Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

How to maximize damage to states

This post has 69 Replies | 13 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,235
Friedrich Dominicus Posted: Fri, Jul 22 2011 5:40 AM

without going to jail for it?

What are your suggestions?

 

As you might know we are mostly damages by our "elected elites well you know that I name them deledefs. Now the biggest attack on our freedom are

1) money as debt

2) debt

 

So how can I maximize the damage to some state. Things I've done so far.

1) sold all bonds from any state of the word (just having bonds of private entities)

2) bought gold like mad

3) put PVs modules on my roof.

4) does not even keep any USD for myself

5) bought currencies like CHF, NZD, AUD (just to get out of the Euro)

I'd appreciate if I could drive my tax burden to 0, but doing that means having more credit than could be sustainable.

Don't tell me choose the right party, there is no party here in Germany any longer which can be named "liberal" they are green fascists and socialists. The CDU has accepted (despite any contract) to pay for all debts EU wide.

I was on my way out to New Zealand but could not convince my wife and children to do that step, now  I'm having to hang around here.

So what are other idea you have to ease the misery living in the EU?

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Fri, Jul 22 2011 5:59 AM

Do not! Without a viable alternative, destroying or even damaging the state, pressing Rothbard’s red button (even if we could do it) would be foolish, a regress, not progress. Until someone sets up a viable business model that works better than the state, the only thing to do is promote secession everywhere we can.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,235

The alternative is easy:

1) have money as value

2) disallow any debt for government.

Done...

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

Non compliance where consequences allow for it and if you have the time you could push limits of state insanity by not complying where consequences might exist. Is trying to take the state on within their own legal system a waste of time? Say you stopped paying taxes completely and they demanded you to court, could you take any arguments? Can you afford to pay them off if you are defeated? If more people tried to challenge the state on legal logical grounds they might be put on to the back foot.

I find that targeting something specific is most effective, if anything i would like to end the tv license and promote a free market in media, i think this would allow for a lot change. While someone else could focus on changing the electronic voting system and another something else.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Fri, Jul 22 2011 11:59 AM

Merlin:

Do not! Without a viable alternative, destroying or even damaging the state, pressing Rothbard’s red button (even if we could do it) would be foolish, a regress, not progress. Until someone sets up a viable business model that works better than the state, the only thing to do is promote secession everywhere we can.

 

 

 

Yeah right.  That's what they said about slavery in the American plantations.  

and you want something that "works better than the state"?  Are you kidding?   The State doesn't work period.   It kills and steals and that is it!  It protects nothing and provides nothing.   The State is destruction and nothing more.   I thouhgt such basics ought to be clear to someone like you but apparently I was wrong.  

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Fri, Jul 22 2011 12:22 PM

DD5:

Merlin:

Do not! Without a viable alternative, destroying or even damaging the state, pressing Rothbard’s red button (even if we could do it) would be foolish, a regress, not progress. Until someone sets up a viable business model that works better than the state, the only thing to do is promote secession everywhere we can.

 

 

 

Yeah right.  That's what they said about slavery in the American plantations.  

and you want something that "works better than the state"?  Are you kidding?   The State doesn't work period.   It kills and steals and that is it!  It protects nothing and provides nothing.   The State is destruction and nothing more.   I thouhgt such basics ought to be clear to someone like you but apparently I was wrong.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh…you have never lived under actual anarchy. I’ve seen my government collapse without any alternative present to fulfill the competences it has arrogated to itself. It was not pretty.

If you had a Rothbard button to press, you'd have chaos right away. Historically this is clear.  The painful truth is that we've not yet discovered (beyond papers) a working alternative, and very few people might be actually trying to.  Perhaps I’m wrong, but the state exists precisely because no better alternative has yet outcompeted it. 

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Fri, Jul 22 2011 12:38 PM

 That's BS!   Peopole equate chaos with anarchy so that any breakdown of vital services previously provided by the State is allegdly a condtion of anarchy.  THat's all your statist papers right there.  I've read papers qualifying a police strike as anarchy. (I have Toronto in mind)

But no, it's actually a condition of the State failing to provide the services it has previously monopolizied leaving a temporary vacum in its place.   Such conditions exist when the State is alive and well, e.g., Katrina.   It would be a statist manipulative propaganda to call the chaos in Katrina anarchy.  In fact, the chaos was precisely the lack of anarchy, and not the other way around.

