Thread

New follower here. Great work!

Fantastic episide Timothy & nostr:nprofile1qqsf9jl9scw0c5snmkylpfhkppzgd7z7dupul6ms5yl52kfcz9jr8wqpz3mhxue69uhk2mmnw3skwunpd5hxxmmd9uq36amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dxqcju7tpdd5ksmmwdejjucm0d5hskuddf9 Re the 20% vote situation in the UK, it wouldn't matter if it was 99%. No percentage has the right to take others property without their consent. Political authority is a delusion.

I have some questions to the "democracy leads to totaliarism". When democracy is not the system, would you still argue for separation of powers? So those who write laws and those who enact them have to be independent fromeachother? And would you be in favor of an egalitarian society, where every human being should be held accountable to the same standards? I personally see great opportunity through an independent ungovernable money like Bitcoin. But I have a hard time agreeing with this bold hypothesis in any way. Since democracy is allowing free speech, allows fractionalising power down to the individual, so how is it supporting totaliarism? And what could be a reasonable way to improve the situation?

I hope everyone gets, that the most richest people do nothing else then taking others property. There is just no other way to put it. There can be also very rich that really made incredible efforts to the society in order to improve. But I would claim there has never been a humanity, where the richest are the people who just served the most brain and energy to society.

When democracy is not the system I would personally like to see a contract-based model, where individuals voluntarily engage with competing providers of security, justice, and infrastructure. Essentially replacing state functions with market-driven services. Disputes would be resolved by independent arbitration, not political decree. As to whether every human should be held accountable to the same standards, that would depend on the particular contract that they chose to sign with the service provider. I would also have to counter your claims that democracy fractionalises power to the individual. In reality, we see the opposite. By its nature, democracy favours the collective over the individual and as a result free speech under democracy is , as you rightly mentioned, 'allowed' speech. The greatest opportunity offered by Bitcoin as money is that its takes away the state's ability to create money to fund itself. It is a forcing function making states become more productive and efficient and ultimately, much smaller and limited in function.

Thank you for the explanation. I just went through the idea of independent security organisations, which offer their own laws, courts and prisons. Every individual is free to have a conscription with whatever company that is active in their area. So this would be an ideally borderless world, where people conscripted with different security companies can live in the same neighborhood. Only when they interact with each other to sell some bigger belonging might they have to agree, under which law they do the transaction. Basically how it is handled today with countries. I see a threat, that there are a huge number of terror attacks between these companies. Since they are in concurrence to each other and there will be no superior power to lower incentives of terror against competitors. The incentive is obvious. When I work for a security company and can successfully destroy a prison or court of a competitor with less investment, than they will need to rebuild and educate new lawiers, then this is a net win for my company. It is hard to say, what values would evolve the most important over time. Since naturally, I think every person can beliefe to have rights and request certain priviledges. So with the independent security companies, I would have to accept that my parents might are just shot in their head, when some rich person is unhappy with what they say. So over all the people living in democracies today, I am very critical, if there is less overall violence in a system of private security companies. I am very happy to be corrected. And also happy to read a book, which explains this theories more in depth. I am aware, that I only invested little of my time in developing the theories of voluntarism. And I am absolutly fascinated by its Ideas. Still I am not yet convinced, that private security companies will be more successful than direct democratic states in delivering security and equality. And I am not convinced eighter, that monetary value should have an influence on how much the pwerson has a say. I am sure there are great Chess grandmasters which grew up in poverty. And I have no argument, why they should have less of a say in a society, than some lazy rich kids.

This book might interest you: https://free-cities.org/free-private-cities-book/