There is nothing wrong with abolishing government tyranny. It is a concept that most people have never considered. But they will be shocked to realize that it means exiting government all together and replacing it with something that may not have any formal organization and is not readily defined. It would be quite the adventure.
> The distributed nation will never, Ever, EVER start with a phrase like “we the people” and then work backward to the individual as some sort of a sub-unit of a collective.
i am that. i will have to ponder your property idea tho. i do own my home, on wheels, and i like to move on as i choose, which is getting more difficult for many reasons. as for land property ownership, beyond staking a claim, i see no value in that unless we still give power to a hierarchy. the value of the land is it's use. the freedom to use it as i choose. i have done that as a "renter", but my landlord was not my employer. we agreed to terms and when consent was no longer we parted. preventing my choice or ability to move on has always been my issue. when I am done I want to go and I dont care who comes after or what they do with improvements i leave. It is of no use to me anymore. now that said, because a power hierarchy exists i am looking to buy & stake my claim on a little piece of land where all choices as to use are mine. no covenants. i guess i might say i'm not a hippie, i don't leave garbage, i clean up most places i go. i try to leave no trace & leave things if not better at least not worse fir my being there.
I don't see much there that is incompatible with the ethos I am laying out here. In a truly free world, you could buy or rent on mutually agreed terms. You could buy into a community with covenants, or not, as you wish. You could make an agreement to park your RV in someone's back yard (as I did with a converted schoolie when I was a young man).
But one person cannot just use another's property willy nilly. I have a house on a third of an acre. It is mine. I am using it. Even if my backyard looks empty and available, it isn't. I have parties back there. I throw the ball around with my son back there. It it's just open for anyone. No one gets to come and use it without making a mutual agreement with me first. That is how it ought to be. Without those kinds of known, exclusive property rights, all is chaos. It's been tried—it ends in disaster.
totally agree. there is so far nothing incompatible, which still amazes me. lol. that you mention is, in my mind, respect. which seems sorely lacking. respecting the claim.
in that case I have no problem telling them, assisting them with what i need to, to get them moved on.
i sorta tend to go with ancient teachings that you can’t own the land, you merely use it, so i am giving more thought to your premise.
hell, i had a landlord that thought even though i paid rent they could come up in my yard, to my windows, and threaten my children. i had to verify my legal rights in that state, inform them to stay away & ended up in a scarey legal situation that yes, i was able to protect my claim & my children & we were able to walk away from reputation intact with the lies exposed. but nobody really wins or loses, it was a power struggle for hierarchy and i know i learned a lot from that landlord rights state.
Yep. In spite of the fact that natural law is plain and clear, the details always get devilish, especially on the margins.
That is why a common law process is so valuable. Natural law gives us the basics, and common law adjudicates close questions.
So, in a free world, you make a voluntary contract with a property owner to rent some of his property. Hopefully the contract is smart enough to spell everything out—like whether and when the property owner can come to your portion of the property, etc. And then common law helps adjudicate if the contract does not make it clear, or is in dispute or violation.
well the standard is, you rent it, yard & all is yours. oh it was much worse than i said. but the fact i told her to keep her kids out of my yard brought out all kinds of crazy involving sheriff, propane tank, cps, middle school, lawyer, rent & restraining order. lol. but see that is the result of the established power hierarchy, that they thought they could get away with it. rules, laws, courts, law enforcement. none of that...wouldnt have happened
"i am looking to buy & stake my claim on a little piece of land where all choices as to use are mine", sounds like you've the Pioneer spirit. I, too, am looking for such another place. Have you heard of Ken Kern's work? https://www.kernfamilyfarm.com/puber.
I love the idea of a community or a nation that is based not on a leader or representative, but on principle, reason and truth. As Washington truly said "government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Why would anyone tolerate such a "servant?" This is what so attracted me to bitcoin, that it is not based on any central leader, oligarchy, or majority, or human organization or bureaucracy, but on immutable mathematical principles clearly laid down. Any major change to those clearly and mathematically programmed rules makes it something other than bitcoin, and its transactions will not be accepted by the network. It is brilliantly set up to incentivize those who run nodes on the network to provide honest services. Designed to be non-censorable, impersonal, highly divisible and created with a strict declining production that requires energy and proof of work with a set number that will ever be put into circulation, which makes it even less inflationary than gold. Its distributed network across multiple jurisdictions and continents is an important feature as in the distributed nation idea, based not on certain centralized leaders or administrators but on commonly agreed upon truths that like mathematics are clear and understandable by any person capable of reasoning.
Let me add that the new Gold Backs which are certificates or notes similar to our present paper "money" but which actually have the gold equal to the face value of the certificate incorporated into the bill, which can be recovered with a simple method. This is real money. The transaction is the settlement as with bitcoin. It is not a receipt or a promise of redemption. A transaction is actually closed when the transfer occurs. This would be nice form of currency along with bitcoin for our distributed nation. Either would be acceptable in most places in the world.
I prefer goldbacks to crypto. Perhaps as an older GenXer, I am…well, not anti-technology, but perhaps just a tiny bit tech-skeptical. But it's more than that. Bitcoin relies on the internet, technology, and electricity. Goldbacks (once you have them) rely on the on the security required to keep others from taking you from them. I prefer the latter to having my wealth in the hands of people who can shut off the grid whenever they decide we've gotten too uppity for their liking.
Also, Jim Davidson has pointed me toward a book (which I still have to read) on the subject of creating one's own money. And Universal Community Trust is doing a variant of that about which I would also like to learn more.
