hope is that distributed parallel AI can take over and administer this planning aspect. AI coordinates the business processes necessary to produce what the entrepreneur has divined about the consumer. This allows for a centrality of goals but a distributed decentralized means to attain them. Now it is often said of roboticized industries that robots never get tired. AI administration of corporate activities will similarly eliminate vindictive treatment at the hands of imperious corporate bureaucrats. Corporate activities will become completely decentralized and distributed across the world while they coordinate and integrate them subject always to the entrepreneurs singular vision. And its not inconceivable that in time AI itself comes to play the role of the entrepreneur. Now the present widespread transnational corporation only multiplies and intensifies under such AI administration - but, and it cannot be overstated, to the benefit of the consumer, not the benefit of the owner as is the case in the present 'globalist' scheme. The globalist uses the present politically controlled legal system to gain an advantage. The AI administered corporation represents a pro consumer challenge to the globalist model. Once the consumer sufficiently grasps the superiority of the distributed parallel AI corporate governance, the present globalist model will be driven from the marketplace which in the endpoint means all political control will be driven from the marketplace. Politically contrived and enforced boundaries and borders will give way to free market free enterprise based borders which create a true economic good and for which their is real consumer demand. In this view AI plays a liberating role and the basis for a transition to libertarian society. <br />Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985538497409080098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-70399835342697401882018-10-22T07:20:13.800-07:002018-10-22T07:20:13.800-07:00Victor,
To think some central algorithm can plan ...Victor,<br /><br />To think some central algorithm can plan an economy where the bureaucrats have failed is to misunderstand Mises' critique of socialism.<br /><br />You have to have private ownership of resources and allow these private owners to trade based on voluntary mutual appraisal of the ordinal (ranked) value of one another's present and future goods with the help of a currency (or currencies) unmolested by the state. This is the only way we get meaningful prices which reflect and satisfy the needs of the complex interconnected web of evaluations and transactions that comprise a capitalist economy.<br /><br />It's a prices problem, not an information problem as Hayek has incorrectly proposed.<br /><br />"But to Mises the central problem is not "knowledge." He explicitly points out that even if the socialist planners knew perfectly, and eagerly wished to satisfy, the value priorities of the consumers, and even if the planners enjoyed a perfect knowledge of all resources and all technologies, they still would not be able to calculate, for lack of a price system of the means of production. The problem is not knowledge, then, but calculability. As Professor Salerno points out, the knowledge conveyed by present-or immediate "past"-prices is consumer valuations, technologies, supplies, etc. of the immediate or recent past. But what acting man is interested in, in committing resources into production and sale, is future prices, and the present committing of resources is accomplished by the entrepreneur, whose function is to appraise — to anticipate — future prices, and to allocate resources accordingly. It is precisely this central and vital role of the appraising entrepreneur, driven by the quest for profits and the avoidance of losses, that cannot be fulfilled by the socialist planning board, for lack of a market in the means of production. Without such a market, there are no genuine money prices and therefore no means for the entrepreneur to calculate and appraise in cardinal monetary terms." - Rothbard, <a href="https://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited" rel="nofollow">The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revistited</a><br /><br />Also, blockchain technology doesn't count as AI.<br /><br />"This libertarian society will not arise out of the spectacle of philosophical debate..."<br /><br />You're probably correct here. As BM has stated, it will take cultural leaders, and specifically Christian ones, to accomplish this.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-78525684638561116552018-10-21T17:40:11.595-07:002018-10-21T17:40:11.595-07:00Jeff, we each leave this conversation with somethi...Jeff, we each leave this conversation with something to think about. In other words, a very good conversation. Thank you.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33019429016222609692018-10-21T11:56:26.284-07:002018-10-21T11:56:26.284-07:00Salvation by algorithm.
