You have taken on a large and intimidating task in trying to put together a coherent and workable plan here. I applaud your efforts. So many would say this is impossible and as long as they believe that, it will remain so. I commend you on attempting the impossible, somebody's gotta do it and it ain't me, I have my own Sisyphean tasks to buckle under the weight of. 😏
P.S. I really do think there should be an emoji of Sisyphus rolling that rock up the hill, I would use it egregiously. (perhaps I will design one)
Utopias are by definition too good to be true. Still, the excercise of designing them takes us toward the goal. Even America's founders recognized that an imperfect people were not up to governing themselves.
Lots of people bring up utopia, even though I have never once mentioned it, or claimed I was trying to create it, or claimed that it was in any way possible.
I have long been confused by this, but I have to respect it, because lots of people say it!
So do you have any sense as to what is it about what I am saying that makes people think of utopia, even though I never actually make any utopian claims?
Perhaps the very thought of a "good" form of government triggers a reaction in many minds (including my own), "Caution! Good government is impossible for bad people." That might be self-defeating and "stinkin thinkin." I really try to not be pessimistic, but I can't seem to get beyond the evidence contrary to any innate goodness in humanity. But I also realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Being aware that I might be badly wired doesn't seem to help.
Well, I think none of us has perfect wiring. There's always something in each of us that gives us challenges in one area or another.
But yeah, what you describe is sort of one thing that I imagined might be behind the utopian charge. Like, sort of a defeatist, "why even bother" vibe?
Utopia is definitely an impossibility in this reality. However, I do not think that this is an attempt at building a utopia, but rather a stepping stone towards an anarchistic way of life. The closer we can move to anarchism, the further away we move from authoritarianism and that is the right direction.
Another commenter did help me understand something, though. Some of the people who are leveling the “utopianism” charge likely are not reacting to a belief that I claiming that it will be a perfect society. Rather they are simply claiming that I am impractical or idealistic! 🤣🤣🤣
But it’s all good. These are tough ideas to grapple with!
Playing the "you just want a Utopia" card is dismissive. Building a system that leverages people's universal desire to not be harmed by coercion is hardly outside the realm of possible. In fact, it's a wonder we aren't farther along with it already. (A grudging credit to the forces of collective coercion.) If there is a way for two humans to interact voluntarily and without coercion, then it is logically possible for 8 billion people to have the same technology.
Thanks for this. I agree that 'legitimacy' is the crux of this issue. All of us are simply born into a system where a nation state essentially declares "We own you" and we are asked to not only accept this as the only possible reality for us, but to honor and defend the entire premise. It's the main reason we need to be relentlessly told how free we are. Because we're not. A new system needs to be built while we still have time.
I like what you’ve laid out. Top of the heap for me is non-violence and peaceful methods of protests because *they* have all the best toys our money can’t buy and unlimited supplies of ammunition vs what we have to access. But I digress…
In my view, the independence you want to create for those of like minds is going to be far more difficult in the cities and suburban areas because the Cabal is plowing forward in the eventual rollout of 15 minute cities where control will be absolute. The other issue is all of the homes, cars, buildings, and acreage that have mortgages/loans. There is a loophole I’ve been reading about where your item in question has been used as collateral by the lender thereby making said item’s owner someone other than you. This situation enables the lender to take away your item with zero recourse for you. I may have stated some of that process incorrectly, too many subjects to keep track of these days, but the end result is the same. You own nothing.
Bottom line I still think you are off to a good start.
"There is a loophole I’ve been reading about where your item in question has been used as collateral by the lender thereby making said item’s owner someone other than you. This situation enables the lender to take away your item with zero recourse for you."
—I am skeptical. If this existed, wouldn't it have been used by now? And then wouldn't we know about it? I cannot imagine anyone sitting idly by for that!
And I hear you about the cities. Here's my take: the more solidarity and clout we build, the better. Nothing is foolproof, nothing is guaranteed, but I figure we have to try!
It was from a few sources here on Substack, very reputable. May take me a bit to find them again but I’ll send them to you.
We absolutely have to try to get an edge. We may have to try a bunch of efforts and as we work towards the goal it would seem that we would gather up more and more participants. More people are going to want to join up when they see we are non-violent because most people aren’t capable of running out into the fray with guns blazing though there will be other groups for those folks! Surrendering out of hand is not my style so I’m definitely interested in seeing this through to fruition!
