"I'll be honest, I am not completely sure what you are getting at here. I don't even know the meaning of some of these phrases, but let me attempt to respond."

Then allow me to suggest that you either ask questions or do some research. These are quite fundamental concepts and a failure to understand them and their implications sully every other potential understanding. (As an aside, it's also quite arrogant to deride an idea you do not comprehend.)

"What is really happening is that government (the state, a particular organization made of particular people) takes whatever power it wants, claims people gave it to it, gaslights the people, brainwashes people, steals people's property, etc."

Let's clarify, shall we? PEOPLE attempt to seize power, gaslight, brainwash, steal, loot, etc. because they seek to control others - despite being unable to control themselves. HOW they attempt to seize power is merely a choice in tooling - similar to selecting 9mm vs .45.

"some ideas appear closer to the truth, but some are completely off."

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. The trick is how to persuade others to buy into your vision. For that, you have to clearly elucidate the policies and practical application. There's pie-in-the-sky and there's pie on the table.

You wrote:

"The criminals would not be punished but forced to pay back the damages (justified forced labor if need be),"

How does one who doesn't believe in punishment "force" someone to pay back damages?

"I don't believe punishment makes sense for a free person."

Again, please define freedom.

"I would advocate strongly for some serious reading in history and philosophy."

I have some level of awareness of ideas in some of the materials you listed. The problem is that as I judge a lot of these, some ideas appear closer to the truth, but some are completely off. My general judgement of humanity's philosophical understandings is not very positive. I'm very skeptical about a lot of what is accepted currently. A lot of it doesn't seem right based on my understanding of reality.

Thanks for the references. I need to check out the ones I don't know about.

"Do you comprehend the inherent contradiction in this sentence?"

No, please enlighten me.

Punishment maybe works for a slave. I don't believe punishment makes sense for a free person.

Your ignorance on this subject is staggering. The only reason you can USE the internet is because of the DNS system. That you admit your own ignorance and then proceed to attempt to lecture those of us with extensive experience is nothing short of unbridled arrogance.

"The routing tables in the Internet routers are compiled by a decentralized algorithm..."

The algorithms are standards proposed and accepted by the IEEE. That's centralization. DE_centralization would be everyone trying to come up with and implement their own communications protocols. You'd get another Tower of Babel.

You're so incredibly desperate to challenge ANY centralization/government. It's a perfect example of where your bias overrides any claim to logic you think you have.

"Still, I would say DNS is somewhat decentralized. The only problem area is the 13 root nameservers."

You do realize that one of the core principles in logical thinking is that a rule only holds if there are NO/ZERO exceptions. Any exception invalidates the rule. And in this case, it's not even a tertiary violation but _the core foundation of the entire internet.

"Sorry, my history is not too strong."

There is a solution to that.

"It doesn't matter that there were bloody executions or that it was socialist."

But don't you also assert that for an action to be moral it has to comport with universal moral laws? How can an execution do that?

"Fine, I'll give you that one."

You act surprised. As if no idea that comes from anyone else can be correct... [shakes head]

"What I was trying to say was that an entity is "bad" if it is committing immoral actions."

NO. You're trying to justify your position instead of admitting it is wholly flawed.

Sentient beings exist. If they were morally wrong, they couldn't exist. Being sentient, however, they can make immoral actions, ie. actions which violate universal laws. But to say that a sentient being is "bad" based on its decisions is also to admit they would be "good" or even "neutral" depending on other actions: one's categorization of a person would fluctuate from moment to moment, being invalidated almost as soon as the judgement was made. It's clearly an unworkable premise and therefore void.

The act itself, however, is done. It isn't going to change. And it can be objectively compared against an objective standard or law for compliance or congruence. Actions which do not comport with the law are considered immoral or forbidden while actions which comport with law are considered moral or acceptable.

"There is no licensing for wifi. It is on the unlicensed bands."

Uh, you are dead wrong there. I'm an amateur radio operator holding the Amateur Extra designation - the highest certification level currently available. ALL electromagnetic emissions are governed by the FCC. Wireless is available on several specific bands on the spectrum including 5 GHz and 900 MHz.

"I haven't given too much of a thought..."

You said it, not me.

"Air traffic control also doesn't need to be run by the state. It can be done privately. Resist your statist urge to centralize everything with violence!"

Stop. And. Think. This. Through. Your internal biases against anything resembling a central governing body are seriously impairing your ability to objectively evaluate the options. The real key is efficiency. And in the case of air traffic control, another key is standard communication which means a body to not only set those standards but enforce them. And not just locally but nationally and _inter_nationally.

It's not violence to seek efficiency. That's you projecting your own biases onto literally everything. Step back for a moment.

I think its interesting that you are more than happy to point out the flaws in others yet refuse to admit the same in your own person. Remember, the Founders weren't trying to come up with things in a vacuum. They debated everything over the course of MONTHS with dozens of other capable minds. You make the errant assumption that your own ideas don't require such scrutiny.

