LOL I once (maybe 20 years ago) took a which-founding-father-are-you? test and it gave me Thomas Paine. "You're not a leader, but people love to listen to you rant." 🤣🤣🤣
Yep, TP didn't want to be among the "ruling class" but he spoke the truth people needed to hear. A leader in thought and reason like the author of "The Freedom Scale"
The military still needs to have a centralised authority, because that's the only way to conduct strategic planning and guarantee that it's carried out effectively.
So as long as that group exists, it will be in a position to tyrranise the public. And if it doesn't exist, crime syndicates or foreign governments can invade and tyrranise the public.
Therefore, one is always at the mercy of the group with the most trust.
So, to summarise, I don't agree that principles should be considered more important than people. It is people that interpret and maintain principles.
I think the real mistake is to focus on one person at a time, who will save everyone, when we need to improve the quality of the whole population.
That means, for example, giving people a valuable education instead of indoctrinating them.
Making sure that children aren't being bullied at home and have plenty of outdoor spaces they can use.
Stopping compulsory vaccination.
Holding the media accountable for disruptive lies. At the very least I want them to publicly apologise when they are wrong. So that the people can be reminded of their failure, and will be less likely to blindly believe them in future.
To your first point, I will share what I wrote to Brian above:
"Thank you for your good question.
First reply, though, is to ask—why aren't all small states destroyed by larger powers now? If conquest is inevitable, how do any of them still exist?
We cannot credit the Pax Americana. After all, there was a time before that, and small states existed then, too.
Would small-scale conflicts still occur, in the absence of governments? Sure. But I will take those over the 400 million people governments slaughtered in wars and democides over a single century. There is only so big local conflicts can get, without the power to conscript soldiers or print money. In fact, without those, conflicts cannot get big at all.
Also, what is the incentive for individuals to fight without the state? Fights used to be between nobles and their retinues of knights, with peasants largely watching from a safe distance. Not exclusively, of course, but in various times and places, that was the case. Now, however, after the rise of the modern state and thus modern nationalism, people have been made to see as an enemy any average citizen of any country the state has told them is an enemy. In the absence of the state, that dries up too: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/do-you-hate-ivan-russian-does-he-hate-you
So all that we're left with is saying that we need the continued existence of the state in order to save us from carnage being caused by the state. I think it's time for our species to say NO to any more of that. Somehow, some way, we have to get started moving away from that."
I believe the smaller states generally existed by either being not worth the effort of invasion, or by paying protection money called a tribute.
And yes, it's true peasants didn't fight, mainly because they couldn't compete so there was no point.
But they were also raped and pillaged before, during and after these fights because they were easy targets.
That changed because the invention of the gun made peasants as effective as trained knights.
And contrary to your claim, there have been massive wars that were fought without fiat currency and without official state support.
The French and Russian revolutions were fought largely by volunteers as far as I recall.
The Russians in particular vilified mercenary behaviour.
The Crusades were fought for the Catholic church religion. And they were paid using gold.
The Islamic armies that conquered the Levant under Muhammad were originally unpaid volunteers, and in fact paid Muhammad a tax from the spoils of conquest for the glory of Allah.
Religion and ideology are common reasons for large scale conflict.
They represent a belief that fighting will benefit them somehow, because they trust some rumours, priests, or teachers. That Allah will send them to heaven, that destroying the enemy will save their children etc.
In other words, they think there will be a reward.
Money represents a promise of a reward after the fighting is done.
So the true source of all conflict is the desire for a reward.
Those are good points. I was thinking more in terms of world-scale, kill-tens-of-millions/blow-up-the-world type wars. But you are right that they can get pretty ugly even without that. So I should have been more careful/specific with my words.
On the small states thing—I am not saying they are impervious to conquest. I am, rather, saying that being a small state does not guarantee conquest. They might be left alone; adequately defend themselves against other small neighbors; make favorable alliances; offer something of value such that no one wants to invade; raise the stakes of asymmetric warfare to the point where it is not worth it; etc.