I am going to spend a reasonable amount of time, in Part II, on this subject. There are so many reasons why revolutionary violence is not the way to go. I know everyone feels righteous anger, and we have good reason, and every reason. But it won't work. And it's a bad idea. We have to find another way.
Why I couldn’t think of Dr. Yeadon I’ll never know but he was one source. I read it somewhere else as well…still looking. In the mean time, Dr. Yeadon provides the free download of the book “The Great Taking” in the article. It explains all this in detail and only about 100 pages.
I *know* it sounds completely far-fetched but look at all the obvious and previously unthinkable things that have happened already just since Covid. Just the mass genocide that occurred and is still occurring because of the death jabs - mistakes were not made. Look at how the schools over the last few decades have dumbed down curriculums…poorly educated children become more easily controlled adults as we see with the young adult sheeple who are led into believing there are multiple sexes, men having babies, and the most horrific act of “sex change” for minors, the erosion of parental rights, and so much more for over 100 years. These things and so much more have been designed by the 1% folks like Rockefeller, Rothschild, Schwab, Bilderberg, et al, working in conjunction with the WHO, WEF, and UN.
I was skeptical about it all as well until I kept reading and running into evidence. The Day tapes were a big push. If you listen to nothing else, the Day tapes are it. Just apply what was discussed back in ‘69 to the similar things that have happened throughout the decades since then. Not sure if you are familiar with these Substackers, Katherine Watt, Sasha Latypova, and Lioness of Judah yet they have discussed similar topics of how we have been lied to on just about everything. Dr. Mike Yeadon is also an important reference https://mikeyeadon.com/
All I humbly ask is that you at least investigate and don’t discount it out of hand. Thanks.
My only skepticism was when I thought you were saying that this was already occurring. That, it seemed to me, would be more widely known if there were real-world instances.
But then you clarified that it is a future plan, and if that is the case, then I no longer have the aforementioned skepticism. You do not need to try to convince me.
I do not need to know details, though. I am assuming the absolute worst on everything already! I don't go down the rabbit holes—not because I am skeptical, but because I want to focus on other things. I believe that there are real things to find down those rabbit holes. I just don't want to make that my personal focus anymore. But I am grateful to those who take that bullet for the rest of us, so we can benefit from their discoveries.
I do see your point. In some ways I wish I didn’t know. I’ve been down countless rabbit holes and what I’ve found out sounds like it came straight out of the best dystopian books and movies or in some cases a hyper rendition of 1984. What remains to unfold, I fear, is far worse than what has come before.
Yes. I cannot face it head-on. It's too much—it is paralyzing. And I think that is what they want. For us to be paralyzed and cowering in a corner. NOT acting.
Oh I C! No, it’s not happening yet. All the mechanisms are in place yet the rollout will be in line with the timetable that the Great Reset 2030 is on. You will own nothing and be happy. It’s like the Plandemic…it was on a timeline as will be Plandemic 2.0. The Cabal has been planning all this for over 100 years. Longer than that according to other sources.
Have you heard of the Day Tapes? If you haven’t, please read this article and listen to the audio of the 4 tapes linked in the article:
If you mean explanation of how they can take what you think you own, yes, under section III. Security Entitlement the hows are explained. Or did you mean otherwise?
Feel free to chime in whenever a question arises. There may, of course, be answers upcoming in future installments, and if so, I will of course say so. But you also may have something important to ask or impart.
your work is deeply thought provoking & raises questions in my mind that im sure will be answered. i have dropped some comments, i cant find to delete. i got to deep in this & overwhelmed myself with the big picture as i see it. too many scenarios, sorry. you are writing this as you go, or present it here, yes?
I am writing this as I go, yes. And you do not need to worry about deleting any comments here, at least as far as I am concerned. This is a safe space for you to express yourself.
Sadly the rest of the nationalized citizens of whatever criminal government will still support their self imposed division and warfare. . . simply because they come from different continents. . .self defeating is the word that springs to mind.
Not forever, though. Not to sound like too much of a Whig historian, but I do believe things will get better on this front. It may take generations, though.
. . .wish I could celebrate with you. . .but I'm pretty pissed that I'm stuck here at all.
I would have been better off never existing. . .then it wouldn't matter how much insanity the rest of humanity decided to worship. Nor would my offspring have to wait and suffer for generations until it stopped.