As Stalin said, in anti...Salvation by algorithm. <br /><br />As Stalin said, in anticipation of your faith, "How many divisions does the algorithm have?"<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-83320231134503663672018-10-21T11:52:37.713-07:002018-10-21T11:52:37.713-07:00jr, leftism did not spring up from whole cloth, no...jr, leftism did not spring up from whole cloth, nor was it created by God from nothing on the sixth day.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-41072528849100930892018-10-20T18:48:39.915-07:002018-10-20T18:48:39.915-07:00BM, you do make a good point. I need to think abou...BM, you do make a good point. I need to think about this more. I have not been expecting peaceful decentralization at all (nor do I now), so have also not been thinking about what one would look like in today's world.<br /><br />ATL: "You bring up a good point about outside (CIA, Soros, etc.) agitation. We should not be thrilled about civil or secessionary wars funded by outside groups like Soros or the USG, but even breakups like these may end up contributing toward liberty in the long run. Due to the nature of the short run consequences, however, I don't believe we should support these on any level. I don't know though, it seems like there could be exceptions."<br /><br />This is my main problem with the idea of support. What makes me different than Soros? I do like cheering them on, but providing material support will almost always be outside the boundaries of my personal brand of Christianity. For me, the means and the ends are the same from a moral perspective.<br /><br />Thanks for the links. I haven't read McMacken's or Kohr's, and it's been a few years since I've seen the others. Now I have something to do tomorrow besides laundry : ) <br /><br /> Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-14981450993161084982018-10-20T12:03:25.628-07:002018-10-20T12:03:25.628-07:00Mises described the 'planning problem' arg...Mises described the 'planning problem' arguing the case for the superiority of the free market / price mechanism over central planning. Hayek produced the mathematical proof for it. Yet a new form of central planning arises vis a vis massively parallel massively distributed AI planning.<br />The contribution of Austrians to this emerging system will be to ensure that its optimization algorithms work exclusively on behalf of the consumer. Not the producer. Not the worker. But entirely for the consumer’s benefit. It is at this point that all the political parties of the world tear up their charters. All the governments of the world terminate theirs. The capitol buildings are are put up for sale. The public school buildings are listed as commercial property for sale. Government courts throw away their dockets while government police departments shutter their doors because all economic planning is administered by the disinterested microcircuits of AI planning computers rather than any of the endless varieties of political malefactors having nothing but self interest at heart. <br />Blockchain based titling is already replacing cumbersome error prone government titling. Blockchain gold backed money is replacing government / fiat currency. Libertarian society will be that which remains after AI based algorithms finally replace all politically administered planning systems. <br />This libertarian society will not arise out of the spectacle of philosophical debate in which libertarians finally vanquish socialists but rather it will arise as if by stealth, unseen, and unexpectedly out of the radical massively parallel distributed technological transformation of the ‘planning function’. <br />Victorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12985538497409080098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-40309589528527110372018-10-20T11:17:12.057-07:002018-10-20T11:17:12.057-07:00“Why did the individual go from being discovered a...“Why did the individual go from being discovered and liberated to irrelevant and enslaved…the lack of tension between church and king contributed – with the king eventually taking monopoly power. “ Bionic<br /><br />Because the church has only the power of moral instruction, while kings, presidents and politicians all have the superior power of political force? Perhaps when a majority of churches agreed with leftists, that regulatory market interference, weapons enforced foreign “salvation,” legal discrimination, freedom, taxation, charity and justice were all synonymous, today’s draconian political and social control became inevitable?<br /><br />I wish I could encourage you during your interim, to consider that the underlying cause of this destruction of civilized behavior is _exclusively_ leftist politics; it's political entitlements erasing the observable, absolute line between aggressive theft and cooperative charity/economic exchange. Leftism is responsible for what is now global exploitation and social hostility; its impossible attempt to forcibly equalize the finances and social status of that which does not exist. These are the leftist abstract conceptualizations of collective action, reified into concretely existing human oppressors/victims; those of classes, races, males/females, cultures, religions, homo/hetero lifestyles. Because this cannot succeed, but are USA political practices, the results are today’s circumstances; a progressively increasing degree of enforced conformity, causing the same increasing degree of social/political hostility. But these are the results of collectivism, not unpracticed individualism. <br /><br />The propaganda encourages the gullible to use criminal theft and drug deals to supplement tax funded social services, believing themselves entitled to “steal from the rich, for the benefit of the poor;” the rich being anyone with more than possessed by self, including other poor people. The result is violent no-go urban centers in every city and increasing rural criminality; not caused by the unpracticed mutually cooperative economics and social freedom of individualism, also libertarianism. Rather these results are those of a numerical majority supportive of leftism's collectivist politics, indoctrinated with its propaganda, against which no church, cultural value nor political opposition can stand, nor ever did. The mutually caring social civility, resulting from politically protected individual freedom, exactly those of Western culture and Christianity, is now gone; both viciously condemned where ever not legally prohibited. jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09018815829884467223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-77787900300386398112018-10-20T05:28:07.330-07:002018-10-20T05:28:07.330-07:00Jeff, now I am confused. Just as with the war exa...Jeff, now I am confused. Just as with the war examples you offered, how would you know that a "mass uprising" is organic – a true representation of the desires of the local population? You see a mass uprising - do you support it or not? What if the majority of your neighbors do not support it? What if it is a false flag, created by a state actor - internal or external - to make an excuse for a government crackdown? How do you decide? How do you answer each of these questions with any certainty?