You are describing utopian totaliarianism here. It is a typical fantasy setting. What it ignores is that there are people who want to be free, and they currently feel that they have certain freedoms, which in the system described would not exist. So they need to be violently repressed to give away their freedoms (does not work), or cheated to give them away (works, but labels your system as unethical and ensures continued resistance by people who learn this). Starting from scratch, many things work, but there is often no way to get there from the current situation.

CK evades this by not requiring every individual be part of it. CK is voluntary, so it can uphold laws that I consider impossible in outside world (where there is no easy way to opt-out). For instance a global transaction tax is a way of tracking every individual's every purchase. It is a diabolic idea for freedom in the world where people need to fight for their freedom or lose it.

CK is implementing a transaction tax, however! In the context where people are voluntarily in, and the ruler of the world wants good to them, and one can exit at any time and the goons are not coming after, it is allowed for a system to make such a tax.

What we can save by doing it, is to keep the labor tax and costs at 0, and sales tax at 0. So when you sell your labor as a medical practitioner (200k/AP) and buy gardening (50k/AP), you get 4 times as many hours. This is the area where outside world sucks the most in western jurisdictions - even if the gardener is in the free market, the medical practice must charge 3+ times the doctor salary.

Also all sales taxes are zero, and duty is levied only on silver, beer, wine and spirits. The transaction tax will be a very small amount per transaction, in the order of 0.0001 XMR or less.

Utopia:
A utopia is a community or society possessing highly desirable or near perfect qualities. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempt to create an ideal society, and imagined societies portrayed in fiction.

The word comes from the Greek: oὐ ("not") and τόπoς ("place") and means "no-place", and strictly describes any non-existent society 'described in considerable detail'. However, in standard usage, the word's meaning has narrowed and now usually describes a non-existent society that is intended to be viewed as considerably better than contemporary society.


Well, you don't understand then that entire tribes (eg. jewry) are founded on the notion that others are subhuman. You plan to make all jews believe that they have the same rights as everybody    Good luck with that!!  (other tribes have individuals with similar mindsets, I used jews as an example because it is a media-induced no-no to even think about touching their supremacy).

To me you appear largely clueless, about the level I was 20 years ago. I don't say this to put you down (my level then was a good start) but a few decades of experience adds depth to the thinking. I look forward to the next 20 years to understand more.

Power Vacuum: a situation where the benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups, while the costs, in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects are diffused through the entire population.
Cooperation: Voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.
Defection: An exchange that advances the individual to the detriment of his fellows typically involving coercion, violence, or ignorance.

There is no such thing as complete freedom except for the state of nature as described by Hobbs. In every other scenario the best we can achieve is a partial freedom. We agree to some limitations of our freedoms to maximize our ability to prosper and cooperate while minimizing individual freedom to coerce, and defect.

The ideal government is no government at all. In this utopia nearly all individuals act only cooperatively. A stable utopia would require its participations to identify, correct, and in extreme cases neutralize those choosing defection over cooperation. Such a society is simply is not possible at our current juncture in history. We lack the required education, moral fiber, technology, and transparency and have simply not advanced enough to make it work. This leaves us no choice but to settle for an inferior semi-centralized alternative subject to an exploitable power vacuum.

There are two types of “freedom fighters” that rise up in opposition to the social contract. The first is the angry defector. Many individuals are optimized for violence, force, and coercion. Historically violence was a viable evolutionary strategy. The modern social contract has increasingly limited opportunities to profit from violence and those optimized for it are genuinely worse off as a result. The angry defector thus hates the social contract and longs for a return to the more primitive state for which he is optimized.

The second type of “freedom fighter” is the disillusioned cooperator. The social contract is a blunt and crude instrument. It is easily abused and manipulated. This weakness creates openings for today’s defector aka the intelligent narcissist. By exploiting the power vacuum the narcissist and his junior partner the parasite are able to succeed at the expense of others.  Disillusioned cooperators grow angry at a system that permits this abuse. Sometimes this leads to a conversion to anarchism which is either a desire for the utopia described above, a desire for a return to primitive tribalism, or some muddled mix of the two.

The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism evolved into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. Perhaps in the future republics will be consumed by world government, world government will advance into decentralized government, and decentralized government will finally mature into the optimum of no government at all.

Thank you I am humbled.

I like to think of this thread and the forum in general as a modern version of the 17th century English coffehouse. A place where we all learn from each other and discuss the news of the day.

Ok but these freedoms are so broad that its impossible to universalize them.

The rapist and the serial killer also wants his right to do these things. And by stopping them from doing so you are interfering in their right.

Ok that is a clear example, if we overrule specific rights with morality, but what about this:

By breating air, you are violating the right of 10000000000x other bacteria and living creatures to breath that air, and many of them will die, because you breath it from them.

So it's really hard to define and universalize these rights.



If you setup 1 rule, that nobody ever is allowed to be raped. But what if by letting somebody raped you prevent 100000x people from being murdered?

So you see, these things are too broad and undefinable.


So we need a clear rule-set, that is not just brute force, because that will effectively destroy civilization. But also a set of laws that use morality, and common sense in a balanced mixture.