. . . the planet doesn't "need" humans. . . It would actually thrive better without us.
And our constant consuming of the natural resources just to build our toxic cities so we can extort each other for permission to share a planet none of us actually own.
Your reply to one of the other comments: "So do you have any sense as to what is it about what I am saying that makes people think of utopia, even though I never actually make any utopian claims?"
What is a utopia, anyway? MW's definition says, "a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions". So why would you be surprised when you describe an "ideal" structure for society and self-governing? ;-)
In this particular article, one of the phrases really hit me that way in particular: "...in which private agencies peacefully compete in a free and open market to provide security and justice services to willing customers..." You were talking about how to police such a society, but that "peacefully compete" really caught my eye.
Humans aren't that great at peaceful competition for resources. I realize you weren't talking about competing for resources in that spot, but part of the issue we have in creating a better society is the issue of human selfishness. When somebody wants something (or thinks they NEED it... or literally does need it to survive) and somebody else has it, peacefulness can quickly go out the window.
Any time you describe a society where people are self-governing, it's just hard to imagine that it's anywhere near possible given human nature. You talk about not imposing one's will on another -- but if somebody doesn't impose restrictions on greedy or desperate people, then they're gonna hurt others to get what they want or need.
You describe utopia when you describe a place where everybody self-governs and there is peace. It's a lovely ideal. And (as has been said here already), at least by striving for it we may get closer and at least improve what we have.
I do think that market anarchism would be a significant improvement, both from a moral standpoint and in terms of the results it produces. But “utopia” definitely connotes some sort of earthly paradise, and no serious anarchist or libertarian is claiming that what they are espousing would constitute a paradise. Massive improvement, sure. But not paradise.
Did I use the phrase “peacefully” compete? Very often I use the term “cooperative competition.” Ah well, no matter. Let me explain what I mean either way…
Look at the market as it functions now. (It is not fully free, but it is the best example we have.)
Companies, consumers, etc. are not clubbing each other for resources. They are competing—for customers, for market share, for the lowest price, for the best wage, for the cheapest labor, etc. But they are not competing violently. They are held in check by a combination of market forces, social forces, and the threat of punishment.
All of those things would exist in a market-anarchic condition. The social and market forces would be there (and they would, in the absence of government, be significantly stronger and more important ). And the threat of punishment would come from market agencies offering security and justice services rather than from a single government monopoly.
In other words, the scenario you describes near the end isn’t really what I or other market anarchists are talking about. It is not chaos or the absence of order. Order and protective force still exist; they simply are generated differently.
I appreciate you clarifying what you're actually saying, but mostly I was trying to answer your question (if it was a real confusion you had) about "what makes people think of utopia?"
Some of the phrases, and some of the scenarios, that you describe are the sorts of things people associate with a utopian society.
And I imagine there's a hefty amount of skepticism about some of those scenarios being possible, given what we see in history and know of human nature. So the second and third dictionary definitions of "utopia" may also be triggered in people's minds.
2 - "an impractical scheme for social improvement"
3 - "an imaginary and indefinitely remote place"
Not suggesting there's anything you need to say differently, just trying to help you see things from the POV of someone not already steeped in your viewpoint. YOU know the differences between what you're picturing intimately and you see it as far different than "utopia". But others don't.
My confusion has been genuine, but I think you are helping—especially with the inclusion of those two secondary definitions. Instead of the paradisiacal aspect, maybe people are focusing on the notion that to them, the idea seems impractical, a “scheme,” or imaginary and remote. Framed that way, perhaps it makes more sense.
I have tried to be understanding, knowing that there are all different levels of knowledge on this subject. But it has been a source of frustration to me that utopia keeps coming up when I never make any actual utopian claims. But the way you have put it here adds helpful context. Thanks!
I don't like the idea of comparing anything to kings and queens. That implies royalty of some sort. There is no such animal as "blue" bloods. I may exist as "king" of my personal empire but in my terms, I exist as a nothing. I do not want to be psychologically attached to anything or gather a bunch of labels.
Yes, I may consider myself to be more of an anarchist than anything but that is because I want to detached myself from all the other labels like republican, democrat, liberal, libertarian, communist, Marxist, Nazi, and all the rest of that nonsensical mind-fu**ery.
I totally get it, and another has issued an objection to the "king" word too.