Another condition is when at least two or more groups are at wars with each other to try to claim the position of central government over the same territory for themselves.   This too is not anarchy, but a condition of war between various self-proclaimed governments or States (as they all are).  If you consider that anarchy, then so should wars between two States creating no less destruction and chaos among their own populations.  If The Germans invaded the French and the French would actually fight them this time around, would the chaos created be a result of States or anarchy????

This idea about having an alternative before the State collapses is the most naive position one can possibly take.   As if the State would just give up its powers voluntarily without a struggle or collapse.    You will never have a smooth trasition to freedom.  The chaotic state following a government collpase may be the only waypoint available to achieve anarchy.   But it's a waypoint, and not anarchy itself!

 

 

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310
Chyd3nius replied on Fri, Jul 22 2011 1:29 PM

I think the problem is that we push the Red Button before there is enough libertarians, because after the crash and chaos another state will emerge. People are statists nowadays.

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Jul 22 2011 1:42 PM

Originary secession (Hulsmann's term, see Secession and the Production of Defense in The Myth of National Defense). It is the only path forward. Simply say to yourself, "I will no longer obey any dictate of any government except out of prudence" - as long as you understand that law is higher than government dictate and you are mature enough to distinguish between your principled refusal to obey government dictates and an embrace of nihilistic outlawry. Once you have freed yourself of mental slavery to the State, then the whole world is your playground. It's just a matter of learning to navigate the minefield of red tape, bureaucratic nazis, war-mongering Elites, petty tin-badge thugs and so on. You have pulled the wool from your eyes - and the one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind. Just put a peep-hole in your wool blinders and put them back on before you go out-of-doors so the Agents don't notice that you've broken out of The Matrix.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,235

Well just tell me how to achiieve that in Euro land. I'm not keen on seeing our jails from inside. I hate every cent I pay for taxes. And I do what I can to get that down. Still in everything you buy and do the government is involved. You do the error and buy something. Well VAT is there. You buy a house or own own. Gosh  you pay once, twice, trice. You want to start a business, pay pay pay. So I'm absolutly intersted in maximiszin the harm to the government, but not  willing to go to  jail.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sat, Nov 12 2011 12:46 AM

@Frederich: But why? I hate the State but I'm not going to consume my life with opposing it because I don't see the benefit in it.

As far as escaping the State's tentacles, there is one strategy that always beats the State: multi-jurisdictional family business. Unfortunately, most families are captives of the State, so the lone, black-sheep anti-statist is on his own. It seems to me that the next best strategy is to become a patriarch and raise your children with the values necessary to begin a multi-jurisdictional family business from scratch. The hard part is that it's difficult to persuade your children to follow your lead unless you already have some capital to work with.

*sigh

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,235

What is that: multi-jurisdictional family business? I never have heard of it and can not make anything out of it for my situaion. I'm not in the US nor in a couuntry where english based law prevails. I'm stuck with socialists  Germany

Why should one fight against slavery? Isn't it comfortable enough?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sat, Nov 12 2011 1:56 AM

 I'm stuck with socialists  Germany

Germany has its downsides but just thank God you don't have to deal with the post-2001 US fiscal situation. Our military expenditures have gone through the stratosphere and the effective burden of the State (whether through taxes, debt or inflation) has skyrocketed.

As for "multi-jurisdictional family business", I mean, let's say you live in Germany and your brother lives in Egypt. He runs a business and you run a (possibly related) business. Rather than allowing your assets to become captive to either the state of Germany or the state of Egypt, you keep your assets outside of these states, maybe in the Cayman Islands, Andorra, Leichtenstein or wherever. When it's convenient for something to be in his name and not yours (for tax purposes), you transfer it to his name, and vice-versa, but you maintain a "family code of honor" between each other, keeping a set of family books that tracks what actually belongs to who.

Why should one fight against slavery? Isn't it comfortable enough?

