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 4,860

It woult not be a problem for me to be stateless, but it will be terrible hard to do any voyage without passport e.g. I could live a any passport but the problem is I would really have to rome the countries to be "stateless" but well whereever I would go state would be there. So well statelss is impossible on this planet.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 256
Points 5,630

Take a look at this site:

http://canaryislandspress.com/index.cfm/fa/questions

The author gives really good suggestions on protecting your privacy and making yourself anonymous.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

if you do not want to go to jail for your cause, then your cause is too futile.

if the participators of the civil rights movement decided that they wanted to be disobedient but  not to the extend that they are going to jail, they would have barely harmed the state.

but with boycotts, and mass protests, they went to jail and overfilled the jail, and eventually the state could not jail anymore.

(of course not nationwide but the above happened in a city i forgot its name)


 

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 4,860

Tell me when this has happened... Yes I know of one or two "exceptions" but the did not "fill up the jail" There are Nelson mandela and the leader of Miramar. They did not overfill the jails anyway.

 

Small extension. during their time in jail they could not do anything actively against states. ..

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sat, May 26 2012 3:37 AM

Friedrich Dominicus:

It woult not be a problem for me to be stateless, but it will be terrible hard to do any voyage without passport e.g. I could live a any passport but the problem is I would really have to rome the countries to be "stateless" but well whereever I would go state would be there. So well statelss is impossible on this planet.

I'm planning to found floating states on the water, as a prelude to space-based states. In an individualist state, citizenship or not is no big deal. Everyone's welcome assuming they behave themselves. There'd be no issue of "illegal-immigration" in a place where no one is a burden on the tax-payers in any way--well, in a place where there are no tax-payers by virtue of no taxes :P

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sat, May 26 2012 3:39 AM
 
 

kelvin_silva:

if you do not want to go to jail for your cause, then your cause is too futile.

if the participators of the civil rights movement decided that they wanted to be disobedient but  not to the extend that they are going to jail, they would have barely harmed the state.

but with boycotts, and mass protests, they went to jail and overfilled the jail, and eventually the state could not jail anymore.

(of course not nationwide but the above happened in a city i forgot its name)

Thing about protest, it only really works on those whom still have some ethics, those whom believe they are good people. Protest doesn't work on true tyrants who will just as soon liquidate you as anything else, who believe people are not ethically different from animals.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 69
Points 1,335
niphtrique replied on Mon, May 28 2012 12:49 AM

This is interesting: "Every fiat-money system is the incarnation of dictatorship."

Combine this with: "Bad [depreciating] money drives out good [stable] money."

If people have to choose between using fiat and gold for payment, they will choose fiat.

So bad money is a superior currency.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, May 28 2012 5:35 AM
 
 

niphtrique:

This is interesting: "Every fiat-money system is the incarnation of dictatorship."

Combine this with: "Bad [depreciating] money drives out good [stable] money."

If people have to choose between using fiat and gold for payment, they will choose fiat.

So bad money is a superior currency.

Only true in a system where government is coercing people to use the bad currency.

In a free market for money, good currency driveth out the bad.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 254
Points 5,500

I really think the question you asked to start this thread is highly inappropriate. Perhaps a better focus would be on how to better define yourself as an individual. Life, liberty and private property should be the foci of everybody, not "damaging" anything.

That's the problem with socialism, frankly. The Marxists, as useless as they are, want to overthrow everything with socialism--central government overhaul of our entire market. Lincoln wanted to maximize damage to the states in his own way, as do socialists (and he had a lot of help doing it from the socialists, and I just think this is a bad way to go about phrasing it, especially considering it probably draws the wrong kind of crowd.