I solely and only meant it as a colorful metaphor to describe what you said ("I may exist as "king" of my personal empire"). That's it. Just self-ownership and absolute sovereignty.
But maybe I will have to do some edits, if this wording is a turning out to be misleading or a stumbling block…
There is no king but Jesus Christ. It is now and it always has been an error to claim the title of king. It is wrong to pretend to be able to rule and reign over others. You are not the king of me wherever you are, you are not Jesus Christ.
The concept of a nation is uncomfortable for me in its application here. If a place is meant, country or land is a better term. If a people are meant then clan or tribe or community are better terms. If a nation state is meant, I am anti-state, opposed to the usurpation of authority by a few over the many. But words in our language are operationally defined, by the user. So I shall wait to see what meaning shows up when you have done describing your distributed republic.
Fear not. King/queen is but a metaphor. It’s just a stylized way of describing individual sovereignty and self-ownership. And this will definitely not be a nation in the typical sense. It will be nothing like the states that you and I both reject!
It's a poorly chosen metaphor. God has been very clear on this point through His servant Samuel and throughout Scripture. Now might be a good time to understand why clamouring for a human king was rebuking God.
My intent wasn't to clamor for a king at all. Just making a statement that each person is the ruler of his own thoughts, actions, and choices. I do want to clearly understand the objection, though. Is it more a religious objection? We are not the owners of ourselves because God owns us, e.g.? (If so, I am only referring to self-ownership in the human sense—no other *human* can own you.) Is it because "king" implies ruling *others*? I definitely do not want to imply that!
(Keep in mind that I am writing these the day before, or on the morning of, so, unlike my other book, I don't have months or years to think through every metaphor.)
Speaking of the reckoning, are you still planning to send me that note? I would love to see it.
I did not anticipate that my use of the word "sacred" twice in the piece would have the effect of making it appear that there is a specific religious component at work. That was not my intent.
In this case, I mean "sacred" as in (per my thesaurus) sacrosanct, inviolable, inviolate, untouchable, inalienable, protected, defended, secure, etc.
I do not want to confuse matters, but I do like the way "sacred" connotes all those. Each individual human person is unique and irreplaceable. Their rights—not to have their person or property violated—are sacrosanct.
The NAP is not a suggested guideline; it is the sine qua non first principle. As such, individual self-ownership, and the property rights that extend directly therefrom—(both of which are violated by force) ARE, in those senses listed above, sacred.
Gross and clear violations of the NAP are profane, and ought to be universally taboo. But that is not in a specifically religious sense. It is more in a natural law/natural rights sense.
The degree to which each individual imbues these core principles with spirituality or divine origins is up to the individual. The distributed nation will not have any specific religious requirement. People can believe as they wish. There are only a few objectively/universally morally true propositions to follow.
And you should not have anything to fear from anyone who is simply following those.
Specifically, the bulleted list under the 'How' section - a lot of that a solid Christian faith would fit the bill. May not be the end-all be-all, but hey, why not?
Our constitution was written to only work for our race of people and our faith and belief system. So, we'd need to export any non-western dissenters that were here just to cause trouble.
You have taken on a large and intimidating task in trying to put together a coherent and workable plan here. I applaud your efforts. So many would say this is impossible and as long as they believe that, it will remain so. I commend you on attempting the impossible, somebody's gotta do it and it ain't me, I have my own Sisyphean tasks to buckle under the weight of. 😏
P.S. I really do think there should be an emoji of Sisyphus rolling that rock up the hill, I would use it egregiously. (perhaps I will design one)
🤣🤣
"So many would say this is impossible and as long as they believe that, it will remain so."
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
🔥🔥💯🔥🔥
Utopias are by definition too good to be true. Still, the excercise of designing them takes us toward the goal. Even America's founders recognized that an imperfect people were not up to governing themselves.
Yes, agreed, for sure.
One thing that confuses me, though…
Lots of people bring up utopia, even though I have never once mentioned it, or claimed I was trying to create it, or claimed that it was in any way possible.
I have long been confused by this, but I have to respect it, because lots of people say it!
So do you have any sense as to what is it about what I am saying that makes people think of utopia, even though I never actually make any utopian claims?