It is tempting to yield to the comfortable slavery that Aldous Huxley warned was coming. It appears to have arrived in the form of post-war Europeanism and post-9/11 Americanism. But the whole system is fighting gravity. Sooner or later it must collapse as every scheme of empire always has.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,235

It seems that my suggestions can work. Withoug fueling the fire with accepting more and more bonds one can get  government to their knees. Currently one still has the choice.  You MUST not buy bonds of governments, but without it they are running out of fuel As you see the help themselves with undemocratic choices (see Greece, Italy) but it still does not work. The buyers still do not trust their promises any more. That is encouraging.

Please thingk abou it

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 271
Points 4,220
boniek replied on Sun, Nov 27 2011 6:58 AM

Easy. Convert as many people to volunatrism as possible.

"Your freedom ends where my feelings begin" -- ???
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Nov 29 2011 3:04 AM

Friedrich Dominicus:

How to maximize damage to states without going to jail for it?

Start a new country with a freedom philosophy and make it so free and successful that the citizens of other countries flock there and depopulate the less free, more restrictive countries. Robbed of productive citizens, they will collapse of their own weight.

That's my plan, at least :P

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,235

good idea just tell me where i can  open this country ;-) I think the former freeest country in the world would be big enough, won't you agree ;-)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 2:14 AM

Friedrich Dominicus:

good idea just tell me where i can  open this country ;-) I think the former freeest country in the world would be big enough, won't you agree ;-)

Nah, we who are committed to the NAP cannot accept starting a rebellion except in the face of actual oppression and dictatorship. The system we have in the US may be flawed, even fatally so, but as long as there remains the possibility of voting back in change, there won't be a moral need to take up arms. The fact that the current US populace doesn't care to vote for change doesn't affect the moral standing of such an action.

No, rather I've set about my task by first of all creating a new political right which is actually an extension of an existing one. This is the right of political separation (drawn from the right of free association).

We tend to look at society as ill because the producers are fed upon by society's parasites. The dominant political parties achieve popularity by using political power to vote largesse from the producers to themselves and those whom are not high producers, since the less productive will always out-vote the highly productive it has become the de facto modern political reality.

The right of political separation would give anyone a right to leave a jurisdiction and accept or create a new one at any time and possibly without moving physically.

In practice, it would look something like applying for asylum looks now. You appeal to a different political order from the one you're currently in or just cast off the existing one. No one can have jurisdiction over you except you give them that jurisdiction, assuming you are not aggressing (if you are aggressing, anyone who wishes to stop you have moral sanction).

I plan to start a floating state, on the oceans. I'm inventing a new way of living, full-time on the water, in floating island communities (not simply in groups of boats, but floating actual houses and buildings). Think of it as New Venice. I'll start off the coast of California, in the Pacific and build from there.

Along with this new way of living comes new political structures, and I will be able to create a libertarian legal system from the outset, using it to put into practice many of the political and economic theories that we austro-libertarians have advocated for decades now.

Chief among these will be the separation of economy and state.

Immigration will be free, because the state provides nothing out of government coffers and thus immigrants cost society nothing, quite the oposite. In fact, I read an article about a similar scheme to create a floating platform to get around H-1b visa restrictions (to allow skilled foreign workers to keep working in the US).

Ideally, in such a society with no statist controls, no income or business tax, etc., would expand rapidly once established and draw the most ambitious and brightest, and cause brain drain from the US as well as operate as a young-population draw. I can tell you one thing, there's a loooot of room in the pacific ocean (it's about 65 times larger than the US).

So no, this would not be a direct assault on the US--rather it's an indirect assault. By bleeding off the most productive members of society and giving them a place where they can keep the fruits of their labor, we can cause the US system to collapse much more rapidly, because it is built to depend on those people's income! The US system requires it to leech from the productive, and for them to have nowhere else to go. Give them a place to go and they will not only flock there, but the place they left will collapse from its own decaying weight, much as Chicago now has.

And what sort of system would be left behind? After the unproductive realize they need to start working again and that they can no longer trap the productive in their system, my hope would be that they would adopt a system that by then has proven to work. In other words, every nation must compete with the freest nation in the world. For a long time that's been the US, but if we create a place with better living terms than the US, then we force them to finally contend with the austro-libertarian ideas which the powerful will not allow to catch hold in the US, and, importantly, we do so peacefully and without firing a shot.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490

Again trying to try to find a way to not be stateless? You realize that infinite secession is essentially anarchy, right?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 531
Points 10,985

Without going to jail? Don't get caught. Without breaking the law? The damage probably won't be substantial.