You are not alone in your attitude towards bitcoin Christopher, I understand that and I would not have all my wealth in bitcoin for a number of reasons, the present volatility which follows a regular pattern as it grows exponentially, and the expected internet outages. I hedge my bets, not all eggs in the same basket. However it should be understood that there are certain advantages to something that can be sent almost anywhere in the world in minutes at a tiny cost and does not require permission and can't be censored and in relative anonymity. The worst tyrants and most evil people in the world have become very dependent on the same technology, and this is why they have not been able to simply destroy this new development easily. Most of your money, yes YOUR money is already in a digital form that is dependent on that same tech, and is just digits on some bank computer that is a lot less secure than the huge distributed network of btc. I'm sure most on this list do not use much cash, mostly plastic and checks which is drawing on the same digital tech, BUT is centrally controlled and subject to the same outages such as CMEs, EMP strikes, infra structure sabotage, cyber attacks etc. as btc. How long do you think your plastic, ATMs, checking account balances etc will last if the web goes down for long? It wouldn't even take that, most do not realize how fragile and terminal the present banking system is now. Although the results of such would be catastrophic it would hurt the controllers and their insidious plans so badly it might actually be a blessing to freedom in the long run. I love the idea of Gold Backs but how many retailers, farmer's markets and local grocery stores accept them now? Yet I have been able to buy anything I need or want with bitcoin through the infra structure like bitrefil.com and other bill pay and gift card vendors NOW, and by selling it to others who value it for cash, not at some time in the future, or by finding someone to take my Gold Backs or precious metals which can also be inconvenient at times when you are not willing to undergo KYC and AML procedures. I have had coin dealers precious metal dealers who would not pay me cash for my gold or silver without showing government ID. Although it has not been too hard to find individuals who will buy it, although you don't want just everyone in your neighborhood to know you have it do you?
I am planning on getting a hardware wallet and starting with crypto soon. Though ultimately, I would prefer harder assets for the bulk of my wealth (what little I have). Land, food, etc.
Yes, if the kind of disaster Mara was talking about hit the earth even gold would not be as valuable as food, seeds, ammo, tools, weapons, and a network of reliable friends.
I might also mention that all the silver and gold I have now was bought with btc when it predictively hits its alltime highs every four years. Otherwise I would not have it.
Because you don't understand it Christopher. It takes some work and brain power to do so. I know you have the brainpower, but don't condemn without understanding.
By the way, if you get a btc or ltc wallet I will send you a contribution. Otherwise I am waiting for the next big pump to buy a disposable Mastercard to support your substack.
Extremely unlikely. BTC is now distributed through to many separate jurisdictions and competing factions and is based on proof of work not proof of stake like Ethereum, which can be controlled by the major stake holders which is why I traded all mine some time ago for BTC. It is not hard to see on the public block chain who the big holders are and there would be plenty of notice if any one party was mining it, and most of it is already mined. The network is secured by nodes most of which are run by individuals, it doesn't take a big investment to run a node and they secure the network. Most of these people are in it because they believe in the idea behind it of financial freedom from governments, corporations and big financial interests. Do some research and understand how it actually works before you condemn it Mara. These sorts of ideas we call FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) are spread by the very interests which are threatened by bitcoin, they will fail.
There's no issue with using bitcoin, it is obviously more secure and reliable than many other digital payment systems. It just isn't more robust than physical gold, which thus remains a good hedge.
And as for noticing if a large group were mining, you are assuming that your hypothetical adversary is a complete idiot. It is common for crime syndicates to evade law enforcement through money laundering schemes involving companies created under many different aliases by covert operatives and even random people who are paid to maintain them.
If international drug smugglers can do it, so can others.
I'm afraid that bitcoin does nothing to undermine the control of the larger groups. It only destabilises nation states, which is what the globalists want to happen.
A procedure they could follow:
Leverage international counter-terror legislation to create a counter terror task force with global jurisdiction that can be used to defend control over the energy infrastructure.
Assume control over said infrastructure through purchases or using excuses such as climate, safety, or environment.
And use safety legislation to block any unauthorised groups from developing alternatives.
Any significant bitcoin mining will need a significant amount of electricity, which will then involve paying the energy companies.
They can then implement global taxation in the form of profits from energy sales.
Citizens will indirectly pay this tax through transaction fees.
At the same time, operatives infiltrate and take control over every major corporation involved in operating the bitcoin banking system. These operatives will also work to create dissent and encourage ruthless competition instead of cooperation.
Now the control is two pronged. Much of the infrastructure can be controlled directly by agents, and everything else can be blackmailed by threatening to cut off the energy supply.
Most will be unable to mount a united resistance due to the hostile actors.
Using this, it is then possible to pull off various hacks that can simulate account freezes.
At the same time, the globalists will have set up an invincible system with no centralised weakpoints. Meaning it will be robust against nuclear strikes and cyberwarfare.
Now maybe you aren't against globalisation, personally I think it's inevitable, but even so bitcoin is designed to be exploited.
I'm glad to see we agree that BTC is more secure and reliable than other payment systems, although it is not mainly valued for being a payment system as a store of value for most users today. We also agree that despite its drawbacks gold is more simple to understand and not dependent upon technology, which makes it a very good hedge against that possibilty of a tech crash, and I am not knocking that, although I think that for most of us silver is a better bet for that purpose. However I don't agree that it would be of much value to the sick controllers to find a way to dominate over fifty percent of the mining or that it would pay for them to do so even if there were not divisions and factions within their cabals. I believe that should they begin to get close to owning over half the mining rigs on the planet across many jurisdictions it would not help them as much as you seem to think. When they are able to change the algorithm that cannot be hidden, it will constitute a "fork" of the original BTC. This has happened before and all of us that are in it with understanding and a dedication to its purpose will not consider or recognize that fork of the code. The miners who continue to use the original code will be the only ones that the nodes will recognize as real bitcoin. The algorithm is designed that the difficulty in mining to determine who gets credit for the next block in the block chain is adjustable. If it goes back to only a relatively few mining the few remaining btc and nodes validating transactions the mining difficulty would be much easier. The elites could have their fork that no one knowledgeable would want...like BSV another fork where they changed the algorithm and is presently worth $48 and falling whereas BTC is at 67000 and rising towards its next all time high, and they will be stuck with a lot of mining rigs that will be useless junk unless they decide to go back to mining the old BTC.
I'm more than "a tiny bit tech-skeptical". After studying "crypto", I came up against a use case, "Get an AB birth on a freighter to South American currency controls with all your posessions converted to bitcoin steganography. When you get there, check into a hotel and buy the staff some drinks, get them to recommend a realtor and pick up a savvy translator, and pay for it, all of it -- including your dream property -- directly with bitcoin, no matter the handling fees."
Ifn ya can't do that then it ain't fungible and it ain't money.
I'm saying it won't satisfy the use case that I wanted it to. It is not fungible.
