163 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibertyLuminary 20 May 2023 \ parent \ on: Bitcoin 2023 Discussion Thread bitcoin
Well said!
Add some others:
#5 - Don’t bother calling it a “Bitcoin” conference if shitcoins are going to be included. If they are going to just make a circus out of it, then simply call it a crypto conference.
#6 - If you are going to charge attendees hundreds of $ in fiat to attend; why give free passes to high net worth “speakers?” (Unless that’s just a rumor).
"Who will fund general infrastructure? Who will fund disability checks for parents with children that have mental disorders or sicknesses? Who will make the education system in an area where they are not as affluent financially to be functional?"
Who funds it today? Why does infrastructure go away without a monopolistic protection agency threatening people into obedience?
Who is responsible for educating children? Who brought those children into existence? I have 6 children and none of them have spent a single day within government funded schools. Why should I demand that society around me is responsible for MY offspring? That is MY responsibility. With liberty comes the burden of individually accountability.
Under no circumstances ever, would I apply for unemployment or disability checks from a coercive regime. I would only draw from a policy which I have voluntarily invested into, such as a private insurance agreement collaborative that guarantees such coverages. Any such collaborative that is based upon force or coercion, is invalid and amounts to nothing more than theft, and is therefore unfit to be used according to my values.
You might ask - What if I cannot afford any such collaborative policy? Then hopefully my own family or friends may be able to assist in my time of need, just as I would for them in their time of need (according to whatever ability I might have). But I could not rightfully impose that upon them as some sort of moral obligation or duty. And I would NEVER call upon the government mafia to draw weapons and threaten or compel anybody else to provide their resources to me. Most people who do draw from government redistribution schemes would also rarely endorse such harsh methods as calling on them to draw weapons etc... But the practical fact of the matter is the same even though they hide behind the façade of being an "innocent citizen."
My needs are MY responsibility. Providing for my children is part of that because I brought them into the world. Anything beyond that is based upon individual prerogative and consent.
I personally believe that being charitable and compassionate are valuable human traits. And I encourage them. But I make no such claim of valuable traits somehow being misconstrued as intrinsic human "rights" or obligations from one stranger to another just because we are of the same species.
"I do believe the power of that I understand that some people need help based on their life circumstance."
My response to this would be - Then help those who you choose to help. Who is stopping you? The difference between the principles found within liberty vs. statism, is that one is voluntary, and the other is coercive. One recognizes consent, and the other exists upon force. There is no benevolence nor virtue within force.
How much more can you personally "help" people in need if you were not stolen from in the first place? That is, if you were not extorted via coercive taxation, and then you use a portion of your resources to help those in need which you are speaking of.
"Or is it the general consensus that in a truly free world its your problem and I don't have to help?"
This is a distorted view. The proper view is that gangsters, who call themselves government, are not righteous for stealing from one group in order to give to another. They do not own the resources they are redistributing.
If you were personally in need, would you prefer that people who genuinely have compassion for your need, are the ones who "help?" Or would you prefer that countless thousands of others are plundered and threatened in order to provide what YOU need?
The fundamental issue with redistribution is that those who promote it have some sort of altruistic outlook as it relates to OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY. Do YOU have a rightful claim to MY resources? Do YOU have a rightful claim to the product of MY labor?
If the answer is no, then what basis would you or anybody else have to claim any legitimacy of how me or my resources are up for grabs without my consent? The answer is that there is no such legitimacy to any such claims.
The best you can do is to be individually compassionate toward others with whatever means you have available, in order to contribute VOLUNTARILY (i.e. without the threat of force or coercion) toward those needs.
One does not [become] a sovereign individual. Being individually sovereign is mans natural state of existence.
An individual is taught from birth, either: how to live in a manner that recognizes and promotes self-ownership, individual accountability, and mutual respect (i.e. NAP), as a basic fact of human existence; or, how to live as a slave within a scheme of societal subjugation and obedience (via coercion and force).
No... One is not born with an automatic awareness of all that is required for his survival. He must be nurtured and taught those essential elements of self-sustainment in order to thrive within his best potential.
Nevertheless, each sentient being is an individual autonomous entity under no rightful claim of ownership by another. Another, who himself exists in the same autonomous manner amongst all other similarly existing sentient beings around him.
In summary: Do not become sovereign. Simply BE the sovereign individual that you already are.
105 sats \ 2 replies \ @LibertyLuminary 7 Feb 2023 \ parent \ on: Free State and the Dreams of Liberty bitcoin
Well said!
All statist declarations, treaties, etc., are arbitrary and only valid amongst the actual direct consenting/contracting parties.
The pretend “representatives” have no privity of contract. That is, according to their own so-called “laws,” — “ What Is Privity of Contract? Privity of contract is a doctrine of contract law that states that contracts should not give rights or obligations to entities other than those who are parties to the contract.”
Where there is no consent, there is no legitimacy.
“Free state” is a contradiction in terms.