Perhaps the very thought of a "good" form of government triggers a reaction in many minds (including my own), "Caution! Good government is impossible for bad people." That might be self-defeating and "stinkin thinkin." I really try to not be pessimistic, but I can't seem to get beyond the evidence contrary to any innate goodness in humanity. But I also realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Being aware that I might be badly wired doesn't seem to help.
Well, I think none of us has perfect wiring. There's always something in each of us that gives us challenges in one area or another.
But yeah, what you describe is sort of one thing that I imagined might be behind the utopian charge. Like, sort of a defeatist, "why even bother" vibe?
Exactly!
I agree, but if any of us tries to build a utopia, we are destined to fail. Even Plato failed in The Republic.
Fair enough.
I do not know anyone who is working in this space who expects what they build to be a utopia. I certainly do not.
Utopia is definitely an impossibility in this reality. However, I do not think that this is an attempt at building a utopia, but rather a stepping stone towards an anarchistic way of life. The closer we can move to anarchism, the further away we move from authoritarianism and that is the right direction.
Right on. It's not going to be perfect, but I strongly believe it will be significantly better.
I agree you never promised it was going to be some perfect utopia.
It’s just going to be a lot better than savage Satanic wolves, rending and tearing us to death.
100 percent.
Another commenter did help me understand something, though. Some of the people who are leveling the “utopianism” charge likely are not reacting to a belief that I claiming that it will be a perfect society. Rather they are simply claiming that I am impractical or idealistic! 🤣🤣🤣
But it’s all good. These are tough ideas to grapple with!
Playing the "you just want a Utopia" card is dismissive. Building a system that leverages people's universal desire to not be harmed by coercion is hardly outside the realm of possible. In fact, it's a wonder we aren't farther along with it already. (A grudging credit to the forces of collective coercion.) If there is a way for two humans to interact voluntarily and without coercion, then it is logically possible for 8 billion people to have the same technology.
Thanks for this. I agree that 'legitimacy' is the crux of this issue. All of us are simply born into a system where a nation state essentially declares "We own you" and we are asked to not only accept this as the only possible reality for us, but to honor and defend the entire premise. It's the main reason we need to be relentlessly told how free we are. Because we're not. A new system needs to be built while we still have time.
100 percent agree. We will work on it together!
I like what you’ve laid out. Top of the heap for me is non-violence and peaceful methods of protests because *they* have all the best toys our money can’t buy and unlimited supplies of ammunition vs what we have to access. But I digress…
In my view, the independence you want to create for those of like minds is going to be far more difficult in the cities and suburban areas because the Cabal is plowing forward in the eventual rollout of 15 minute cities where control will be absolute. The other issue is all of the homes, cars, buildings, and acreage that have mortgages/loans. There is a loophole I’ve been reading about where your item in question has been used as collateral by the lender thereby making said item’s owner someone other than you. This situation enables the lender to take away your item with zero recourse for you. I may have stated some of that process incorrectly, too many subjects to keep track of these days, but the end result is the same. You own nothing.
Bottom line I still think you are off to a good start.
Thanks—I am glad we are on the same page.
On this…
"There is a loophole I’ve been reading about where your item in question has been used as collateral by the lender thereby making said item’s owner someone other than you. This situation enables the lender to take away your item with zero recourse for you."
—I am skeptical. If this existed, wouldn't it have been used by now? And then wouldn't we know about it? I cannot imagine anyone sitting idly by for that!
And I hear you about the cities. Here's my take: the more solidarity and clout we build, the better. Nothing is foolproof, nothing is guaranteed, but I figure we have to try!
It was from a few sources here on Substack, very reputable. May take me a bit to find them again but I’ll send them to you.
We absolutely have to try to get an edge. We may have to try a bunch of efforts and as we work towards the goal it would seem that we would gather up more and more participants. More people are going to want to join up when they see we are non-violent because most people aren’t capable of running out into the fray with guns blazing though there will be other groups for those folks! Surrendering out of hand is not my style so I’m definitely interested in seeing this through to fruition!
I am going to spend a reasonable amount of time, in Part II, on this subject. There are so many reasons why revolutionary violence is not the way to go. I know everyone feels righteous anger, and we have good reason, and every reason. But it won't work. And it's a bad idea. We have to find another way.
I am so glad you are on board.