If Greenbacks were durable value stores then nobody would have these conversations. But they aren't, and so we look to things like gold and BTC. Both need the protection of the mob's legal tender laws, as CBDC will get automatically, to avoid attacks by revenuers. But metals are only covered in a few states and they obviously don't extend to competing sovereigns as CBDC will. https://www.mintstategold.com/investor-education/cat/news/post/states-where-gold-and-silver-have-become-legal-tender/ Without legal tender protections, gold is decreed a collectible so you have to sell it to a dealer, and then suffer their skim along with the mob's heinous cut.
I think BTC has the same problem. And in practice, BTC is neither anonymous nor private. If you can't barter or trade it directly because it's not legal tender then you have to use a broker. In every jurisdiction that I've looked at, brokers are required to record PII on a mob form for every BTC transaction they skim -- then you're unmasked and mob security can track your transactions on the public block chain. You cannot hide behind bitcoin unless your broker is a fence and your banker skirts currency control laws. What do you think they'll charge stupid old gringos for that?
Maybe I'm just behind the times. I wish the situation was different.
It's wonderful to imagine, and I'm looking forward to hearing more. A lot of people prefer security and ease to freedom, though, and I'm not sure how many would take up the call to be truly in charge of their own lives like this. It's like Linux. It's the highest-functioning operating system, but because of that, it is also the hardest to use, so it is the least used.
Unfortunately, the difference between governmental systems and computer operating systems is that the other people in the governmental system might have some violent reaction to people trying to check out. It's the Matrix problem: anyone who is not ready to be unplugged is a potential agent. No reason not to try, but still a potential failure mechanism.
Yeah, for sure. It could get ugly. Or it could take a long time—past any of our lifetimes—to see true, total freedom. But we have to get started sometime. Otherwise, we're just doing nothing and waiting to be destroyed.
Yes, this is one of the barriers to the wider acceptance of bitcoin and the Gold Backs is that people have to take responsibility for understanding for their own wealth and how to protect and keep it secure. This takes some work and a lot more inconvenience at times than simply trusting some supposedly trusted second party like a bank or financial institution, which long experience has shown that they really cannot be trusted when you know how the actually operate in the world. I have also used Linux for about 15 years and it did require me to learn and research and take more responsibility for maintaining, yet it has been so much more reliable, inexpensive and secure to Bill Gates corrupt creation.
Religious communities have been doing this for a long time haven't they? Not just the territorial Amish types - but Islam and Judaism. In the UK they each have their own social and governmental networks, including courts (Beth Din and Sharia) which members of those communities use for disputes, including divorce and child custody as well as property and contractual disputes. No doubt Sharia courts involve themselves with criminal justice as well, although this wouldn't be overt - the monopoly of the State as regards financial penalty, violence and deprivation of liberty is not openly challenged by these courts. I suppose the point about this is that the individuals have agreed to submit themselves to this higher 'authority' but in a distributed nation, how do you force a decision on a party to a dispute who says they don't agree to be bound, that they don't want to belong to this distributed nation any more?
The framework concept allows for the emergence of lots of different types of experiments. If you set people free, they will try freedom in different ways. Ours will be one such way.
What you describe is definitely a distributed population. They have a common identity, shared ideals, act in concert but also without central direction. In Neal Stephenson's language, they would be called a "phyle". In the framework language I am using, they are a modern tribe/a distributed population, and they have enough coherence to qualify as a nation of sorts. So we could say that they are a manifestation of the distributed nation concept.
Needless to say, if we move beyond the generic definition of a DN to the specifics of any DN I would propose and wish to be a part of myself, it would look different from an Islamic kind. But there would still be some generic similarities…
For example, Muslims engage in market transactions, both among themselves and with people outside of their "nation." We would too. Indeed, in a condition of panarchy or market anarchy, that is how things would work.
They are sometimes called to the government courts, just as member of any DN will be until they/we can achieve full independence. But Muslims following Sharia do have some de facto independence—I guarantee the police sometimes just let them take care of their own. Any DN with sufficient coherence will end up enjoying some of that de facto independence. (Could a DN based solely of the principles of natural law, freedom, human rights, independence, consent, etc. achieve that level of coherence? I hope we get a chance to find out!)
So, what we really need to know is how we would like justice to be accomplished in a DN in which we would like to be a part. I am still working out the details, but I will propose a series of logical steps.
In the early going, as we accumulate members, we will have to continue as we are now—using the existing government system. They tax us, they have the power to force us to use it, etc. In the early going, we will not have sufficient numbers or coherence to do otherwise.
Growing in coherence happens in two ways: as a whole, worldwide, and local, in nodes.
If a local node gains sufficient coherence, it may begin to enjoy the kind of de facto independence that an Amish community or a Sharia-following Muslim might. (A node, by the way, forms organically, according to the choices and actions of individuals acting on concert. Just like any distributed population.)
So what does justice look like in communities and among individuals who are cooperating according to emergent order (the way free markets happen)?
Well, our cohering factor will be the principles of natural law, and the small number of universally true moral rules that emanate therefrom. (I will hopefully get to discussing this more next week.) If we truly believe in these principles, then we know that they will provide a very strong guide. Plenty of human societies have self-organized around them. So, among a small group/cluster/node, an emergent order process plus social norms (shunning, stigma, separation, etc.) will take care of a lot of it. Just like it does for, say, the Amish. And yeah, they do sometimes have people say, "Okay fine, I don't want to be a part of this anymore" and they leave the Amish community. That has to be their right.
As size and complexity grow, a market/emergent process will produce agencies (security, protection, aggression-insurance, etc.). This in turn will produce a common-law system for adjudicating disputes and close questions, etc. (Se Hoppe, "Democracy…" chapter 12, for a brilliant explanation of how that would all work.) Justice can be handled through contracts, courts, and protective force deployed by market agencies as needed. (Therein, I think, lies some of the crux of your question—how does justice work in anarchocapitalist “systems.” The best thing to do is to start reading the theories and examples. I can provide a reading list. I cannot divert from the main thrust of this book to describe it in detail, though I will do my best to touch on it where possible.)
Will these be more like the anarchocapitalist vision of market agencies? Or will we form a system of courts and justice that is unique to our DN—decentralized, but operating according to the same set of principles, with procedures slowly harmonized through an emergent order process? I cannot say. That will unfold organically.