<br /><br />Further, how do you see a mass uprising successfully moving a country toward liberty - "peacefully"? There was only one example perhaps since the Enlightenment or even Reformation of which I am aware - the disbanding of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Communist countries.<br /><br />Even this wasn't "peaceful" (see the uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia during the earlier years of the Cold War) until the Soviet government knew that it was completely hopeless. How many centuries from now do you see the economic situation in the United States being comparably hopeless? Because until then, the weapons they use against us (military, technology/spying, taxing) won't disappear.<br /><br />In other words, a peaceful mass uprising might be what you “prefer,” but I believe you run harder into the wall of reality than do I – and since we began this discussion, I have modified the placement of my wall.<br /><br />You add “if possible.” So you would take a violent uprising if necessary? Now I am totally confused. As to the collective middle finger – if you are waiting for something approaching 100% of the population (the collective) to have the same political desires as you, you will be waiting a 1000 lifetimes – just look around you today and tell me if you think this is possible anytime soon. <br /><br />Look, I am not trying to be a jerk – I am truly confused by your position.<br /><br />In any case, when I have referred to voting, I have stated that it is peaceful *in the context of today's world.* *Relative to every other choice available to us, there is no more peaceful method.* Certainly less blood will be shed than in a mass uprising, peaceful or not.<br /><br />It worked for Brexit, it would have worked in Catalonia had force not been used by the federal government to crush the “peaceful” uprising. It is working with the rise of the various alternative political parties – and even Trump – as I mentioned in this piece.<br /><br />The economics of the west – especially, at the moment, the EU – will force this transition. It may come through the ballot sooner, or it may come through economic reality later. We are getting decentralization in this relatively peaceful manner.<br /><br />I am not going to look a gift-horse in the mouth.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80608892597634363062018-10-19T19:17:04.257-07:002018-10-19T19:17:04.257-07:00"I was thinking of the reality that voting is..."I was thinking of the reality that voting is the only peaceful means such a desire can be expressed in the west; these, I believe, should always be supported."<br /><br />I don't generally consider voting to be a peaceful means of settling much of anything. Personally, I would prefer a mass uprising, peaceful if possible, the people giving the PTB a collective middle finger. <br /><br />Voting implies the ones printing the ballot, and the ones counting the votes, and the ones enforcing the results are all relatively fair minded. My experience and admittedly limited knowledge of history tells me that doesn't happen, ever.<br /><br /> Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14010513213569295642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-5926716054023221432018-10-19T16:02:40.466-07:002018-10-19T16:02:40.466-07:00Eric, you are very kind. Thank you.Eric, you are very kind. Thank you.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-88726841435266885622018-10-19T15:56:31.255-07:002018-10-19T15:56:31.255-07:00“The human mind in its search for knowledge resort...“The human mind in its search for knowledge resorts to philosophy or theology precisely because it aims at an explanation of problems that the natural sciences cannot answer.” Mises<br /><br />(Good) Culture must fill the gaps. You, Mr. Mosquito, are doing a hell of a job helping this simple-minded man understand that. Thank you!<br /><br />Your blog is doing as much as Mises’ Seminars.Eric Morrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-37866559603578829152018-10-19T14:39:55.367-07:002018-10-19T14:39:55.367-07:00Sag,
Well said. I concede that I did not characte...Sag,<br /><br />Well said. I concede that I did not characterize your views in a fair manner, and I apologize. It was just laziness on my part.<br /><br />" the "cure" of a globalist order is far worse and no boon to liberty, me thinks."<br /><br />Yes, but don't these globalists require state power to keep building their wealth through central bank inflation and corporate protectionism? Don't they need massive state power to protect their investments all over the world? If we scale back states, especially the American State, this will hurt their portfolios immensely.<br /><br />I agree with you, however that this is a nuanced argument. Keeping the American State huge and centralized while breaking up everywhere else may pose problems for everyone's liberty.<br /><br />Leopold Kohr touches on these sorts of power imbalances (in regards to a federalist system though) in his book "The Breakdown of Nations" that I linked to elsewhere on this comment section. It may be worth it to see how he addressed this issue.<br /><br />The state created these globalist giants, and now these giants own the state. Any attempt to attack their power base by giving the state more authority will end badly. I think the only way we can defeat the globalist agenda is to secede or nullify, reduce central state budgets, reduce central state spending, get out of international governmental orgs like NATO, NAFTA, EU, and Paris Climate Accords, etc. and otherwise bring back power and authority to local levels as much as possible.<br /><br />But maybe a balance of power must be kept in mind. All I know is that Texas seceding from the US will be a big win for liberty, and that's why this is my main political prerogative.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-1330490097957088042018-10-19T11:54:57.064-07:002018-10-19T11:54:57.064-07:00Hi ATL,
Nice to hear my views described as a bit...Hi ATL, <br /><br />Nice to hear my views described as <i>a bit more nuanced</i>, albeit compared to leftist loons, but hey, it's a start ;)<br /><br />More nuanced as in completely opposed might be a better one, since, like most libertarians, I oppose the state. <br />What I did was to express my concern about libertarianism being unable to oppose globalism, even aid it. It's the globalists, not libertarians who are taking down states worldwide. Should libertarians feel relieved? Should they applaud the controlled demolition that's going on in preparation for some supra-national new order? I Dutch there's a saying about trying to drive out the devil with Beelzebub. If today's states (thinking of tiny Europe here) are our disease then the "cure" of a globalist order is far worse and no boon to liberty, me thinks.<br /><br />Btw, can you advise me on any particular "stuff" I shouldn't buy from the Soros org? Would love to use my immense power as an individual here as I'm sure many would.<br /><br />I once heard it said that increasing liberty always reduces or limits the state, but that it doesn't follow that shrinking the state always increases individual liberty. It's a bit more nuanced than this simple formula, but it serves well enough as a starting point. So feel free to portray this as <i>nuanced leftism</i>. I know you know it ain't.<br /><br />-Sag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com