Also I want to add that if people didn't believe in the value of the promissory notes, they wouldn't die for them.
So ultimately, the key to launching enormous wars lies in corrupting the minds of the people.
And thus the defence against pointless wars is to train people to defend their minds against the assault of propaganda and lies.
This very substack and the various platforms for free speech are thus very important for the future of humanity.
I believe humans are following in the footsteps of ants. After the ancestors of wasps and ants succeeded in colonising the world, they became the greatest threat to eachother, and evolved ever greater means of control over themselves.
I suspect multiple different species of humans will likewise evolve, some being more hive minded and collectivised like ants, and the others will be like wasps, many of which remain capable of independent survival and reproduction.
I am glad we are together on this, and your challenging questions only make it stronger. Thank you.
"And thus the defence against pointless wars is to train people to defend their minds against the assault of propaganda and lies."
—Yes to this!
Re: wasps, ants, and us.
I have had similar thoughts, insofar as I am not convinced that it is necessary for us to convince everyone in a given area. We just need to convince our tribe.
I like your theory. If every human subscribed, it would work well.
In the interim, full application of the theory in one place would likely result in that place losing it autonomy by being conquered. In the absence of the US military, territorial war would still be the rule, not the exception. Thoughts?
First reply, though, is to ask—why aren't all small states destroyed by larger powers now? If conquest is inevitable, how do any of them still exist?
We cannot credit the Pax Americana. After all, there was a time before that, and small states existed then, too.
Would small-scale conflicts still occur, in the absence of governments? Sure. But I will take those over the 400 million people governments slaughtered in wars and democides over a single century. There is only so big local conflicts can get, without the power to conscript soldiers or print money. In fact, without those, conflicts cannot get big at all.
Also, what is the incentive for individuals to fight without the state? Fights used to be between nobles and their retinues of knights, with peasants largely watching from a safe distance. Not exclusively, of course, but in various times and places, that was the case. Now, however, after the rise of the modern state and thus modern nationalism, people have been made to see as an enemy any average citizen of any country the state has told them is an enemy. In the absence of the state, that dries up too: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/do-you-hate-ivan-russian-does-he-hate-you
So all that we're left with is saying that we need the continued existence of the state in order to save us from carnage being caused by the state. I think it's time for our species to say NO to any more of that. Somehow, some way, we have to get started moving away from that.
Small states are generally safe now for a couple reasons:
They are serious about their defense and have geographic help (Switzerland springs to mind).
Their security is guaranteed by other states. Generally the case in Europe and much of Asia. In Asia, only China and India realistically have the capacity to engage in military conquest. They (and the US) stand against each other. The unique thing about the US as a major power is that after becoming a major power, we no longer engaged in wars of conquest. That has provided a moral framework for other countries to ally with us to oppose nations engaged in wars of conquest (arguably Korea, definitely Kuwait).
Their neighbors are too inefficient to wage wars of conquest. Central and South America, much of Africa.
Risk/Reward not justified. Growing nations need space and more resources. For example, German population grew 15% between the end of WWI and the beginning of WWII. They have a below replacement birth rate now.
You're skipping ahead to a world where there are no governments. I'm fully aware that I can live in peace with Ivan and others that wish to be free. I'm less confident that free people with voluntary cooperation can defend against those that choose the greater security of the group. People want government (even if it's a motorcycle gang). I don't, so I can't understand them at a deep level. The motivation to fight is plunder. It's why the Vikings didn't need a draft. Perhaps I'll reconsider after I have read chapter 12 from your provided reference. I'll respond when I have. I'm open to being convinced about an alternative I had not considered.
History disputes your sanitized version of war. It was only safe for bystanders for about 200 years in European nations. Other than that, rape, enslavement, looting, indiscriminate murder and destruction were the order of the day.
Yes, Hoppe's Chapter 12 really explains well how private security agencies, aggression insurers, etc. would work in a condition of market anarchism. Add in David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" and I think you will be either convinced, or at least have a much narrower range of questions about it all.
