Excellent, I think we are making progress. I expect given a bit more time, you will come to see things as I do.

Maybe an abstract idea of 'government' in a sense that a society is being brought to order in some fashion is not slavery. However, the current way of doing that via the state is in fact slavery due to the way it is set up.

I have absolutely no problem with requiring people to pay for services. However, I also require that:
1. They must have the choice to refuse to use the service and therefore refuse to pay for it.
2. There must not be an enforced monopoly by the provider of the service. The state does not have the right to prevent a competitor from existing to provide the same service.

“Give me a fucking brake (break), man”. You are the one making the assertion, not me. “Any idiot can see” is just BS.

I agree taxation is inappropriate, at least percentage and graduated taxation. Just paying for services is fine, just like my tennis club. I agree, you can not delegate rights to a representative government that you do not have. But you can vote by proxy, just like I do for stocks sometimes.


You are convincing me that we agree about many things, but not that government is slavery.

'Slavery is when one party owns another.'

Ownership = exclusive right of use. The word 'exclusive' gives you a hint that this right exist in relationship between a slave owner and another slave owner. It does not say anything about the right between a slave owner and a slave.

You are splitting hairs. I can also say that a master does not control the actions of the slave, but only punish it for not doing its bidding. It is basically the same thing.

Childhood IS slavery, but maybe only partially and probably justified. A child does not have complete agency. It is like saying a rock is your slave. Ya, a rock doesn't have agency so maybe it is not so bad.

Give me a fucking brake, man. Direct observation of the relationship between a master and a slave shows a same relationship as one between a state and its citizens. Taxation is slavery. Military draft is slavery. Any idiot can see this.

Taking property away from slaves is wrong. If you allow slaves to vote for a representative that will be in charge of the stealing, that does not suddenly make it right. You cannot delegate to a representative rights that you yourself do not have. Representative governments change nothing.

Deny.

Slavery is when one party owns another.

In addition Government can not "control the actions" of people. It can set penalties for behaviors outside prescribed limits. Representative governments can be changed when the people do not like the prescribed limits. This is less slavery than even childhood is slavery.

Not even close. Government is not slavery because it doesn't have the most fundamental features of slavery.

I take my position not because it is fashionable but because logical reasoning tells me I must be right.

Alright, let me show you in more detail.

Slavery is a type of relationship between two parties of unequal rights. One party is allowed to control the actions of another but not the reverse.

This situation exists in the relationship between a state and a person residing in its territory. The state is able to decree laws while the person has no such right. The state is able to arrest a person but a person is not allowed to arrest a representative of the state.

Therefore, statism is slavery.

Are you going to deny and ignore my line of reasoning?

Alt-Woke?

“There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.” Ayn Rand

Driving and radio spectrum management concepts demonstrated by me, here to fail. Now you want to take another swing. You admit your idea hasn't been tested. However, there is no difference in the 1912 system with Navy issues and what you propose, except your method would have been resolved in the courts.

Ok, let's get "your (anarchy) idea clearly stated".
- No government. I assert this also means no group leaders, which would be government.
- Therefore all rules are agreed to by all individual parties participating in the thing (roadway, market, communication, transaction, pollution, on and on).
- All issues/grievances are resolved in courts, which you propose are private, not public.

Is this right? Is there more?

You have "shown" nothing of the sort.

If a court service was open to a free market, I am sure an entrepreneur would pop up that would invent a way to get things resolved quickly and efficiently.

If by government you mean 'a state', then no, I would be against that.

However, you may say I am proposing a universal 'final solution' decentralized 'government' system in which nobody has special powers.

My system guarantees there would be 100% consent. How? By having all laws follow from axioms that 100% agree with. To not consent would be to make a logical mistake. This does also mean that a lot of lustful dreams of power seeking individuals would be unattainable, and that is a good thing.

I'm not seeing any test that was failed. Do you mean one where somebody hogs radio spectrum just for kicks? Because the homesteading system I proposed was never actually tested in real life, I would say it never failed. You are just imagining it failing.

There is an analogue to that test that was done with land. Unfortunately, it wasn't set up exactly in the same way, but still, it is a good example to look at. I am not a historian, but let me try to recall what happened. As I understand, initially in the US one could homestead land to turn it into their property. I believe this system still exists to this day. When national parks were created, there was plenty of land left. So, that means not all land was turned into private property. So, my conclusion is that a test for that system did actually succeed.