For best performance make sure you use the “recommended” relays.
npub12ertsazu0tpmetq5f4yjfkdvgezw74j4e7py7ey3pw8e5yqcuhkq9w2k37
Absolutely! Liberty is gained by inches. The power that statist want to retain is very enticing to them, and they do not give in to dissenters easily.
Counter-Economics, teaching my own children, sharing with people like you, here, and leveraging the modern day technological tools available to us... Yes. Liberty is enhanced! Both personally and broadly. It is enhanced when people begin to think without blinders and cognitive dissonance. Then technologies such as that provided by Bitcoin, become remarkable tools toward gaining incremental individual Liberty. By arming oneself, and others with TRUTH. Awareness of truth can be very liberating as it frees the minds of people who may have felt powerless and incapable of taking steps toward their own freedom.
While I have plenty of misgivings about many of the myths surrounding the so-called American "founding fathers..." Consider the following quote:
Excerpt from Samuel Adams' Speech at the Philadelphia State House - August 1, 1776
"Our forefathers, 'tis said, consented to be subject to the laws of Great Britain. I will not, at present, dispute it, nor mark out the limits and conditions of their submission: but will it be denied that they contracted to pay obedience, and to be under the control of Great Britain, because it appeared to them most beneficial in their then present circumstances and situations? We, my countrymen, have the same right to consult and provide for our happiness, which they had to promote theirs. If they had a view to posterity in their contracts, it must have been to advance the felicity of their descendants. If they erred in their expectations and prospects, we can never be condemned for a conduct which they would have recommended had they foreseen our present condition."
Likewise - I have the same ability to consult and provide for MY happiness as they had to promote theirs.
Very well said. Yet they still proceed with supporting what they think is rooted in Liberty, which in fact is not.
The goal here is to expose the incompatibility of statism and Liberty.
It makes a difference when they label themselves or their pretend "representatives" as rulers over your existence.
"What kind of respect is not being given to you?"
Compulsory government is all around. Threats of violence, imprisonment, extortion, etc. are too numerous to even waste the time in detailing (which I am sure you know well). Honestly, the question is baffling as the answer is self-evident.
Someone who willfully [initiates] aggression against another are not acting in accordance with so-called unavoidable aspects of life. I reject any assertion that props up, or seeks to legitimize or sanction such an initiation of violence. It is not a mandatory part of human existence to violate ones neighbors.
Yet again... I will emphasize that there is no negation of the world around us. That does not mean that since horrible people exist, that I should embrace being horrible as well because it is some sort of lovely aspect of human existence.
So far - No argument FOR statism has been substantiated. No argument has been given as to why Bitcoin maxi's who support statism, are in any way principally consistent.
"(and you probably will if you’re this uncouth in person as well)."
Uncouth because I have not engaged your attempts at drawing me into pointless ad hominem baiting? Cute.
Ohhhh... You are one of those people?
"You Can Always Leave" -
"I would rather live in community with others."
I enjoy community as well. [Preferably] one where people reciprocate respect. Pretty basic.
This as opposed to "the drama and conflict," that makes life "so worth living."
Do you have a grasp on what NAP actually means? Did someone tell you that it means you are to be a pacifist and make no effort at defending your property?
Maybe this will help: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gvsx4
I will answer your one extremely simple and practical scenario with the following question - Who would you suggest is [responsible] for defending your property... Besides yourself?
It is not semantics. And I am not referring only to the coercive governments that exist today. I am referring to ALL coercive governments. Any that exist today, and all that might hope to exist in the future. I reject coercion. I reject mob rule, no matter how small.
Also, I have not made any inference that I would personally support anything that resembles a voluntary "government."
I advocate for reciprocal agreements between consenting individuals. I advocate for personal accountability, and personal integrity in keeping with the principles of Liberty and non-aggression.
You may perceive those to be wishful thinking.... If so, then what ethical principles guide your steps? Am I duty-bound to my fellow man to provide for his needs in some sort of altruistic manner? Am I not accountable for my own actions (and inactions!)?
Not offended. You can read it in whatever tone you choose. The fact is that I DO NOT CONSENT. That is placing emphasis on the fact of the matter.
Riled up? nearly 20 years of research, application, removal of self-recognized contradictions, sharing with others.... In other words - actual focused effort and specific action.... Nothing about my life screams "that is not fair."
My focus is on exposing statism as the morally bankrupt sacred cow that it is.
You can go right along with taking it up the ass if that is your prerogative.
Whatever agreements, contracts, covenants, etc. that might be established between consenting parties - is up to those parties to agree upon.
One does not have to convey an acceptable alternative to every statist scenario in order to solidly establish and recognize the wickedness of what exists in the current norm. None of the "what-if's" does a SINGLE thing to legitimize the countless ways that statism is an afront to Liberty... Here. Now. Actually!!
My individual responsibility is to function within society in a manner that is consistent with my stated principles. It would be contradictory for me to suggest imposing my worldview upon others.
What is appropriate for me (IMHO), is to speak about these principles.
If Liberty was successfully used as propaganda toward achieving statism, centuries ago... Then perhaps it will work as an effective tool toward promoting the true merits of the principles of Liberty, today.