Re: small states, sure, but there are other factors too. Small states often have something else to offer (much freer economic policies, private banking, etc.) that make others loathe to invade. Or, as you say, they are prepared to defend themselves. (Asymmetric tactics can be very effective.) Also, you mention risk-reward—I think that large states don't necessarily see the value of taking over a tiny little bit of extra land, and the damage to their reputation adds another checkmark in the risk column.
Of course, I here (in this book/plan) am not talking about small states; I am talking about a panarchic scenario in which people in existing states become a part of a transnational distributed nation. But your questions are still worth considering.
Re: the degree to which peasants were involved—I did say in "various times and places," but sure, I don't want to give the impression that I am sanitizing war. Yet, wars did not become nearly so totalizing until the rise of the modern nation state. I know that peasants often got in the way, were pillaged, conscripted, etc. throughout history. But in the modern era, it all just got bigger. ( I love this piece by Dan Sanchez on the French Revolution's effect on it all: https://fee.org/articles/how-nationalism-and-socialism-arose-from-the-french-revolution/)
Between private security, well-armed and trained individuals ready to defend what they have, the value of asymmetric tactics, the use of transnational aggression insurance/defense agencies (see Hoppe), and economic success, I think market-anarchic societies can pull it off, even in a world in which states still exist. (I also think they will be able to resist Vikings who come a-viking.)
Indeed, I am not really skipping ahead; I am looking for ways to begin the transition. Got to start somewhere!
I see a lot of flaws with overlapping responsibilities, people shirking their duty to contribute, those with the weapons taking over...
You know, the problems of the current system.
I see the second greatest problem to be of transition. Less my original thought that decreased cohesiveness would be taken advantage of by a foreign power, but that existing power structures that benefit from the status quo will not let it happen. That seems to mean a revolution or collapse is required. Do you agree, or do you believe it is possible to incrementally unwind government? I assume that comes later in your serial production of your work.
I am convinced that there is a least a potential means by which the "system" you are advocating for could function in the real world.
The greatest problem is that people don't want to be free. Worse than that, they don't want you to be free. Freedom is scary. It comes with the horror of responsibility and self-accountability. Maybe you'll succeed there. Christianity started as a handful of low status people and slaves.
All good questions. Not all of this can be known. Lately, I have begun to see a picture in my head—a flow chart of possibility-forks.
One way to break it down would be to begin, at the top level, using top-level categorizations similar to those of leftism. With leftism, they are usually called revolutionary vs. reformist. Let's call ours sudden vs. incremental.
We can envision at least two forks coming off of the sudden fork: revolution and rapid collapse. (We could add a third: sudden successful negotiation, but that seems far-fetched.)
In a later chapter, I will be laying out reasons why we should not wish for, and certainly not instigate, revolution. But sudden collapse is a plausible fork that opens up some possibilities.
On the incremental side, we certainly can imagine
—incremental opt-out (just involving oneself less and less with government)
—incremental de facto autonomy (them paying less and less attention)
—incremental negotiation for greater independence
—incremental collapse (unfunded liabilities and sovereign debt take their toll, and governments increasingly stop caring or even WANT private agencies to take over vital functions)
—incremental evolution (more and more people start realizing that government is violative of their right of consent, and all their other rights, and the weight of the argument shifts)
—patience (increasing in cohesion and simply waiting generations for a shift in circumstances or a moment to present itself)
—demographics (outbreeding them—not hard to do these days)
—growth (growing so large that we simply declare independence and there's not squat they can do about it)
—desirability/sophistication (offer/produce something rare/exclusive/desirable, so that no one dares mess with us and we can do what we want)
—incremental asymmetric strength (quietly grow in self-defense capability, raising the stakes of action against us).
—incremental market anarchism (quietly create and strengthen Hoppean/Friedmanian-style market defense agencies; use them internally until the point where they are so large that they become a military unto themselves
—proliferation (become so widely dispersed and large in number that it's like trying to destroy every ant in the world or claiming you are going to eliminate all Catholics or something—i.e., impossible and unwise to attempt)
I am still formulating this flow chart, but those are a few of the possibilities I am now toying with. Can you add (or subtract) any?