I never said I was against rules or working with others. I am only against granting special groups of people special powers to decree rules. Rules can be arrived at by other more fair means.

Government is slavery as I have shown. Is slavery not corrupt?

This is a very white ivory tower you inhabit. Don't think one suggestion you have made passes the simplest test of success... except it is better to rule in my house with no technology or infrastructure dying without medical treatment, than to live in a world, consenting with others to basic rules to interact.

Government is not corrupt by design. That is fully unsupported.

This is very silly. I am an engineer. I wouldn't even let most educated engineers do a bolted joint design departing from standard practice, and that is relatively simple and well-immersed in logic and physics.

Maybe write a book about how Vulcan is maintained without rules or rulers.

You could look it up. People were sending navy ships off on goose chases.

Sure court... First you have to find the person who did it, then you have to go through the court proceedings. The number of court cases would be 100 fold in this world you seek.

It is a little interesting to discuss hypotheticals, but this is getting silly.

You discuss establishing a government but simply by any other name. The leader of a gang is no different than an elected leader. There is no group of 100% consent. That is just a fairy tale. Maybe write a book.

Government is corrupt by design. Having a ruler is corrupt by design. It violates reciprocity in interactions between entities. If one party has the right to tell others what to do but not the reverse then you have slavery. I cannot accept a situation where I would be a slave. I will always work against that. It would be within my rights to defend myself with force against it.

My proposal is to have logic/math be the source of law, not some entity with 'special' privileges. This way, the logic is the same from everyone's point of view and there are no masters.

Defense/law enforcement should then be provided by anyone doing business as a defense service provider. They would not be allowed to decree laws and would have to use the derived law proven to exist and widely accepted to be valid.

Judges and courts would exist but would be more of arbiters rather than guys in robes with special abilities.

Obviously, there is no society which I am aware of that attained perfect freedom. So, I would not be able to show you a good enough example. Every society has parasites and rent seekers. However, I think United States is one example which approached my ideal at some points in history.

'This ad hoc method already didn't work'
'Amateur operators and the Navy were stepping all over each other'

Ya probably because the Navy didn't care to respect other people's rights and wanted their frequencies for themselves unconditionally.

A ship should have radio spectrum charts and should not interfere with existing users in the area.

A lot of this would be resolved by having some network protocol that allows interference, multiple users, etc, such as GPRS. I guess the ownership would be a bit fuzzy for such systems. Everyone would be allowed to join the network and forward data. Maybe one solution is to have each user constantly transmit on their own frequency that they would own and forward packets they receive from other frequencies using the same protocol.

Any interference should be resolved like any other conflicts - in court, with damages and legal fees paid by the party that is found to be guilty of violations of law.

One thing is for certain in my mind: delegating the job to come up with a solution for this problem to a criminal organization (the state) can never be the answer.

Regarding homesteading frequencies: That's fine, if someone invests so much effort into using some resource, they can have it. Obviously, at some point their business would not be profitable anymore and they will go bankrupt. Then, someone else will take over and use it for something more productive. I am not seeing any issues with this.

I expect my suspicion regarding the righteousness of the above approach would be confirmed with a formal proof. If not, maybe something better would be revealed. One thing is for certain, it is not going to be managed by a non-voluntary organization backed by unjustified force because obviously that is immoral.

Well, show me another organization that "does this".

I agree, government, like all collections of power, can be corrupt, because people are corrupt. It seems to me you just want to call your collection of power something other than government to support your point. I'd rather just say that government power should be minimized, and people should ALWAYS be able to take any power away.

Communication is to get an idea out of one person's head and into another persons. It is unhelpful to chose words that mean something different to different people and then argue about meanings. One might as well speak Esperanto, a canonical language, because it is better, but no one will understand.

I can not see a mechanism to appropriately interact without some level of agreements to interacting. Driving is a perfect example. We benefit (everyone's standard of living is higher) from simple rules of the road. Radio spectrum allocation is another. It need not be the FCC, but ad hoc does not work.

Regarding radio spectrum management what I mean is, as soon as someone develops a transmitter in a frequency range, lets say UHF. All they need to do is start putting them up and start transmitting. Building a bunch of these and putting them all over is (or was) not that expensive. To own the spectrum, one need just start spraying lullabies as well a some commercially supported transmissions where viable. Then inventing new transmitters for new frequencies, and expanding them.

This ad hoc method already didn't work, and resulted in the Radio Frequency Act of 1912. Amateur operators and the Navy were stepping all over each other.