The only central entity that I will propose will not be an authority. It will be an advisory/helping group. As we develop in coherence and size, this entity will increase in the ability to help individual DN members or local DN groups, to negotiate (with governments) on their behalf, to make recommendations as to the development of harmonious and effective systems of justice. We might contract with market agencies (get them to offer discounts to DN members, etc.). Yes, at a transitional point, this might mean double-paying: still paying taxes to governments for police (because said governments will hurt you if you do not pay them their protection money) while also paying a market agency for better security and justice services. Eventually, however, we may be able to negotiate our way out of said arrangements (for example, as local governments become more cash-strapped, as their unfunded liabilities begin to collapse them financially) and just use our own systems. Or they may fully collapse, whereupon we will have been ready because we will have already developed said systems.
I am getting way ahead of myself here—which is fine, because it helps all of us to think these things through and refine the ideas. But I hope you will also understand if I leave this question at that level of detail now, since otherwise I will begin writing the book here in the comment threads :-)
That said, and anything you like, followups, etc.!
When I look at the buildings in Europe the traditional ones that still exist were built by kings and queens and clergy and some would call them tyrants.
They built magnificent structures but they didn’t build them themselves, they couldn’t build them themselves, they employed thousands of skilled tradesmen who in turn made homes for their families who in turn built communities that decided the system was unfair and they built tower blocks that were then demolished within 50 years and they build more towers and society is now back to having a ruling class.
The ruling class is apparently elected but we all know it isn’t.
Would a small decentralised community decide to build ugly tower blocks?
I propose the DN as a leaderless phenomenon in which members operate according to a set of principles—and even feel fiercely proud of those principles—but without central direction. No central leader. As such, the cooperation in which members engage will be an emergent-order phenomenon (like the free market). So if they defend themselves, they are not defending a traditional country, with a leader and a political structure. They are, rather, defending their freedom, their property, their right to be free, which is rooted in those principles. And if they feel pride in that defense, they are proud of the rightness of their cause, rather than just some sort of flavor of "my country, right or wrong" nationalism that arose with the rise of the modern state circa 1800.
And if some of their number get together and build something or cooperate to do something, it will be just like any other emergent phenomenon in a free market—it will be because they choose to, ad hoc, for some purpose.
So, if we are to interpret your question literally, the answer is that some group of people who are part of the DN might decide to build apartment buildings, and may choose to make them ugly. But they also might choose to make them magnificently beautiful.
If we go with a metaphorical interpretation…well, I guess I would want you to explain the metaphor more, so I am sure I understand it. If I had to guess, I would say that DN members, as individuals or working in groups, have no particular reason to try to overturn tradition or destroy beauty. There is nothing in the principles that would impel them to do so.
Does that help? (Wrote this straight out of bed, so there were a bunch typos I had to edit!)
Thank you for your reply, my concern is with the set of principles, where do they come from?
The United Nations would claim their 17 sustainable development goals are based on rational reasonable humanistic principles, but they are being imposed on the world following mass hysteria about climate change which the UN IPCC exists to prove actually exists.
I am a firm believer in decentralisation wherever possible but that also needs rational agreed principles and these tend to be based on moral values that we, in the western world, have received from the 10 commandments.
Is it possible to have morals and values that work, without the belief that a good God is watching over us and judging us.
I’m not trying to preach religion, I’m not a church goer but I see so many Ayn Rand followers behaving like religious fundamentalists.
I hear you. Yes, the principles are essential. I am going to be doing work on that next week—can we talk about it then, after you have seen my preliminary work on it? Also, did you follow along at all in chapter 1 as I was offering my proofs for the principles of natural law?
Just a thought, coming at it from a biblical perspective (and I understand many here might not be religious at all); but the Bible says the nations were established by God, based on race, religion and territory. Not sure what I read above would keep any of that intact. Historical cultures would be erased. All the individual races would melt together and I still see territorial disputes leading to wars.
When it comes to disputes—sure, there will be territorial disputes. But they will be smaller. They could hardly do otherwise, given the abattoir that was the 20th century.
I ❤️ the idea and the hopefulness implied. I don’t want to be a 🐝kill, but there is such a place already waiting for you. The entrance is quite narrow and the fee substantial (but thankfully already paid). All it requires is the acceptance of a free gift and the subsequent shedding of the old self. A personal relationship with the owner follows, along with a freedom previously unknown to Man, yet which had been always available. Just ask. Or listen and respond to the Call.
BTW, I believe that arrangement of which you speak has been around for thousands of years already, long before monarchies or tribal leaders existed, and sometimes it worked out very well—for a time. Unfortunately, unredeemed mankind suffers from a desperately wicked and incurable heart. Only a complete replacement will suffice. Hence, my solution as offered above. Anyone interested, post me and I will reply…
I am not quite sure how to reply. Whatever I may do personally about my eternal direction, I still have to do my best to act in this world, according to my lights, to make things better.
There is nothing wrong with abolishing government tyranny. It is a concept that most people have never considered. But they will be shocked to realize that it means exiting government all together and replacing it with something that may not have any formal organization and is not readily defined. It would be quite the adventure.
Pioneers are figuring all that stuff out now. Why not us?
> The distributed nation will never, Ever, EVER start with a phrase like “we the people” and then work backward to the individual as some sort of a sub-unit of a collective.
Grounding dignity and natural rights in the individual rather than the group, is vital. Groups have no dignity and natural rights apart from those brought to the group by individual members: https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/is-individualism-anti-social
💯
Imagine that, indeed! 🤍
🧡❤️💛
i am that. i will have to ponder your property idea tho. i do own my home, on wheels, and i like to move on as i choose, which is getting more difficult for many reasons. as for land property ownership, beyond staking a claim, i see no value in that unless we still give power to a hierarchy. the value of the land is it's use. the freedom to use it as i choose. i have done that as a "renter", but my landlord was not my employer. we agreed to terms and when consent was no longer we parted. preventing my choice or ability to move on has always been my issue. when I am done I want to go and I dont care who comes after or what they do with improvements i leave. It is of no use to me anymore. now that said, because a power hierarchy exists i am looking to buy & stake my claim on a little piece of land where all choices as to use are mine. no covenants. i guess i might say i'm not a hippie, i don't leave garbage, i clean up most places i go. i try to leave no trace & leave things if not better at least not worse fir my being there.
I don't see much there that is incompatible with the ethos I am laying out here. In a truly free world, you could buy or rent on mutually agreed terms. You could buy into a community with covenants, or not, as you wish. You could make an agreement to park your RV in someone's back yard (as I did with a converted schoolie when I was a young man).
But one person cannot just use another's property willy nilly. I have a house on a third of an acre. It is mine. I am using it. Even if my backyard looks empty and available, it isn't. I have parties back there. I throw the ball around with my son back there. It it's just open for anyone. No one gets to come and use it without making a mutual agreement with me first. That is how it ought to be. Without those kinds of known, exclusive property rights, all is chaos. It's been tried—it ends in disaster.
totally agree. there is so far nothing incompatible, which still amazes me. lol. that you mention is, in my mind, respect. which seems sorely lacking. respecting the claim.
in that case I have no problem telling them, assisting them with what i need to, to get them moved on.
i sorta tend to go with ancient teachings that you can’t own the land, you merely use it, so i am giving more thought to your premise.
hell, i had a landlord that thought even though i paid rent they could come up in my yard, to my windows, and threaten my children. i had to verify my legal rights in that state, inform them to stay away & ended up in a scarey legal situation that yes, i was able to protect my claim & my children & we were able to walk away from reputation intact with the lies exposed. but nobody really wins or loses, it was a power struggle for hierarchy and i know i learned a lot from that landlord rights state.
Yep. In spite of the fact that natural law is plain and clear, the details always get devilish, especially on the margins.
That is why a common law process is so valuable. Natural law gives us the basics, and common law adjudicates close questions.
So, in a free world, you make a voluntary contract with a property owner to rent some of his property. Hopefully the contract is smart enough to spell everything out—like whether and when the property owner can come to your portion of the property, etc. And then common law helps adjudicate if the contract does not make it clear, or is in dispute or violation.
Yelling at kids—well, that's just rude!!
well the standard is, you rent it, yard & all is yours. oh it was much worse than i said. but the fact i told her to keep her kids out of my yard brought out all kinds of crazy involving sheriff, propane tank, cps, middle school, lawyer, rent & restraining order. lol. but see that is the result of the established power hierarchy, that they thought they could get away with it. rules, laws, courts, law enforcement. none of that...wouldnt have happened
Sounds like an annoying situation!
"i am looking to buy & stake my claim on a little piece of land where all choices as to use are mine", sounds like you've the Pioneer spirit. I, too, am looking for such another place. Have you heard of Ken Kern's work? https://www.kernfamilyfarm.com/puber.
❤️. i am not familiar with the kern family. will dig in further. thnx.
Fantastic, and worthy of my/our imagination. Imagination is a super power let’s use it wisely.
So I shouldn't imagine a giant dinosaur with laser-beam eyes running amok? Just in case……?
I love the idea of a community or a nation that is based not on a leader or representative, but on principle, reason and truth. As Washington truly said "government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Why would anyone tolerate such a "servant?" This is what so attracted me to bitcoin, that it is not based on any central leader, oligarchy, or majority, or human organization or bureaucracy, but on immutable mathematical principles clearly laid down. Any major change to those clearly and mathematically programmed rules makes it something other than bitcoin, and its transactions will not be accepted by the network. It is brilliantly set up to incentivize those who run nodes on the network to provide honest services. Designed to be non-censorable, impersonal, highly divisible and created with a strict declining production that requires energy and proof of work with a set number that will ever be put into circulation, which makes it even less inflationary than gold. Its distributed network across multiple jurisdictions and continents is an important feature as in the distributed nation idea, based not on certain centralized leaders or administrators but on commonly agreed upon truths that like mathematics are clear and understandable by any person capable of reasoning.
Let me add that the new Gold Backs which are certificates or notes similar to our present paper "money" but which actually have the gold equal to the face value of the certificate incorporated into the bill, which can be recovered with a simple method. This is real money. The transaction is the settlement as with bitcoin. It is not a receipt or a promise of redemption. A transaction is actually closed when the transfer occurs. This would be nice form of currency along with bitcoin for our distributed nation. Either would be acceptable in most places in the world.
I prefer goldbacks to crypto. Perhaps as an older GenXer, I am…well, not anti-technology, but perhaps just a tiny bit tech-skeptical. But it's more than that. Bitcoin relies on the internet, technology, and electricity. Goldbacks (once you have them) rely on the on the security required to keep others from taking you from them. I prefer the latter to having my wealth in the hands of people who can shut off the grid whenever they decide we've gotten too uppity for their liking.
Also, Jim Davidson has pointed me toward a book (which I still have to read) on the subject of creating one's own money. And Universal Community Trust is doing a variant of that about which I would also like to learn more.
You are not alone in your attitude towards bitcoin Christopher, I understand that and I would not have all my wealth in bitcoin for a number of reasons, the present volatility which follows a regular pattern as it grows exponentially, and the expected internet outages. I hedge my bets, not all eggs in the same basket. However it should be understood that there are certain advantages to something that can be sent almost anywhere in the world in minutes at a tiny cost and does not require permission and can't be censored and in relative anonymity. The worst tyrants and most evil people in the world have become very dependent on the same technology, and this is why they have not been able to simply destroy this new development easily. Most of your money, yes YOUR money is already in a digital form that is dependent on that same tech, and is just digits on some bank computer that is a lot less secure than the huge distributed network of btc. I'm sure most on this list do not use much cash, mostly plastic and checks which is drawing on the same digital tech, BUT is centrally controlled and subject to the same outages such as CMEs, EMP strikes, infra structure sabotage, cyber attacks etc. as btc. How long do you think your plastic, ATMs, checking account balances etc will last if the web goes down for long? It wouldn't even take that, most do not realize how fragile and terminal the present banking system is now. Although the results of such would be catastrophic it would hurt the controllers and their insidious plans so badly it might actually be a blessing to freedom in the long run. I love the idea of Gold Backs but how many retailers, farmer's markets and local grocery stores accept them now? Yet I have been able to buy anything I need or want with bitcoin through the infra structure like bitrefil.com and other bill pay and gift card vendors NOW, and by selling it to others who value it for cash, not at some time in the future, or by finding someone to take my Gold Backs or precious metals which can also be inconvenient at times when you are not willing to undergo KYC and AML procedures. I have had coin dealers precious metal dealers who would not pay me cash for my gold or silver without showing government ID. Although it has not been too hard to find individuals who will buy it, although you don't want just everyone in your neighborhood to know you have it do you?
Yes, the fiat system makes me even more nervous!
I am planning on getting a hardware wallet and starting with crypto soon. Though ultimately, I would prefer harder assets for the bulk of my wealth (what little I have). Land, food, etc.
Yes, if the kind of disaster Mara was talking about hit the earth even gold would not be as valuable as food, seeds, ammo, tools, weapons, and a network of reliable friends.
Those things are seeming to me to be the smartest play right now.
Oh, and "crypto" is not the same as Bitcoin...CBDCs are crypto and so are many what are called sh*t coins like Ethereum among many others.
Is BTC the only crypto you trust?
I might also mention that all the silver and gold I have now was bought with btc when it predictively hits its alltime highs every four years. Otherwise I would not have it.
Bitcoin has more problems than just dependence on the Internet and microprocessors.
It suffers the same basic centralisation problem as Fiat currency.
Once someone, or some group, has accumulated enough servers they can control the market.
Basically, it's like the bank is in the cloud, but if you buy more than 50% of the supporting infrastructure, then you own the algorithm.
Same problem for ethereum.
Gold is true value, works even if a meteor hits the earth and destroys the energy grid.
It's simple, easy to understand, easy to use, can't be hacked.
Yeah. It really makes me nervous!
Because you don't understand it Christopher. It takes some work and brain power to do so. I know you have the brainpower, but don't condemn without understanding.
By the way, if you get a btc or ltc wallet I will send you a contribution. Otherwise I am waiting for the next big pump to buy a disposable Mastercard to support your substack.
Extremely unlikely. BTC is now distributed through to many separate jurisdictions and competing factions and is based on proof of work not proof of stake like Ethereum, which can be controlled by the major stake holders which is why I traded all mine some time ago for BTC. It is not hard to see on the public block chain who the big holders are and there would be plenty of notice if any one party was mining it, and most of it is already mined. The network is secured by nodes most of which are run by individuals, it doesn't take a big investment to run a node and they secure the network. Most of these people are in it because they believe in the idea behind it of financial freedom from governments, corporations and big financial interests. Do some research and understand how it actually works before you condemn it Mara. These sorts of ideas we call FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) are spread by the very interests which are threatened by bitcoin, they will fail.
So the government in China is not paying the tremendous utility bills that it takes to mine BTC?
There's no issue with using bitcoin, it is obviously more secure and reliable than many other digital payment systems. It just isn't more robust than physical gold, which thus remains a good hedge.
And as for noticing if a large group were mining, you are assuming that your hypothetical adversary is a complete idiot. It is common for crime syndicates to evade law enforcement through money laundering schemes involving companies created under many different aliases by covert operatives and even random people who are paid to maintain them.
If international drug smugglers can do it, so can others.
I'm afraid that bitcoin does nothing to undermine the control of the larger groups. It only destabilises nation states, which is what the globalists want to happen.
A procedure they could follow:
Leverage international counter-terror legislation to create a counter terror task force with global jurisdiction that can be used to defend control over the energy infrastructure.
Assume control over said infrastructure through purchases or using excuses such as climate, safety, or environment.
And use safety legislation to block any unauthorised groups from developing alternatives.
Any significant bitcoin mining will need a significant amount of electricity, which will then involve paying the energy companies.
They can then implement global taxation in the form of profits from energy sales.
Citizens will indirectly pay this tax through transaction fees.
At the same time, operatives infiltrate and take control over every major corporation involved in operating the bitcoin banking system. These operatives will also work to create dissent and encourage ruthless competition instead of cooperation.
Now the control is two pronged. Much of the infrastructure can be controlled directly by agents, and everything else can be blackmailed by threatening to cut off the energy supply.
Most will be unable to mount a united resistance due to the hostile actors.
Using this, it is then possible to pull off various hacks that can simulate account freezes.
At the same time, the globalists will have set up an invincible system with no centralised weakpoints. Meaning it will be robust against nuclear strikes and cyberwarfare.
Now maybe you aren't against globalisation, personally I think it's inevitable, but even so bitcoin is designed to be exploited.
I'm glad to see we agree that BTC is more secure and reliable than other payment systems, although it is not mainly valued for being a payment system as a store of value for most users today. We also agree that despite its drawbacks gold is more simple to understand and not dependent upon technology, which makes it a very good hedge against that possibilty of a tech crash, and I am not knocking that, although I think that for most of us silver is a better bet for that purpose. However I don't agree that it would be of much value to the sick controllers to find a way to dominate over fifty percent of the mining or that it would pay for them to do so even if there were not divisions and factions within their cabals. I believe that should they begin to get close to owning over half the mining rigs on the planet across many jurisdictions it would not help them as much as you seem to think. When they are able to change the algorithm that cannot be hidden, it will constitute a "fork" of the original BTC. This has happened before and all of us that are in it with understanding and a dedication to its purpose will not consider or recognize that fork of the code. The miners who continue to use the original code will be the only ones that the nodes will recognize as real bitcoin. The algorithm is designed that the difficulty in mining to determine who gets credit for the next block in the block chain is adjustable. If it goes back to only a relatively few mining the few remaining btc and nodes validating transactions the mining difficulty would be much easier. The elites could have their fork that no one knowledgeable would want...like BSV another fork where they changed the algorithm and is presently worth $48 and falling whereas BTC is at 67000 and rising towards its next all time high, and they will be stuck with a lot of mining rigs that will be useless junk unless they decide to go back to mining the old BTC.
I'm more than "a tiny bit tech-skeptical". After studying "crypto", I came up against a use case, "Get an AB birth on a freighter to South American currency controls with all your posessions converted to bitcoin steganography. When you get there, check into a hotel and buy the staff some drinks, get them to recommend a realtor and pick up a savvy translator, and pay for it, all of it -- including your dream property -- directly with bitcoin, no matter the handling fees."
Ifn ya can't do that then it ain't fungible and it ain't money.
In this case, are you saying that bitcoin (or whatever crypto) simply is not taken as currency by enough people/entities?
I'm saying it won't satisfy the use case that I wanted it to. It is not fungible.
If Greenbacks were durable value stores then nobody would have these conversations. But they aren't, and so we look to things like gold and BTC. Both need the protection of the mob's legal tender laws, as CBDC will get automatically, to avoid attacks by revenuers. But metals are only covered in a few states and they obviously don't extend to competing sovereigns as CBDC will. https://www.mintstategold.com/investor-education/cat/news/post/states-where-gold-and-silver-have-become-legal-tender/ Without legal tender protections, gold is decreed a collectible so you have to sell it to a dealer, and then suffer their skim along with the mob's heinous cut.
I think BTC has the same problem. And in practice, BTC is neither anonymous nor private. If you can't barter or trade it directly because it's not legal tender then you have to use a broker. In every jurisdiction that I've looked at, brokers are required to record PII on a mob form for every BTC transaction they skim -- then you're unmasked and mob security can track your transactions on the public block chain. You cannot hide behind bitcoin unless your broker is a fence and your banker skirts currency control laws. What do you think they'll charge stupid old gringos for that?
Maybe I'm just behind the times. I wish the situation was different.
If you hear of any kind of creative solution, let me know. We’ve got to figure out something!
It's wonderful to imagine, and I'm looking forward to hearing more. A lot of people prefer security and ease to freedom, though, and I'm not sure how many would take up the call to be truly in charge of their own lives like this. It's like Linux. It's the highest-functioning operating system, but because of that, it is also the hardest to use, so it is the least used.
Yup.
But we don't need everyone's buy-in. We just need our own, right?
We need to get started. L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace.
Unfortunately, the difference between governmental systems and computer operating systems is that the other people in the governmental system might have some violent reaction to people trying to check out. It's the Matrix problem: anyone who is not ready to be unplugged is a potential agent. No reason not to try, but still a potential failure mechanism.
Yeah, for sure. It could get ugly. Or it could take a long time—past any of our lifetimes—to see true, total freedom. But we have to get started sometime. Otherwise, we're just doing nothing and waiting to be destroyed.
Agreed.
💪
Yes, this is one of the barriers to the wider acceptance of bitcoin and the Gold Backs is that people have to take responsibility for understanding for their own wealth and how to protect and keep it secure. This takes some work and a lot more inconvenience at times than simply trusting some supposedly trusted second party like a bank or financial institution, which long experience has shown that they really cannot be trusted when you know how the actually operate in the world. I have also used Linux for about 15 years and it did require me to learn and research and take more responsibility for maintaining, yet it has been so much more reliable, inexpensive and secure to Bill Gates corrupt creation.
Beautiful Christopher just Beautiful!
Glad you are with me!
Thank you!
https://chng.it/f2Jbsvzm6X
I imagine it ALL the time. With enough will, it will manifest 🤩😆
Right on. We don’t know exactly where the path will lead, but we do need to pick a direction and start walking!
Religious communities have been doing this for a long time haven't they? Not just the territorial Amish types - but Islam and Judaism. In the UK they each have their own social and governmental networks, including courts (Beth Din and Sharia) which members of those communities use for disputes, including divorce and child custody as well as property and contractual disputes. No doubt Sharia courts involve themselves with criminal justice as well, although this wouldn't be overt - the monopoly of the State as regards financial penalty, violence and deprivation of liberty is not openly challenged by these courts. I suppose the point about this is that the individuals have agreed to submit themselves to this higher 'authority' but in a distributed nation, how do you force a decision on a party to a dispute who says they don't agree to be bound, that they don't want to belong to this distributed nation any more?
Another excellent question to help clarify things. (See my reply to Steve too: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/order-operations-distributed-nation-people-principles-property/comment/73081424)
The framework concept allows for the emergence of lots of different types of experiments. If you set people free, they will try freedom in different ways. Ours will be one such way.
What you describe is definitely a distributed population. They have a common identity, shared ideals, act in concert but also without central direction. In Neal Stephenson's language, they would be called a "phyle". In the framework language I am using, they are a modern tribe/a distributed population, and they have enough coherence to qualify as a nation of sorts. So we could say that they are a manifestation of the distributed nation concept.
Needless to say, if we move beyond the generic definition of a DN to the specifics of any DN I would propose and wish to be a part of myself, it would look different from an Islamic kind. But there would still be some generic similarities…
For example, Muslims engage in market transactions, both among themselves and with people outside of their "nation." We would too. Indeed, in a condition of panarchy or market anarchy, that is how things would work.
They are sometimes called to the government courts, just as member of any DN will be until they/we can achieve full independence. But Muslims following Sharia do have some de facto independence—I guarantee the police sometimes just let them take care of their own. Any DN with sufficient coherence will end up enjoying some of that de facto independence. (Could a DN based solely of the principles of natural law, freedom, human rights, independence, consent, etc. achieve that level of coherence? I hope we get a chance to find out!)
So, what we really need to know is how we would like justice to be accomplished in a DN in which we would like to be a part. I am still working out the details, but I will propose a series of logical steps.
In the early going, as we accumulate members, we will have to continue as we are now—using the existing government system. They tax us, they have the power to force us to use it, etc. In the early going, we will not have sufficient numbers or coherence to do otherwise.
Growing in coherence happens in two ways: as a whole, worldwide, and local, in nodes.
If a local node gains sufficient coherence, it may begin to enjoy the kind of de facto independence that an Amish community or a Sharia-following Muslim might. (A node, by the way, forms organically, according to the choices and actions of individuals acting on concert. Just like any distributed population.)
So what does justice look like in communities and among individuals who are cooperating according to emergent order (the way free markets happen)?
Well, our cohering factor will be the principles of natural law, and the small number of universally true moral rules that emanate therefrom. (I will hopefully get to discussing this more next week.) If we truly believe in these principles, then we know that they will provide a very strong guide. Plenty of human societies have self-organized around them. So, among a small group/cluster/node, an emergent order process plus social norms (shunning, stigma, separation, etc.) will take care of a lot of it. Just like it does for, say, the Amish. And yeah, they do sometimes have people say, "Okay fine, I don't want to be a part of this anymore" and they leave the Amish community. That has to be their right.
As size and complexity grow, a market/emergent process will produce agencies (security, protection, aggression-insurance, etc.). This in turn will produce a common-law system for adjudicating disputes and close questions, etc. (Se Hoppe, "Democracy…" chapter 12, for a brilliant explanation of how that would all work.) Justice can be handled through contracts, courts, and protective force deployed by market agencies as needed. (Therein, I think, lies some of the crux of your question—how does justice work in anarchocapitalist “systems.” The best thing to do is to start reading the theories and examples. I can provide a reading list. I cannot divert from the main thrust of this book to describe it in detail, though I will do my best to touch on it where possible.)
Will these be more like the anarchocapitalist vision of market agencies? Or will we form a system of courts and justice that is unique to our DN—decentralized, but operating according to the same set of principles, with procedures slowly harmonized through an emergent order process? I cannot say. That will unfold organically.
The only central entity that I will propose will not be an authority. It will be an advisory/helping group. As we develop in coherence and size, this entity will increase in the ability to help individual DN members or local DN groups, to negotiate (with governments) on their behalf, to make recommendations as to the development of harmonious and effective systems of justice. We might contract with market agencies (get them to offer discounts to DN members, etc.). Yes, at a transitional point, this might mean double-paying: still paying taxes to governments for police (because said governments will hurt you if you do not pay them their protection money) while also paying a market agency for better security and justice services. Eventually, however, we may be able to negotiate our way out of said arrangements (for example, as local governments become more cash-strapped, as their unfunded liabilities begin to collapse them financially) and just use our own systems. Or they may fully collapse, whereupon we will have been ready because we will have already developed said systems.
I am getting way ahead of myself here—which is fine, because it helps all of us to think these things through and refine the ideas. But I hope you will also understand if I leave this question at that level of detail now, since otherwise I will begin writing the book here in the comment threads :-)
That said, and anything you like, followups, etc.!
When I look at the buildings in Europe the traditional ones that still exist were built by kings and queens and clergy and some would call them tyrants.
They built magnificent structures but they didn’t build them themselves, they couldn’t build them themselves, they employed thousands of skilled tradesmen who in turn made homes for their families who in turn built communities that decided the system was unfair and they built tower blocks that were then demolished within 50 years and they build more towers and society is now back to having a ruling class.
The ruling class is apparently elected but we all know it isn’t.
Would a small decentralised community decide to build ugly tower blocks?
Excellent clarifying question.
I propose the DN as a leaderless phenomenon in which members operate according to a set of principles—and even feel fiercely proud of those principles—but without central direction. No central leader. As such, the cooperation in which members engage will be an emergent-order phenomenon (like the free market). So if they defend themselves, they are not defending a traditional country, with a leader and a political structure. They are, rather, defending their freedom, their property, their right to be free, which is rooted in those principles. And if they feel pride in that defense, they are proud of the rightness of their cause, rather than just some sort of flavor of "my country, right or wrong" nationalism that arose with the rise of the modern state circa 1800.
And if some of their number get together and build something or cooperate to do something, it will be just like any other emergent phenomenon in a free market—it will be because they choose to, ad hoc, for some purpose.
So, if we are to interpret your question literally, the answer is that some group of people who are part of the DN might decide to build apartment buildings, and may choose to make them ugly. But they also might choose to make them magnificently beautiful.
If we go with a metaphorical interpretation…well, I guess I would want you to explain the metaphor more, so I am sure I understand it. If I had to guess, I would say that DN members, as individuals or working in groups, have no particular reason to try to overturn tradition or destroy beauty. There is nothing in the principles that would impel them to do so.
Does that help? (Wrote this straight out of bed, so there were a bunch typos I had to edit!)
Thank you for your reply, my concern is with the set of principles, where do they come from?
The United Nations would claim their 17 sustainable development goals are based on rational reasonable humanistic principles, but they are being imposed on the world following mass hysteria about climate change which the UN IPCC exists to prove actually exists.
I am a firm believer in decentralisation wherever possible but that also needs rational agreed principles and these tend to be based on moral values that we, in the western world, have received from the 10 commandments.
Is it possible to have morals and values that work, without the belief that a good God is watching over us and judging us.
I’m not trying to preach religion, I’m not a church goer but I see so many Ayn Rand followers behaving like religious fundamentalists.
Now that I have made a start on laying out some of those principles, how do you feel about it? https://christophercook.substack.com/p/protocols-natural-law
I hear you. Yes, the principles are essential. I am going to be doing work on that next week—can we talk about it then, after you have seen my preliminary work on it? Also, did you follow along at all in chapter 1 as I was offering my proofs for the principles of natural law?
👏👏👏
🙏🏻
Just a thought, coming at it from a biblical perspective (and I understand many here might not be religious at all); but the Bible says the nations were established by God, based on race, religion and territory. Not sure what I read above would keep any of that intact. Historical cultures would be erased. All the individual races would melt together and I still see territorial disputes leading to wars.
I will let other speak to the religious aspect.
When it comes to disputes—sure, there will be territorial disputes. But they will be smaller. They could hardly do otherwise, given the abattoir that was the 20th century.
The individual is the right unit to start such deliberations (just as you do)!
💯
I ❤️ the idea and the hopefulness implied. I don’t want to be a 🐝kill, but there is such a place already waiting for you. The entrance is quite narrow and the fee substantial (but thankfully already paid). All it requires is the acceptance of a free gift and the subsequent shedding of the old self. A personal relationship with the owner follows, along with a freedom previously unknown to Man, yet which had been always available. Just ask. Or listen and respond to the Call.
BTW, I believe that arrangement of which you speak has been around for thousands of years already, long before monarchies or tribal leaders existed, and sometimes it worked out very well—for a time. Unfortunately, unredeemed mankind suffers from a desperately wicked and incurable heart. Only a complete replacement will suffice. Hence, my solution as offered above. Anyone interested, post me and I will reply…
I am not quite sure how to reply. Whatever I may do personally about my eternal direction, I still have to do my best to act in this world, according to my lights, to make things better.