If you're not willing to go to jail for your beliefs, spend your time supporting those who are, or reconsider your beliefs if that seems too time consuming. Anything else, quite frankly, probably isn't going to damage the state beyond maybe spreading the message, so to speak.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Dec 4 2011 10:04 PM
Question authority. Make rational discourse your weapon of choice. The only way to defeat an idea is with a superior idea.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 516
Points 7,190
bbnet replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 7:07 AM

Know your supposed rights and exercise your backbone like this guy without fear that it could result like this.

We are the soldiers for righteousness
And we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Mon, Dec 5 2011 12:20 PM

speak for yourself anemone. i believe in the n.a.p. but would not consider it immoral to stage rebellion. violence has been initiated upon the masses by the state. tell me how do you distinuish between dictatorship and what we have today? my guess is that the difference is one of degree but not quality.morally, anyone who has paid taxes on anything or been apprehended by a cop by his own funding has a right to revolt. this would not be an initation of force. pardon my phone syntax...

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 516
Points 7,190
bbnet replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 9:44 PM

The CIA made a cute little primer years ago for the Nicauraguans, but many of its suggestions are likely to be illegal?

We are the soldiers for righteousness
And we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,005
Points 19,030
fakename replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 10:53 PM

Merlin:
Eh…you have never lived under actual anarchy. I’ve seen my government collapse without any alternative present to fulfill the competences it has arrogated to itself. It was not pretty.

If you had a Rothbard button to press, you'd have chaos right away. Historically this is clear.  The painful truth is that we've not yet discovered (beyond papers) a working alternative, and very few people might be actually trying to.  Perhaps I’m wrong, but the state exists precisely because no better alternative has yet outcompeted it.

If you're talking about Albania, then when did it go into chaos? What country are you refering to?

Now I'm mostly not a believer in radical devolution to the masses, however, in your case was the state particularly unnatural (did it attempt to unite disparate groups or sub-states)?

Maybe that's why it fell into disorder so quickly, perhaps that's a good thing; some societies don't need a state. Why, the U.S. almost became 3-4 separate republics.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,005
Points 19,030
fakename replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 11:14 PM

I agree that we shouldn't maximize damage to the engine of the state (perhaps there are good reasons to do a little damage in some instances though). But in general it may be of some use w/o which, chaos and immorality would increase.

Of course, if the state continues to provide order it will only sap the self-control and obedience of the people; testing them with its overarching laws. So when do we replace the state with something better? I don't know.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 2:02 PM

fakename:

If you're talking about Albania, then when did it go into chaos? What country are you refering to?

Now I'm mostly not a believer in radical devolution to the masses, however, in your case was the state particularly unnatural (did it attempt to unite disparate groups or sub-states)?

Maybe that's why it fell into disorder so quickly, perhaps that's a good thing; some societies don't need a state. Why, the U.S. almost became 3-4 separate republics.

 

 

Yep, I’m talking about the 1997 collapse in Albania. Now, you made a very sharp remark, and it is indeed the case that the main component of that civil unrest was the southern half of the country felt alienated by the predominately northern-staffed government (just as the northerners had felt alienated during the 50 years of southern-dominated communist rule).

A few remarks from actual staleness:

-                      The whole thing lasted a just few months, for an international peacekeeping force (that did nothing but show up) was dispatched and the government retook the whole territory under its factual jurisdiction by 1999.

-                      The division of labor almost totally stopped. People begun hoarding foodstuffs and you could hardly find even necessities in stores. A major depopulation (and mass emigration) where set in motion.

-                      A few cities turned into arenas of gang warfare where even stepping outside of one’s house was a daring feat indeed. Note that gang violence had absolutely no sub-regional component.

-                      Local gangs did begin to take over, and if given time, they could have established fiefs in the whole country.

-                      In some cities, the citizens organized themselves into ‘public safety committees’ which tried to erect state-like apparatuses, and even recall the popular former PM into taking over in their ‘jurisdictions’.

Now, I do not know how the situation would have evolved if the country had been left alone for a couple of years. What I can imagine is that the above-mentioned gang and/or public committees would have erected cantons instead of the unitary government that was in place before. That would have been a wonderful achievement, but the point is that these would yet have been states. So, from statelessness many states would have emerged anew!