Just my two cents.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 468
Points 8,085
Wibee replied on Mon, May 28 2012 7:22 AM

However, if you follow a life of freedom, you have to accept the consequences.  If you choose not to pay taxes, do the drugs, carry a weapon, People will come after you.  And they will compel you to turn on your friends.  It would be mighty tempting when faced with jail and felony charges.  Survival instincts kick in.  You can say behind a computer what you would do in that situation, but until you are in it, you do not know. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 4,860

If I'm for freedom I must reject states. Unfortunatly  I can not escape  them. And  well  if I could I would abolish them, but I can't . I can not escape and I can not "close" it down. So tell me what I'm supposed to to to be pro freedom and also pro my own freedom. Why is it ok to put me into jail if I'm not supressing anytone but just won't pay my taxes? What do I gain while going to jail? Do I get more freedom in jail or am I on the mercy of the jailers?

Please also tell me whom private property do I violate if I'm not going to pay my taxes? I do not even have a choice on whom to ask to look for someone breaking into my house, but "state" workers. And you know how many housebreaking is solved here in Germany well 16%. So  the state can not guarantee me anything, it can just take away from me and what I get in reply is what? Another certificate of debt.

So I repeat my question. how can I minimize my damage  (or maximize the damage of my torturer which) is the state. Nobod really has come up with a sort of suggestion. I'm not suprised, because there is no easy visible escape in reach.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 254
Points 5,500

Friedrich Dominicus:

If I'm for freedom I must reject states. Unfortunatly  I can not escape  them. And  well  if I could I would abolish them, but I can't . I can not escape and I can not "close" it down. So tell me what I'm supposed to to to be pro freedom and also pro my own freedom. Why is it ok to put me into jail if I'm not supressing anytone but just won't pay my taxes? What do I gain while going to jail? Do I get more freedom in jail or am I on the mercy of the jailers?

Please also tell me whom private property do I violate if I'm not going to pay my taxes? I do not even have a choice on whom to ask to look for someone breaking into my house, but "state" workers. And you know how many housebreaking is solved here in Germany well 16%. So  the state can not guarantee me anything, it can just take away from me and what I get in reply is what? Another certificate of debt.

So I repeat my question. how can I minimize my damage  (or maximize the damage of my torturer which) is the state. Nobod really has come up with a sort of suggestion. I'm not suprised, because there is no easy visible escape in reach.

For starters, the Bill of Rights, while it is merely in writing, has done an immense amount in preserving what freedom we have. Yes, it has been infringed multiple times, but we have it, and I would wager that without it, we wouldn't be as free as we are today. For instance, your "torturers" "permit" you to get on the internet and lambast them. I don't know many captors who would do that.

While the state is no doubt intruding on individuals exponentially, and they are inhibiting our natural rights, the plunder most definitely should be resisted. But this whole notion that you are somehow tortured . . . really? How, exactly? By your picture you seem to be getting enough meals, you have the freedom of expression on here, and I'm sure that for the most part you are able to live your life how you choose. Yes, taxation is immoral, but again, how does this qualify as torture? How do you define torture anyhow? And how exactly would you be living your life differently at this moment if you weren't at the mercy of these "torturers"? Seems like a loaded term mate, I want some clarity.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 4,860

Well if I'm not paying my tax I will go to jail. And there I will have to suffer  under whatever is decided upon me. I can not go where I want any more. And if I would get treated with violence, I probalby can not do anything about thatt. I may have been violent myself and so the "punshemens" of the state force would be "justified". So what prevents the state paid police  to mistreat the inhabitants? Now let's drive it to the extreme. I will get "qualified" as a Terrorsit or "catched" somewhere there the terrorism lives, and will send to Guantanamo. What do you think is done there? Drinking som cup of coffee.

And your Bill of  Rights does not hold here in Germany I  bet. 

How exactly my life would be different? Very easy I would not pay any tax voluntarily. I would not want to support the "force monopoly" of the state. They could go where they belong to, and it's not heaven.

I can choose how I live my life? Well I could tell you quite  different things. First I live in my house on my ground and I can not make use of it as I like I can not even install a heat pump here (while wanting one to use the earth as one part). I have my company here and I just thave to pay VAT, diverse compulsory levies.  I must send my chidren to school otherwise, go to jail. And the worst of all I have to pay with money I would touch if I had the choice. I have to live with seeing my property devalued through inflation. And I have to pay for that all. So my life would be at least much more peaceful.

Now it's your turn. Tell us how free you can live....

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 254
Points 5,500
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 254
Points 5,500

Friedrich Dominicus:

Well if I'm not paying my tax I will go to jail. And there I will have to suffer under whatever is decided upon me. I can not go where I want any more. And if I would get treated with violence, I probalby can not do anything about thatt. I may have been violent myself and so the "punshemens" of the state force would be "justified". So what prevents the state paid police to mistreat the inhabitants? Now let's drive it to the extreme. I will get "qualified" as a Terrorsit or "catched" somewhere there the terrorism lives, and will send to Guantanamo. What do you think is done there? Drinking som cup of coffee.

And your Bill of Rights does not hold here in Germany I bet.

How exactly my life would be different? Very easy I would not pay any tax voluntarily. I would not want to support the "force monopoly" of the state. They could go where they belong to, and it's not heaven.

I can choose how I live my life? Well I could tell you quite different things. First I live in my house on my ground and I can not make use of it as I like I can not even install a heat pump here (while wanting one to use the earth as one part). I have my company here and I just thave to pay VAT, diverse compulsory levies. I must send my chidren to school otherwise, go to jail. And the worst of all I have to pay with money I would touch if I had the choice. I have to live with seeing my property devalued through inflation. And I have to pay for that all. So my life would be at least much more peaceful.

Now it's your turn. Tell us how free you can live....

idk, seriously I'd like someone to develop another Minerva Project, just this time have arms. I think the libertarian idea is great, but I made a post and nobody gave me a significant update, so idk if the project is still ongoing. But as for living freely, idk man go pitch a tent in the woods or something. Which states are you referring to in the title of your thread? All governments everywhere?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Thu, May 31 2012 7:50 AM

The Minerva Project is pretty much dead. It was effectively over once Tongan military forces booted the "Minervans" off of the Minerva Reefs.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 254
Points 5,500

Autolykos:

The Minerva Project is pretty much dead. It was effectively over once Tongan military forces booted the "Minervans" off of the Minerva Reefs.

Had they armed themselves and used the arms in defense of their property (key word there), they would likely still be free today. Instead they believed in the Hobbesian "fallacy." Hmm. . . .

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Thu, May 31 2012 7:57 AM

I'd say that the Minerva Project actually did two things wrong. First, they didn't invest in any weaponry. Second, they explicitly notified neighboring states about the new "Republic of Minerva". It was that explicit notification of "independence" that led to a conference among the neighboring states where Tonga ended up making a claim over the Minerva Reefs which was recognized by the other states (surprise, surprise).

It amazes me that the "Minervans" actually expected other states to "play nice". But then, they were really setting up a state of their own. If I had been in charge of the Minerva Project, there would've been significant money invested in weaponry and no notices would've been sent out to any states. Let our presence be discovered after we're well established (and well armed) on the reefs.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 254
Points 5,500

Autolykos:

If I had been in charge of the Minerva Project, there would've been significant money invested in weaponry and no notices would've been sent out to any states. Let our presence be discovered after we're well established (and well armed) on the reefs.

Now that's what I'm talking about. I agree 100%.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Thu, May 31 2012 2:54 PM

Friedrich Dominicus:

So I repeat my question. how can I minimize my damage  (or maximize the damage of my torturer which) is the state. Nobod really has come up with a sort of suggestion. I'm not suprised, because there is no easy visible escape in reach.

Well, I think my solution is perfectly viable. The idea that your family won't let you leave your current state is an artificial, though real, constraint.

We get together and found our own state, then the productive people of the world can move there and brain-drain the rest of the world. That would allow the contradictions of these centralized states to fall of their own accord. They would simultaneously drive the productive to our libertarian state, with their onerous punishment of production and risk-taking, and make it far more difficult for their own system to survive in the process, as the productive they leech from disappear from their tax rolls.

 

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 4,860

Ok it seems at least that some Greeks are not paying their taxes any more. So yes indeed this will damage the state. Just the question will be how will the Deledefs "react" . I think they will leave the Euro and introduce a new Fiat-currency, and that wil be  quite a loss for every one having savings. And the deledefs will "get" the population easily as  hostages....

I just can hope the state breaks before the state breaks the people.....

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Jun 13 2012 5:08 AM

Absent a political movement to provide an alternative, the result can only be a deepening of the political concepts already in play. Greece will probably fall deeper into despotism and lose another generation or two of progress after a default and leaving the Euro. To think there's enough people in that country that believe they're literally entitled to government largesse to have political clout is not encouraging.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 4,860

Sad but IMHO true. Yeah the illusion of  states as wealth machines is so absurd....

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 4,860

I found the anser myself.

Don't buy any bonds of states.

That's absolutely legal and helps.

So here you have it. I'm suprised nobody else suggestes just this.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sat, Jul 7 2012 1:26 AM

Mass foot voting would be the best way to suck the life out of the state, but we'd need to have a free society in place for them to go to.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 4,860

"Mass foot voting would be the best way to suck the life out of the state,"

 

Where should we go?

 

Everywhere you can go ther eis some "state".

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Sat, Jul 7 2012 11:33 AM
 
 

Friedrich Dominicus:

"Mass foot voting would be the best way to suck the life out of the state,"

Where should we go?

Everywhere you can go ther eis some "state".

My answer is seasteading. And I plan to foster a libertarian minarch ocean-borne society off the Pacific Coast of the US within the next decade. Would be an autarchic republic, predicated on individualism--not a democracy.

In the long-term there's a great deal of unowned property in space. But for now that's hard to reach. Libertarians may have their own planet eventually :P

But if there were an alternative for people to go to, you'd see mass brain-drain out of oppessive states, much like the US did to the rest of the world. And you'd see mass business immigration, for the low-tax, low-regulation environment, without health-care mandates and the like. Which would create jobs and in turn attract more people.

It would be a wonderful virtuous cycle.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 609
Points 4,860

My answer is seasteading. And I plan to foster a libertarian minarch ocean-borne society off the Pacific Coast of the US within the next decade. Would be an autarchic republic, predicated on individualism--not a democracy.

 

You have my best wishes, it would be like the "secret" valey in Atlas shrugged. Let us know the coordinates ASAP ;-)

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 63
Points 915
acft replied on Mon, Jul 9 2012 1:44 AM

Auto said:

I'd say that the Minerva Project actually did two things wrong. First, they didn't invest in any weaponry. Second, they explicitly notified neighboring states about the new "Republic of Minerva". It was that explicit notification of "independence" that led to a conference among the neighboring states where Tonga ended up making a claim over the Minerva Reefs which was recognized by the other states (surprise, surprise).

It amazes me that the "Minervans" actually expected other states to "play nice". But then, they were really setting up a state of their own. If I had been in charge of the Minerva Project, there would've been significant money invested in weaponry and no notices would've been sent out to any states. Let our presence be discovered after we're well established (and well armed) on the reefs.

100% agreed. Any new nation project I engage in will be armed to the teeth and have defense in mind from day 1. The state is force. Period.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Jul 9 2012 1:47 AM
 
 

Friedrich Dominicus:

You have my best wishes, it would be like the "secret" valey in Atlas shrugged. Let us know the coordinates ASAP ;-)

Indeed, it would :) Had Rand known of the concept of seasteading, I daresay she might have used it as the location instead.

When I get it going it will be impossible to hide, and I'll make sure its philosophical basis is front and center.

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