Why I couldn’t think of Dr. Yeadon I’ll never know but he was one source. I read it somewhere else as well…still looking. In the mean time, Dr. Yeadon provides the free download of the book “The Great Taking” in the article. It explains all this in detail and only about 100 pages.
https://open.substack.com/pub/drmikeyeadon/p/maybe-you-have-millions-even-billions?r=15k78n&utm_medium=ios
Thank you. Do you recall if he gives examples of it happening?
I *know* it sounds completely far-fetched but look at all the obvious and previously unthinkable things that have happened already just since Covid. Just the mass genocide that occurred and is still occurring because of the death jabs - mistakes were not made. Look at how the schools over the last few decades have dumbed down curriculums…poorly educated children become more easily controlled adults as we see with the young adult sheeple who are led into believing there are multiple sexes, men having babies, and the most horrific act of “sex change” for minors, the erosion of parental rights, and so much more for over 100 years. These things and so much more have been designed by the 1% folks like Rockefeller, Rothschild, Schwab, Bilderberg, et al, working in conjunction with the WHO, WEF, and UN.
I was skeptical about it all as well until I kept reading and running into evidence. The Day tapes were a big push. If you listen to nothing else, the Day tapes are it. Just apply what was discussed back in ‘69 to the similar things that have happened throughout the decades since then. Not sure if you are familiar with these Substackers, Katherine Watt, Sasha Latypova, and Lioness of Judah yet they have discussed similar topics of how we have been lied to on just about everything. Dr. Mike Yeadon is also an important reference https://mikeyeadon.com/
All I humbly ask is that you at least investigate and don’t discount it out of hand. Thanks.
My only skepticism was when I thought you were saying that this was already occurring. That, it seemed to me, would be more widely known if there were real-world instances.
But then you clarified that it is a future plan, and if that is the case, then I no longer have the aforementioned skepticism. You do not need to try to convince me.
I do not need to know details, though. I am assuming the absolute worst on everything already! I don't go down the rabbit holes—not because I am skeptical, but because I want to focus on other things. I believe that there are real things to find down those rabbit holes. I just don't want to make that my personal focus anymore. But I am grateful to those who take that bullet for the rest of us, so we can benefit from their discoveries.
I do see your point. In some ways I wish I didn’t know. I’ve been down countless rabbit holes and what I’ve found out sounds like it came straight out of the best dystopian books and movies or in some cases a hyper rendition of 1984. What remains to unfold, I fear, is far worse than what has come before.
Yes. I cannot face it head-on. It's too much—it is paralyzing. And I think that is what they want. For us to be paralyzed and cowering in a corner. NOT acting.
Because they know that if we act, we win.
I wrote more about this last week: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/conspiracy-theory-rabbit-holes-mind-control
Oh I C! No, it’s not happening yet. All the mechanisms are in place yet the rollout will be in line with the timetable that the Great Reset 2030 is on. You will own nothing and be happy. It’s like the Plandemic…it was on a timeline as will be Plandemic 2.0. The Cabal has been planning all this for over 100 years. Longer than that according to other sources.
Have you heard of the Day Tapes? If you haven’t, please read this article and listen to the audio of the 4 tapes linked in the article:
https://sagehana.substack.com/p/the-day-tapes-final-tape-for-the
Ah, I gotcha. I actually think they might find that more difficult to enforce than they think, especially in the U.S.
Beyond that thought, though, I will just take your word for it. I do not explore these things too deeply anymore. I just assume the absolute worst!
If you mean explanation of how they can take what you think you own, yes, under section III. Security Entitlement the hows are explained. Or did you mean otherwise?
I meant more like case studies—actual instances of it occurring to real people.
the author of the great taking is not Yeadon. he lays out the banking mechanisms used to take "ownership" of real property & goods, esp since 2008.
if you are going for global ownership would you start with individuals or countries? or both?
Hiya Anne, was this reply meant for EK?
This ❤️💯❤️
🔥❤️🔥
I will be looking forward to hearing more of this approach.
Me too! 🤣
Feel free to chime in whenever a question arises. There may, of course, be answers upcoming in future installments, and if so, I will of course say so. But you also may have something important to ask or impart.
your work is deeply thought provoking & raises questions in my mind that im sure will be answered. i have dropped some comments, i cant find to delete. i got to deep in this & overwhelmed myself with the big picture as i see it. too many scenarios, sorry. you are writing this as you go, or present it here, yes?
I am writing this as I go, yes. And you do not need to worry about deleting any comments here, at least as far as I am concerned. This is a safe space for you to express yourself.