So, the system was ‘reset’ in a sense, and it began organizing into city-states, which would indicate that, at least for now, that is the best political regime known. If a push for cantonisation can be made without having the whole social apparatus collapse, than by all means one should go for that. If panarchy (‘anarcho-capitalism’) will ever be workable (I believe it will), it sure as hell isn’t yet. We need that state for now.   

 

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 2:27 PM

Hey Merlin, haven't seen you around in a long time. Welcome back.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 2:47 PM

 

I’ve been posting on the new forums, but I see that here’s as active as ever, so I’m back. 

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 468
Points 8,085
Wibee replied on Fri, Dec 16 2011 8:42 PM

Well, the easiest way is to follow traffic laws.  Cities literally make a killing over the fines... 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 947
Points 22,055
Student replied on Sat, Dec 17 2011 12:06 AM

I am always fasinated how monetary policy can be such a huge deal for some people. It is not just an academic or policy issue. Whether our money is "sound" is a key indicator of whether we live in a "free" society. very interesting.

Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,235

"our money is "sound" is a key indicator of whether we live in a "free" society. very interesting."

 

It's not interestin it's a fact. every fiat-money system is the incarnation of dictatorship. Because it means you are forced to pay with money the states declare to be of worth, and be it just some numbers on paper. It's not interesting it's the knout under which we have to suffer. You don not want this "money"? Well bad luck....

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Jan 4 2012 8:43 PM

Jargon:
speak for yourself anemone. i believe in the n.a.p. but would not consider it immoral to stage rebellion. violence has been initiated upon the masses by the state. tell me how do you distinuish between dictatorship and what we have today?
Simple. If the ability to vote change in still exists, however unlikely, you don't have the right to foment or stage a revolution. This is also why christians don't hunt down and kill abortion doctors.

Jargon:
my guess is that the difference is one of degree but not quality.morally, anyone who has paid taxes on anything or been apprehended by a cop by his own funding has a right to revolt. this would not be an initation of force. pardon my phone syntax...

Not so, you can always leave the society if you wish to not pay taxes. It's if they prevented you from leaving that would be an aggression. Passing a law that results in you pay taxes is not strictly an aggression. Passing a tax that left you unable to feed yourself would be tho.

As long as you have a peaceful option, the NAP demands you take it. Vote change or leave the society. Those things barred, then revolt and you have my blessing and I'll be right there alongside you.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,235

"Not so, you can always leave the society if you wish to not pay taxes."

Tell us how to do so.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

The state will collapse on its own. Ancient Rome was very similar to what America and the EU are right now. We also know that civilization itself is not sustainable and will collapse eventually. Look up Tainter's work on the collapse of complex civs or anything on Alex Jones' websites to see for yourself.

But I also feel that the state will become its most tyrannical right before it collapses for good. So the best thing you can do is learn the necessary survival skills and pack a bunch of gold with you and leave civilization to live 100% off the land.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 5,235

"But I also feel that the state will become its most tyrannical right before it collapses for good."

 

I'm afraid this is all too true. We can see it currrently. Just see what undemocratic beharviour you can find in Italy, Greece or the complete EUR "crisis". Just see the arguments of the fighters against terrorism. They start to look like terrorists themselves. And it goes on an on. It reminds me of the end of WW II in Germany. If you'd flee to  early you were killed by your "own" comrades.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

So yeah I wouldnt be too focused on ways to damage the state but instead look at methods of survival for when the state collapses for good and starts to become extremely tyrannical. I would start with Complete Survivalist and move on from there.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Thu, Jan 5 2012 10:26 AM

for when the state collapses for good and starts to become extremely tyrannical

So the state will collapse (as in lose its power and authority) and then it will become tyrannical?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Thu, Jan 5 2012 2:52 PM

Freedom4Me73986:

So yeah I wouldnt be too focused on ways to damage the state but instead look at methods of survival for when the state collapses for good and starts to become extremely tyrannical. I would start with Complete Survivalist and move on from there.

Meh. My focus is on founding a new society on libertarian principles before the collapse of this society, thus giving people a place to exodus unto.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 2 (70 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS