pull down to refresh
Haha. After all that, it turns out we don't even disagree very substantially. You're making assumptions and calling us abdicators, but we aren't removing ourselves from the culture at all. We participate and try to convince people that there's a way to do better than that 20%.
I agree that it hasn't been demonstrated that we can get there. However, the available evidence from both theory and observation suggests it might be possible, which is enough for me to think it's worth trying.
Crux of the disagreement is you're not on board with defending the ground of 20% today, the perfect is the enemy of the not-worse etc... we need that as the staging ground to go for 10% or 0
Politics is tactical
It depends what you mean. I'll oppose anyone looking to expand that 20%, whether they're currently in power or not.
I'd say that's more where we differ. I don't perceive anyone near power currently as holding down the 20%. I see them all trying to expand it in various ways.
Sure its not as simple as tax rates or unwinding the state directly, that's why discernment is important.
We're more in a globalist vs nationalist battle today, perhaps even 5GW between great powers (afformentioned Thucydides Trap).
In that context, the choice is a global state or a localish one, or self-security vs. being a vassal.
Can't fight the next battle until you've won the current one.
"The state" is ephemeral because it can be divided against itself. Every state has a shadow-state or rival state lying in wait. This is the closest thing to market dynamics we can get in a natural monopoly that there is always an apex force.
fascinating!
It would absolutely be better if we could cast off that last 20%, what hasn't been demonstrated is that we can. I wish we could, in theory we could if everyone was just cool, but that's not reality.
We're left having to make sub-optimal choices, but choosing not to choose is leaving the choice solely to your lessers.
As long as people are imperfect the emergent systems will be too. The rational anti-government stance is choosing 20% against 100%. If we hold the line and 20% wins, we may get to fight another day and support 10% vs. 20%.
We may never gain ground, but must participate to not lose ground. The NAP does not mean simply lying down and lamenting you're on a battlefield by default.
As I've said in other threads, states are shaped by culture... anti-government types removing themselves from culture is surrender. People are a force multiplier of legitimacy, and legitimacy is gradient.
"The state" is ephemeral because it can be divided against itself. Every state has a shadow-state or rival state lying in wait. This is the closest thing to market dynamics we can get in a natural monopoly that there is always an apex force.
The incentive constraint dilemma is the evidence alternatives can't work, the status quo for all of recorded history is evidence that alternatives can't work. There is only theory based on unrealistic assumptions that an alternatives can. However, by acknowledging the constraint dilemma, we can apply market principles in that context... that's called politics.