Nationalism is a disease. That lovingly and patriotically breeds division for the express goal of criminal government control
You might like these two posts on the subject:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/modern-nationalism-end-next-century
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/do-you-hate-ivan-russian-does-he-hate-you
Sadly the rest of the nationalized citizens of whatever criminal government will still support their self imposed division and warfare. . . simply because they come from different continents. . .self defeating is the word that springs to mind.
Not forever, though. Not to sound like too much of a Whig historian, but I do believe things will get better on this front. It may take generations, though.
. . .wish I could celebrate with you. . .but I'm pretty pissed that I'm stuck here at all.
I would have been better off never existing. . .then it wouldn't matter how much insanity the rest of humanity decided to worship. Nor would my offspring have to wait and suffer for generations until it stopped.
The world needs us to be here. Our descendants need us to fight for them!
. . . the planet doesn't "need" humans. . . It would actually thrive better without us.
And our constant consuming of the natural resources just to build our toxic cities so we can extort each other for permission to share a planet none of us actually own.
Your reply to one of the other comments: "So do you have any sense as to what is it about what I am saying that makes people think of utopia, even though I never actually make any utopian claims?"
What is a utopia, anyway? MW's definition says, "a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions". So why would you be surprised when you describe an "ideal" structure for society and self-governing? ;-)
In this particular article, one of the phrases really hit me that way in particular: "...in which private agencies peacefully compete in a free and open market to provide security and justice services to willing customers..." You were talking about how to police such a society, but that "peacefully compete" really caught my eye.
Humans aren't that great at peaceful competition for resources. I realize you weren't talking about competing for resources in that spot, but part of the issue we have in creating a better society is the issue of human selfishness. When somebody wants something (or thinks they NEED it... or literally does need it to survive) and somebody else has it, peacefulness can quickly go out the window.
Any time you describe a society where people are self-governing, it's just hard to imagine that it's anywhere near possible given human nature. You talk about not imposing one's will on another -- but if somebody doesn't impose restrictions on greedy or desperate people, then they're gonna hurt others to get what they want or need.
You describe utopia when you describe a place where everybody self-governs and there is peace. It's a lovely ideal. And (as has been said here already), at least by striving for it we may get closer and at least improve what we have.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments!
I do think that market anarchism would be a significant improvement, both from a moral standpoint and in terms of the results it produces. But “utopia” definitely connotes some sort of earthly paradise, and no serious anarchist or libertarian is claiming that what they are espousing would constitute a paradise. Massive improvement, sure. But not paradise.
Did I use the phrase “peacefully” compete? Very often I use the term “cooperative competition.” Ah well, no matter. Let me explain what I mean either way…
Look at the market as it functions now. (It is not fully free, but it is the best example we have.)
Companies, consumers, etc. are not clubbing each other for resources. They are competing—for customers, for market share, for the lowest price, for the best wage, for the cheapest labor, etc. But they are not competing violently. They are held in check by a combination of market forces, social forces, and the threat of punishment.
All of those things would exist in a market-anarchic condition. The social and market forces would be there (and they would, in the absence of government, be significantly stronger and more important ). And the threat of punishment would come from market agencies offering security and justice services rather than from a single government monopoly.
In other words, the scenario you describes near the end isn’t really what I or other market anarchists are talking about. It is not chaos or the absence of order. Order and protective force still exist; they simply are generated differently.
(More here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/four-definitions-word-anarchy)
I appreciate you clarifying what you're actually saying, but mostly I was trying to answer your question (if it was a real confusion you had) about "what makes people think of utopia?"
Some of the phrases, and some of the scenarios, that you describe are the sorts of things people associate with a utopian society.
And I imagine there's a hefty amount of skepticism about some of those scenarios being possible, given what we see in history and know of human nature. So the second and third dictionary definitions of "utopia" may also be triggered in people's minds.
2 - "an impractical scheme for social improvement"
3 - "an imaginary and indefinitely remote place"
Not suggesting there's anything you need to say differently, just trying to help you see things from the POV of someone not already steeped in your viewpoint. YOU know the differences between what you're picturing intimately and you see it as far different than "utopia". But others don't.
My confusion has been genuine, but I think you are helping—especially with the inclusion of those two secondary definitions. Instead of the paradisiacal aspect, maybe people are focusing on the notion that to them, the idea seems impractical, a “scheme,” or imaginary and remote. Framed that way, perhaps it makes more sense.