(Update:
—incremental "legal" removal of oneself from their jurisdiction (??)
A couple items to add. The most significant changes people can actively engage in now to further the cause of liberty are:
- to advocate for school choice and especially home schooling. It does no good to outbreed the communists if you turn your children over to them for instruction.
- food freedom (homesteading- either engage in or support those that do to decouple from the system where government can turn off your food supply)
These items address immediate concerns with food supply, counter the long term indoctrination of government solutions and immediately bring people face to face with immoral government behavior. Try to sell food for profit or take your kids out of the indoctrination centers and you'll discover a burning hatred for bureaucracy even if you loved government yesterday.
I personally believe the transition to a government-free world will never happen, but the compromise between your goal and the status quo is my ideal, so I'll be pulling for your success. There are plenty of other people pulling in the other direction. They don't need help. In my opinion government should be so small it matters very little. Your thoughts to this point have even made my view of minimum size even smaller. I look forward to reading more.
Brilliant Christopher. The time of the sovereign is upon us.
Amen.
An exciting future awaits us! Another step toward a better and more enlightened social environment.
💪🔥
Thanks
Thank you!
Beautiful Cristopher! Such Clarity, Energy and Vision!
Thank you!
Energy LOL. I am exhausted now!
I'm sure you are. You must be related in some way to one of my favorites: Thomas Paine.
LOL I once (maybe 20 years ago) took a which-founding-father-are-you? test and it gave me Thomas Paine. "You're not a leader, but people love to listen to you rant." 🤣🤣🤣
Funny, but so much more than that. TP's Energy/Essence Freed America.
His ideas did the trick! I am happy to play even a tiny fraction of that role.
Yep, TP didn't want to be among the "ruling class" but he spoke the truth people needed to hear. A leader in thought and reason like the author of "The Freedom Scale"
❤️
One point worth mentioning.
The military still needs to have a centralised authority, because that's the only way to conduct strategic planning and guarantee that it's carried out effectively.
So as long as that group exists, it will be in a position to tyrranise the public. And if it doesn't exist, crime syndicates or foreign governments can invade and tyrranise the public.
Therefore, one is always at the mercy of the group with the most trust.
So, to summarise, I don't agree that principles should be considered more important than people. It is people that interpret and maintain principles.
I think the real mistake is to focus on one person at a time, who will save everyone, when we need to improve the quality of the whole population.
That means, for example, giving people a valuable education instead of indoctrinating them.
Making sure that children aren't being bullied at home and have plenty of outdoor spaces they can use.
Stopping compulsory vaccination.
Holding the media accountable for disruptive lies. At the very least I want them to publicly apologise when they are wrong. So that the people can be reminded of their failure, and will be less likely to blindly believe them in future.
Right there with you on your last five grafs.
To your first point, I will share what I wrote to Brian above:
"Thank you for your good question.
First reply, though, is to ask—why aren't all small states destroyed by larger powers now? If conquest is inevitable, how do any of them still exist?
We cannot credit the Pax Americana. After all, there was a time before that, and small states existed then, too.
Would small-scale conflicts still occur, in the absence of governments? Sure. But I will take those over the 400 million people governments slaughtered in wars and democides over a single century. There is only so big local conflicts can get, without the power to conscript soldiers or print money. In fact, without those, conflicts cannot get big at all.
Moreover, there are mechanisms, in a condition of market anarchism, for dealing with those sorts of conflicts too. I recommend Chapter 12, #1V, here: https://ia801508.us.archive.org/14/items/911-material/Pdfs/Democracy%20The%20God%20That%20Failed.pdf
Also, what is the incentive for individuals to fight without the state? Fights used to be between nobles and their retinues of knights, with peasants largely watching from a safe distance. Not exclusively, of course, but in various times and places, that was the case. Now, however, after the rise of the modern state and thus modern nationalism, people have been made to see as an enemy any average citizen of any country the state has told them is an enemy. In the absence of the state, that dries up too: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/do-you-hate-ivan-russian-does-he-hate-you
More reading:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/without-government-wars-would-be-tiny
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/people-allowed-own-nuclear-weapons
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/new-logical-fallacy-argument-from-brochure
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-if-not-fought-french-indian-war
So all that we're left with is saying that we need the continued existence of the state in order to save us from carnage being caused by the state. I think it's time for our species to say NO to any more of that. Somehow, some way, we have to get started moving away from that."
I believe the smaller states generally existed by either being not worth the effort of invasion, or by paying protection money called a tribute.
And yes, it's true peasants didn't fight, mainly because they couldn't compete so there was no point.
But they were also raped and pillaged before, during and after these fights because they were easy targets.
That changed because the invention of the gun made peasants as effective as trained knights.
And contrary to your claim, there have been massive wars that were fought without fiat currency and without official state support.
The French and Russian revolutions were fought largely by volunteers as far as I recall.
The Russians in particular vilified mercenary behaviour.
The Crusades were fought for the Catholic church religion. And they were paid using gold.
The Islamic armies that conquered the Levant under Muhammad were originally unpaid volunteers, and in fact paid Muhammad a tax from the spoils of conquest for the glory of Allah.
Religion and ideology are common reasons for large scale conflict.
They represent a belief that fighting will benefit them somehow, because they trust some rumours, priests, or teachers. That Allah will send them to heaven, that destroying the enemy will save their children etc.
In other words, they think there will be a reward.
Money represents a promise of a reward after the fighting is done.
So the true source of all conflict is the desire for a reward.
Those are good points. I was thinking more in terms of world-scale, kill-tens-of-millions/blow-up-the-world type wars. But you are right that they can get pretty ugly even without that. So I should have been more careful/specific with my words.
On the small states thing—I am not saying they are impervious to conquest. I am, rather, saying that being a small state does not guarantee conquest. They might be left alone; adequately defend themselves against other small neighbors; make favorable alliances; offer something of value such that no one wants to invade; raise the stakes of asymmetric warfare to the point where it is not worth it; etc.
Indeed, small states can be ok for a long time.
Anyway, I'm not against your proposals.
Also I want to add that if people didn't believe in the value of the promissory notes, they wouldn't die for them.
So ultimately, the key to launching enormous wars lies in corrupting the minds of the people.
And thus the defence against pointless wars is to train people to defend their minds against the assault of propaganda and lies.
This very substack and the various platforms for free speech are thus very important for the future of humanity.
I believe humans are following in the footsteps of ants. After the ancestors of wasps and ants succeeded in colonising the world, they became the greatest threat to eachother, and evolved ever greater means of control over themselves.
I suspect multiple different species of humans will likewise evolve, some being more hive minded and collectivised like ants, and the others will be like wasps, many of which remain capable of independent survival and reproduction.
I am glad we are together on this, and your challenging questions only make it stronger. Thank you.
"And thus the defence against pointless wars is to train people to defend their minds against the assault of propaganda and lies."
—Yes to this!
Re: wasps, ants, and us.
I have had similar thoughts, insofar as I am not convinced that it is necessary for us to convince everyone in a given area. We just need to convince our tribe.
I like your theory. If every human subscribed, it would work well.
In the interim, full application of the theory in one place would likely result in that place losing it autonomy by being conquered. In the absence of the US military, territorial war would still be the rule, not the exception. Thoughts?
Thank you for your good question.
First reply, though, is to ask—why aren't all small states destroyed by larger powers now? If conquest is inevitable, how do any of them still exist?
We cannot credit the Pax Americana. After all, there was a time before that, and small states existed then, too.
Would small-scale conflicts still occur, in the absence of governments? Sure. But I will take those over the 400 million people governments slaughtered in wars and democides over a single century. There is only so big local conflicts can get, without the power to conscript soldiers or print money. In fact, without those, conflicts cannot get big at all.
Moreover, there are mechanisms, in a condition of market anarchism, for dealing with those sorts of conflicts too. I recommend Chapter 12, #1V, here: https://ia801508.us.archive.org/14/items/911-material/Pdfs/Democracy%20The%20God%20That%20Failed.pdf
Also, what is the incentive for individuals to fight without the state? Fights used to be between nobles and their retinues of knights, with peasants largely watching from a safe distance. Not exclusively, of course, but in various times and places, that was the case. Now, however, after the rise of the modern state and thus modern nationalism, people have been made to see as an enemy any average citizen of any country the state has told them is an enemy. In the absence of the state, that dries up too: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/do-you-hate-ivan-russian-does-he-hate-you
More reading:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/without-government-wars-would-be-tiny
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/people-allowed-own-nuclear-weapons
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/new-logical-fallacy-argument-from-brochure
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-if-not-fought-french-indian-war
So all that we're left with is saying that we need the continued existence of the state in order to save us from carnage being caused by the state. I think it's time for our species to say NO to any more of that. Somehow, some way, we have to get started moving away from that.
Small states are generally safe now for a couple reasons:
They are serious about their defense and have geographic help (Switzerland springs to mind).
Their security is guaranteed by other states. Generally the case in Europe and much of Asia. In Asia, only China and India realistically have the capacity to engage in military conquest. They (and the US) stand against each other. The unique thing about the US as a major power is that after becoming a major power, we no longer engaged in wars of conquest. That has provided a moral framework for other countries to ally with us to oppose nations engaged in wars of conquest (arguably Korea, definitely Kuwait).
Their neighbors are too inefficient to wage wars of conquest. Central and South America, much of Africa.
Risk/Reward not justified. Growing nations need space and more resources. For example, German population grew 15% between the end of WWI and the beginning of WWII. They have a below replacement birth rate now.
You're skipping ahead to a world where there are no governments. I'm fully aware that I can live in peace with Ivan and others that wish to be free. I'm less confident that free people with voluntary cooperation can defend against those that choose the greater security of the group. People want government (even if it's a motorcycle gang). I don't, so I can't understand them at a deep level. The motivation to fight is plunder. It's why the Vikings didn't need a draft. Perhaps I'll reconsider after I have read chapter 12 from your provided reference. I'll respond when I have. I'm open to being convinced about an alternative I had not considered.
History disputes your sanitized version of war. It was only safe for bystanders for about 200 years in European nations. Other than that, rape, enslavement, looting, indiscriminate murder and destruction were the order of the day.
Thanks for great questions!
Yes, Hoppe's Chapter 12 really explains well how private security agencies, aggression insurers, etc. would work in a condition of market anarchism. Add in David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" and I think you will be either convinced, or at least have a much narrower range of questions about it all.
Re: small states, sure, but there are other factors too. Small states often have something else to offer (much freer economic policies, private banking, etc.) that make others loathe to invade. Or, as you say, they are prepared to defend themselves. (Asymmetric tactics can be very effective.) Also, you mention risk-reward—I think that large states don't necessarily see the value of taking over a tiny little bit of extra land, and the damage to their reputation adds another checkmark in the risk column.
Of course, I here (in this book/plan) am not talking about small states; I am talking about a panarchic scenario in which people in existing states become a part of a transnational distributed nation. But your questions are still worth considering.
Re: the degree to which peasants were involved—I did say in "various times and places," but sure, I don't want to give the impression that I am sanitizing war. Yet, wars did not become nearly so totalizing until the rise of the modern nation state. I know that peasants often got in the way, were pillaged, conscripted, etc. throughout history. But in the modern era, it all just got bigger. ( I love this piece by Dan Sanchez on the French Revolution's effect on it all: https://fee.org/articles/how-nationalism-and-socialism-arose-from-the-french-revolution/)
Between private security, well-armed and trained individuals ready to defend what they have, the value of asymmetric tactics, the use of transnational aggression insurance/defense agencies (see Hoppe), and economic success, I think market-anarchic societies can pull it off, even in a world in which states still exist. (I also think they will be able to resist Vikings who come a-viking.)
