This seems so obvious, it is puzzling to me why we have to belabor the point. I spent a full chapter on it in my book, Pioneering Prosperity. Nobody answers us; they just ignore us.
This is one of the best explanations on the topic I have ever read. Terrific.
On the idea of what humans tend to agree is good behavior, one of my favorite sources is in Michael Shermer's book, the Science of Good and Evil, an interdisciplinary discussion drawing from theology, anthropology, neuroscience, history, etc. He has a list in the appendix of indigenous people's and the commonalities in their cultures regarding what is allowed and what is forbidden.
A neighbor who is a committed Democrat likes to discuss politics. He suffers from Trump derangement syndrome. I kept telling him that he doesn't have to keep describing Trump's flaws because I've never been a Trump supporter. I also said that not everything Trump has said and done is evil and that by exaggerating, he loses credibility. Besides, he shows his lack of objectivity by finding no flaws in the Democrats. Finally, in desperation, I said this: “Suppose there were an organization that offered protection to users of their services who were required to pay for those services even if they were unwanted. Any refusal to pay would be punished.” Then I asked what sort of organization I had just described — a criminal protection racket or the government? My neighbor looked thoughtful but wasn't able to answer. Then I said, “What this organization is doing is legal.” Immediately, he realized I had described the government. Then I asked whether he thought the mere fact that an action is legal guarantees that it's just. Before he could answer, I reminded him that in the antebellum South, slavery was legal, and Jim Crow laws followed. The supporters of those laws were mainly Democrats. My neighbor, a black man, decided that laws can be unjust and said something to the effect that politicians can be evil, whether they're Republicans or Democrats.
To be fair, T.H. is no moron. He can be a curmudgeon and a smartass, but is absolutely brilliant. That's why I wish he would engage rather than hit and run.
Excellent analysis. The next question is how to do it. The answer is to use Citizens Initiated Referenda as a transitional model. Create a Voter owned CIR. Use open source POL.is. It is consensual decision making. Arising from that, couple it with an understanding of the limitations of the current Separation of Powers. Vote on the Separation of all Powers from each other. Make them all democratic. Then convert them all to be voluntary.
This seems so obvious, it is puzzling to me why we have to belabor the point. I spent a full chapter on it in my book, Pioneering Prosperity. Nobody answers us; they just ignore us.
This is one of the best explanations on the topic I have ever read. Terrific.
On the idea of what humans tend to agree is good behavior, one of my favorite sources is in Michael Shermer's book, the Science of Good and Evil, an interdisciplinary discussion drawing from theology, anthropology, neuroscience, history, etc. He has a list in the appendix of indigenous people's and the commonalities in their cultures regarding what is allowed and what is forbidden.
A neighbor who is a committed Democrat likes to discuss politics. He suffers from Trump derangement syndrome. I kept telling him that he doesn't have to keep describing Trump's flaws because I've never been a Trump supporter. I also said that not everything Trump has said and done is evil and that by exaggerating, he loses credibility. Besides, he shows his lack of objectivity by finding no flaws in the Democrats. Finally, in desperation, I said this: “Suppose there were an organization that offered protection to users of their services who were required to pay for those services even if they were unwanted. Any refusal to pay would be punished.” Then I asked what sort of organization I had just described — a criminal protection racket or the government? My neighbor looked thoughtful but wasn't able to answer. Then I said, “What this organization is doing is legal.” Immediately, he realized I had described the government. Then I asked whether he thought the mere fact that an action is legal guarantees that it's just. Before he could answer, I reminded him that in the antebellum South, slavery was legal, and Jim Crow laws followed. The supporters of those laws were mainly Democrats. My neighbor, a black man, decided that laws can be unjust and said something to the effect that politicians can be evil, whether they're Republicans or Democrats.
you might pass this on to Musk's team, maybe he and Milei would be interested in a free zone space akin to to what you describe
Here is the central, fatal fallacy of libertarianism: That the entire architecture of a free society can be built on contractual consent.
What's is the proper architecture? https://store.mises.org/Constitution-of-Non-state-Government-Field-Guide-to-Texas-Secession-P11264.aspx
Is this meant to be a critique or a book ad? If the former, please be more specific in your criticism.
Yes.
Yes, what?
>>Is this meant to be a critique or a book ad?
Yes.
Moron😂
To be fair, T.H. is no moron. He can be a curmudgeon and a smartass, but is absolutely brilliant. That's why I wish he would engage rather than hit and run.
>>Is this meant to be a critique or a book ad?
Yes.
Excellent analysis. The next question is how to do it. The answer is to use Citizens Initiated Referenda as a transitional model. Create a Voter owned CIR. Use open source POL.is. It is consensual decision making. Arising from that, couple it with an understanding of the limitations of the current Separation of Powers. Vote on the Separation of all Powers from each other. Make them all democratic. Then convert them all to be voluntary.