I have tried to be understanding, knowing that there are all different levels of knowledge on this subject. But it has been a source of frustration to me that utopia keeps coming up when I never make any actual utopian claims. But the way you have put it here adds helpful context. Thanks!
Excellent. You are very welcome, and I'm truly glad I could help. I appreciate your work here a lot.
I don't like the idea of comparing anything to kings and queens. That implies royalty of some sort. There is no such animal as "blue" bloods. I may exist as "king" of my personal empire but in my terms, I exist as a nothing. I do not want to be psychologically attached to anything or gather a bunch of labels.
Yes, I may consider myself to be more of an anarchist than anything but that is because I want to detached myself from all the other labels like republican, democrat, liberal, libertarian, communist, Marxist, Nazi, and all the rest of that nonsensical mind-fu**ery.
I totally get it, and another has issued an objection to the "king" word too.
I solely and only meant it as a colorful metaphor to describe what you said ("I may exist as "king" of my personal empire"). That's it. Just self-ownership and absolute sovereignty.
But maybe I will have to do some edits, if this wording is a turning out to be misleading or a stumbling block…
There is no king but Jesus Christ. It is now and it always has been an error to claim the title of king. It is wrong to pretend to be able to rule and reign over others. You are not the king of me wherever you are, you are not Jesus Christ.
The concept of a nation is uncomfortable for me in its application here. If a place is meant, country or land is a better term. If a people are meant then clan or tribe or community are better terms. If a nation state is meant, I am anti-state, opposed to the usurpation of authority by a few over the many. But words in our language are operationally defined, by the user. So I shall wait to see what meaning shows up when you have done describing your distributed republic.
Fear not. King/queen is but a metaphor. It’s just a stylized way of describing individual sovereignty and self-ownership. And this will definitely not be a nation in the typical sense. It will be nothing like the states that you and I both reject!
It's a poorly chosen metaphor. God has been very clear on this point through His servant Samuel and throughout Scripture. Now might be a good time to understand why clamouring for a human king was rebuking God.
A reckoning comes.
A reckoning does come. Some people will be very sorry that they turned their back on Jesus because the government thought it wasn’t cool.
My intent wasn't to clamor for a king at all. Just making a statement that each person is the ruler of his own thoughts, actions, and choices. I do want to clearly understand the objection, though. Is it more a religious objection? We are not the owners of ourselves because God owns us, e.g.? (If so, I am only referring to self-ownership in the human sense—no other *human* can own you.) Is it because "king" implies ruling *others*? I definitely do not want to imply that!
(Keep in mind that I am writing these the day before, or on the morning of, so, unlike my other book, I don't have months or years to think through every metaphor.)
Speaking of the reckoning, are you still planning to send me that note? I would love to see it.
. . .far apart how. . .as an adult you must have realized by now that we humans don't actually own the planet
I did not anticipate that my use of the word "sacred" twice in the piece would have the effect of making it appear that there is a specific religious component at work. That was not my intent.
In this case, I mean "sacred" as in (per my thesaurus) sacrosanct, inviolable, inviolate, untouchable, inalienable, protected, defended, secure, etc.
I do not want to confuse matters, but I do like the way "sacred" connotes all those. Each individual human person is unique and irreplaceable. Their rights—not to have their person or property violated—are sacrosanct.
The NAP is not a suggested guideline; it is the sine qua non first principle. As such, individual self-ownership, and the property rights that extend directly therefrom—(both of which are violated by force) ARE, in those senses listed above, sacred.
Gross and clear violations of the NAP are profane, and ought to be universally taboo. But that is not in a specifically religious sense. It is more in a natural law/natural rights sense.
The degree to which each individual imbues these core principles with spirituality or divine origins is up to the individual. The distributed nation will not have any specific religious requirement. People can believe as they wish. There are only a few objectively/universally morally true propositions to follow.
And you should not have anything to fear from anyone who is simply following those.
You beat me to it. LOL
Specifically, the bulleted list under the 'How' section - a lot of that a solid Christian faith would fit the bill. May not be the end-all be-all, but hey, why not?
Our constitution was written to only work for our race of people and our faith and belief system. So, we'd need to export any non-western dissenters that were here just to cause trouble.