The current laws are too irrational, and mostly made from sensationalism or from emotions, the lack the common sense part, and most of them are old anyways. They are based on 300-400 year old law books.

Well there are 4 main rules to morality.

1) Dont aggress against private property
2) Dont aggress against a person
3) Don't murder
4) Don't rape

These are the 4 main rules, and from this we can expand. But even these need to be carefully defined not to fall into the traps mentioned above.

If these 4 rules are respected then, you have nothing to worry about in a society.

Only 2 rules are needed, 3&4 obviously included in 2.

Private property cannot be held in allodium, making it easy to justify that my watch is mine, but hard to justify that all the lands of the Duchess of Alba who does not use them, and has received them because the King of Navarra killed the previous owners in the 1500s, are hers.

If we uphold that allodial title belongs to the government, there we go and nobody's property is any more free than it has been. If we uphold that "by my shotgun I am sovereign in my land" it is problematic either.

And the native tribes who held land as part of Mother Nature are anyway slaughtered and land taken away. That system of society works fine until others have a different system with more guns.

Nobody may ever be raped (rape is defined as done without permission). The whole notion "that 1000000 would be saved" is ridiculous and further decreases my evaluation about the level of your thinking. This "greater good" thing belongs wholly to the domain of collectivism, and not here. The basic thing to understand in liberty talk is that freedoms/liberties/rights, if they exist, they are uninfringeable. It is the definition.

What (you) collectivists also lose when you start to force people is individual responsibility. Surely if in a practical example million people will be slaughtered unless one is raped, someone will sacrifice himself. If not, the whole bunch is either not fitting to live based on lack of sacrifice, or is glorious martyrs based on stauch determination to not give in. They decide.

Are you from Europe?

World of peace and harmony is not in the cards anytime soon if ever. However, fundamentals may actually get us there someday as peace and harmony is a more economically efficient state.

The evolution of the social contract appears to be a progressive climb to higher potential energy systems with increased degrees of freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. I suspect that in the future republics will be consumed by world government, world government will evolve into decentralized government, and decentralized government will finally mature into a shared consensus among individuals with limited or no government.

Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increases the number of individuals able to engage in cooperative activity while lowering the number of individuals able to defect. To borrow from the links in the opening post each iteration increases the amount of entropy the system can sustainably support.

This is not to say we cannot revert to a lower energy state. A world war could set us back to tribalism or worse. Even in that event, however, the survivors would simply start the slow climb all over again. Progress is always a terrifying proposition. As the old saying goes the higher you climb the harder you fall.

On reread, my own text was difficult to understand. Thought goes like this: "Governments deny anyone the option to have land in allodium, and misuse their own allodial ownership. It would be cool to skip the governments, although this would lead to the state where neighbors could actually have wars over land, the same way as governments fight each other."

So the allodium, which I kind of idealize, allows the problems you describe. In both systems, 1)land owned by government and you have fee simple or other title (current one, although exact legalese varies), and 2)allodial ownership by the user tribe of the land, eternal vigilance is required. This is not a place where people may live at peace, not for now. Those wanting peace need to be prepared for war. Those believing to have found peace on Earth will lose it, and will be robbed of everything else they have as well.



Although with the same logic (showing negative actual or imaginary examples are demanding action by a "superior") all governments should be stripped of all the power instantly since they commit the greatest errors. Corporations, tribes, families and individuals also commit errors, so they should not be able to decide on anything. But remember, the governments, banks, and global governance are liable to even larger errors and they should not be given the slightest power in this utopia.

^^Above I am describing how the individualist/family centred worldview comes into existence. Recognizing that you know best your own things and not those of the others, and taking it to the logical and optimal end.


I also make daily decisions to solve common problems, and spend all my time and money on solving them. This does not mean I welcome any interference to my job by any collective "who knows better" because if they did, they would already be so busy working on it with their very own resources that they would not have time to harass me with their non-voluntary proposals.


Not only me but you also need to practice clear writing. This passage sounds to me as: "Humans have a common conscience, which is applied towards the members of their tribe. This can be attempted to change only by fanatics, and I, RealBitcoin, am such a fanatic by my wishes and attempts to "eliminate tribalism", which is the societal equivalent to what 'being required to give money to anyone upon request instead of members of the tribe only', is economically.

I have never used guns to convert other people's morality, nor would I be willing to convert myself. So it is not correct to call it "my" problem. I understand it is a common problem, though.

The banksters know that "eliminating tribalism" is impossible. Their forced mixing of races by the manufactured refugee problems does not serve to increase tolerance (which never was a problem in the first place - people all over respected theirs and others' right to be left alone. Tolerance becomes an issue when people are 1)forced to 2)change their culture and 3)pay for it, to 4)accommodate strangers. This is no difference to military occupation.) The real intention is to cause strife and internal conflict and make previously strong tribes more easily manageable.

But their flexible system was their doom eventually (since the outside invaders had the same internal system that was better and overruled them eventually).

If you unite all people on earth, there will be no outsiders to worry about. (unless some aliens come, but I doubt that's likely)

If you let everybody wander around then they will form gangs, tribes, kingdoms, and the wars and genocides start again.

You can choose for a 200-300 year periodic revolutions, or you can end the violence once and for all by removing the "animal" part from humans.