There are a variety of trivial issues, such as What geographic location does a ship get?

I can imagine all kinds of means this fails, just like not having driving rules. Collision avoidance has only been practical for ~20 years, if that. We have been driving for about 100 years. Clearly collision avoidance was not the means to enable rule-less driving.

My understanding of the radio frequency homesteading concept is as follows.

It is not about developing the technology. It is about owning the spectrum space in a 'trademark' sense. The ownership would go to the user of the frequency, not the developer. If a radio station gets launched and acquires a customer base, then the frequency AND geographical area it is transmitting on/in is assumed to be owned by the radio station. So, the same frequency can be used elsewhere if it does not interfere with the existing user. So the allocation would be not just frequency but also geographic. Additionally, there may be other things that go into it, such as damages. If a violator creates interference, the original user sues the violator for damages. However, if the transmissions have zero usefulness/value, the original user will not be able to collect much in damages.

So, in order for the developer to own the frequency, they would have to put transmitters all over the globe and the transmissions would need to be actually productive.

The principle can be generalized to all areas where there are 'commons'. For example, a pollution in a river would be disallowed because it interferes with an existing user of the resource (fishery/etc).

I wouldn't call any of this a monopoly. Exclusive right of use is property.

I would argue that this definition of the word 'anarchy' is evidence for state's psychological manipulation of the population by induced cognitive dissonance via changes of meaning of words.

As I understand it, the word originated from Greek 'anarkhia' that means 'lack of leader' or something like that. I am going to ignore the incorrect definition as purposely misleading. Clearly, 'no leader' does not mean 'lawlessness' because obviously laws exist by themselves and don't need a leader to make them so. Raping, pillaging, killing, stealing, etc is wrong at all times, no matter whether there is a government or not. Absence of laws cannot exist. Morality simply doesn't vanish when there is no government. Laws are not something that pop up when you write them down. Similarly to physical laws, social laws exists whether you know about them or not.

It is my understanding that the statists have hijacked the concept of law to claim that they are the sole source of law and order. They did it so that they would be allowed to break the actual law by introducing exceptions for themselves. These are parasites we are talking about. It is similar to how a corrupt accountant might take over the role of managing company finances so that they can skim. The statists take over the law making/enforcement part of society so that they can violate the true law without anybody noticing.

It is true that there are parasites (criminals, gangs, etc) in society that may end up taking over. However, I would argue that has already happened! The government is the biggest gang. Statism is basically indistinguishable from organized crime. So, you want to escape gangs by giving control of society over to a gang. That doesn't make any sense.

If you truly want protection from gangs, you need to get it from an organization that is NOT gang-like. This organization would have to have certain properties that immediately disqualifies governments, such as adherence to voluntarism and the non-aggression principle. Show me a government that does this.

Anarchy is the absence of any form of political authority. It is also defined by political disorder, confusion and no common standards. A synonym if "lawlessness". On the positive side, one might describe it as"pure voluntary cooperation of individuals"

In physics nature is the fair, but absolutely strict, enforcer of inviolate laws. I do no think anything about physics is anarchy.

I do not think the complete absence of laws is feasible or more than a fairy tale in any positive sense. Big guys with the, and then big gangs, who have their own rules, will easily rule.

I do think all laws are social experiments, and your note about deriving and reasoning them (in physics) applies to social laws. If the scientific method was applied to laws and governance, every law is a hypothesis to be tested, and there should be an expected outcome with specific measures. If the outcome is false, the law should be withdrawn. That method, would really put a damper on the nonsense we push today.

Ayn's view of managing radio spectrums is silly. Each time the technology is developed to transmit on a frequency, the developer can just turn on the transmitter and own the frequency forever. Develop higher and higher frequency transmitters and own the entire spectrum. A monopoly would have been trivially developed from this model.

I think your analogy about physics is better stated as our understanding of physics, and laws as our understanding of social dynamics or "social physics". Then I think we agree considerably.

It would help to know what your definition of 'anarchy' is. I view it as 'no ruler', the source of rules being logic, not a ruler.

I did propose some rules above, however, in no way do I want to claim that these rules are true and valid. A formal proof is required to know for sure. Note the difference between this and your thinking in which you want the imposition of laws regardless of their validity.

In physics, there is no ruler to decree the laws of the universe. Those laws are derived with reasoning and experimentation. I want the same thing in the area of social interactions.