Indeed, I am not really skipping ahead; I am looking for ways to begin the transition. Got to start somewhere!
I see a lot of flaws with overlapping responsibilities, people shirking their duty to contribute, those with the weapons taking over...
You know, the problems of the current system.
I see the second greatest problem to be of transition. Less my original thought that decreased cohesiveness would be taken advantage of by a foreign power, but that existing power structures that benefit from the status quo will not let it happen. That seems to mean a revolution or collapse is required. Do you agree, or do you believe it is possible to incrementally unwind government? I assume that comes later in your serial production of your work.
I am convinced that there is a least a potential means by which the "system" you are advocating for could function in the real world.
The greatest problem is that people don't want to be free. Worse than that, they don't want you to be free. Freedom is scary. It comes with the horror of responsibility and self-accountability. Maybe you'll succeed there. Christianity started as a handful of low status people and slaves.
All good questions. Not all of this can be known. Lately, I have begun to see a picture in my head—a flow chart of possibility-forks.
One way to break it down would be to begin, at the top level, using top-level categorizations similar to those of leftism. With leftism, they are usually called revolutionary vs. reformist. Let's call ours sudden vs. incremental.
We can envision at least two forks coming off of the sudden fork: revolution and rapid collapse. (We could add a third: sudden successful negotiation, but that seems far-fetched.)
In a later chapter, I will be laying out reasons why we should not wish for, and certainly not instigate, revolution. But sudden collapse is a plausible fork that opens up some possibilities.
On the incremental side, we certainly can imagine
—incremental opt-out (just involving oneself less and less with government)
—incremental de facto autonomy (them paying less and less attention)
—incremental negotiation for greater independence
—incremental collapse (unfunded liabilities and sovereign debt take their toll, and governments increasingly stop caring or even WANT private agencies to take over vital functions)
—incremental evolution (more and more people start realizing that government is violative of their right of consent, and all their other rights, and the weight of the argument shifts)
—patience (increasing in cohesion and simply waiting generations for a shift in circumstances or a moment to present itself)
—demographics (outbreeding them—not hard to do these days)
—growth (growing so large that we simply declare independence and there's not squat they can do about it)
—desirability/sophistication (offer/produce something rare/exclusive/desirable, so that no one dares mess with us and we can do what we want)
—incremental asymmetric strength (quietly grow in self-defense capability, raising the stakes of action against us).
—incremental market anarchism (quietly create and strengthen Hoppean/Friedmanian-style market defense agencies; use them internally until the point where they are so large that they become a military unto themselves
—proliferation (become so widely dispersed and large in number that it's like trying to destroy every ant in the world or claiming you are going to eliminate all Catholics or something—i.e., impossible and unwise to attempt)
I am still formulating this flow chart, but those are a few of the possibilities I am now toying with. Can you add (or subtract) any?
(Update:
—incremental "legal" removal of oneself from their jurisdiction (??)
A couple items to add. The most significant changes people can actively engage in now to further the cause of liberty are:
- to advocate for school choice and especially home schooling. It does no good to outbreed the communists if you turn your children over to them for instruction.
- food freedom (homesteading- either engage in or support those that do to decouple from the system where government can turn off your food supply)
These items address immediate concerns with food supply, counter the long term indoctrination of government solutions and immediately bring people face to face with immoral government behavior. Try to sell food for profit or take your kids out of the indoctrination centers and you'll discover a burning hatred for bureaucracy even if you loved government yesterday.
I personally believe the transition to a government-free world will never happen, but the compromise between your goal and the status quo is my ideal, so I'll be pulling for your success. There are plenty of other people pulling in the other direction. They don't need help. In my opinion government should be so small it matters very little. Your thoughts to this point have even made my view of minimum size even smaller. I look forward to reading more.
👏👏👏