"But I guess it wouldn't hurt to do some research of those texts you mentioned."

No, it really wouldn't. I've found that I overestimate my own intelligence and competence after reading from other brilliant minds. It's been humbling, but also empowering.

"I would also accuse the founders of not being true to their ideals. They rose up only after they had a big enough grievance. Why didn't they do it earlier?"

Have you read the Declaration of Independence? They lay it out quite succinctly right there...

"Ah.. Who am I kidding? You guys are all statists."

The refuge of someone who can't construct a logical rebuttal is ad hominem. Your inability to supply sufficient defense of your ideas may be frustrating, but the solution is to refine your argument. I'm a State-certified Debate judge. You're not going to win points with me by calling me names. You have to have a solid argument which withstands rebuttal.

I've already demonstrated impracticalities with a large number of your proposals. You write in several about how you don't know how they would work but naively assert that such a solution is possible.

I took the time to work through many of the same questions you propose when I was writing my book. I couldn't get around certain realities. If you can, more power to you.

"I'm not sure yet the details of how all that might work"

I hope that in our discussions you are beginning to see that MUCH preparation goes in to something before it can actually be considered true, polished thought. I commend your initial efforts and recommend you seriously consider the counter-arguments I am making instead of merely discounting them because they are inconvenient.

"The criminals would not be punished but forced to pay back the damages (justified forced labor if need be),"

Do you comprehend the inherent contradiction in this sentence? Do you not see that the majority of your provisions are similarly flawed by wanting to have your cake and eat it, too?

"I'm not sure yet the details of how all that might work, but I am sure some system that would adhere to the universal law can be designed, given enough time and effort."

Human history has tried nearly everything under the sun. I would advocate strongly for some serious reading in history and philosophy. Plato's Republic. Blackstone's Commentary on the Law. Cicero. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Hayek's Road to Serfdom. The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. John Locke. Montesquieu. Hobbes. The beginning of true wisdom starts with understanding how much you have left to learn.

"However, decreeing who can or cannot exist and reside in a particular space is wrong, IMHO."

This is the same leftist logic that they are using right now to flood our country with illegal aliens. Yet will they allow those same people free rein in their homes? Nope. You're welcome to hold that opinion, but it is the epoch of hypocrisy to try to claim universal law in the same sentence as an absence of property rights.

"The reason why they are a financial burden for you is because of the state."

This is only partially true. There is no question that a welfare state is a moral evil IMHO, but illegal aliens also bring with them a disregard for other social laws and culture. It is indisputable that the amount of crime overall has skyrocketed since Biden stopped enforcing the border. That includes Fentanyl, child sexual exploitation, rape, murder, etc. All of those are costs that are very real and which are very inconvenient to your argument.

As to property, I cover this as well in my book. Why does property matter? It doesn't unless it is an aid in helping us fulfill a specific purpose. A claim of ownership is simply a claim of pre-eminent use of a specific thing as an aid in helping us fulfill purpose. That's why dead people can't "own" property - such can no longer exert a purpose in this life for which ownership is meaningful. As to the acquisition of property, I agree that it should be acquired by personal effort and honest intercourse.

"Also, you don't have the right to punish them for not complying with your wishes."

So if they rape me, I can't punish them for violating me and my rights because it doesn't "comply with their wishes?" Seriously. Stop and think for just a minute about the downstream effects of your proposed policies. If it is this easy for me to poke holes in them...?

"I am a person just like them. Who are they to dictate to me how I must behave."

This gets back to the whole "Golden Rule" discussion. If you deny an intrinsic commonality among humans which transcends humanity itself, the only logical conclusion is that man is no better than animals and "might makes right" becomes the only logical ruling philosophy. The only way I should treat you with dignity and respect is if there is some innate relationship between us which overrides every single externality: skin color, hair color, eye color, deformity, proclivity, athleticism, mental capacity, etc.

"I will only listen to logic and reason to tell me what laws are."

In a world of perfect beings with perfect knowledge, that would probably work. Let me know if you find such a place in this existence.

"See, I think those are not really laws and shouldn't exist."

And what is the consequence of allowing people to drive on whichever side of the road they choose? Chaos and accidents. Yes, the law is 100% arbitrary. But it serves a vital purpose - it solves a critical problem.

"A law might be that "a road owner has the right to select which side a road user must drive on..."

And what about automobile manufacturers? Which side do they put the steering wheel on?

You keep trying to upend conventional wisdom without considering the wisdom that made it convention in the first place. There is nothing that says you have to re-invent every wheel in existence.

"I've had it with you guys authoritarians."

That's your decision. Rules provide expectations for outcomes which aid in the evaluation and decision-making process. That they are inconvenient to you is a product of your own choice and nothing more. It isn't going to make them cease to exist any more than you can alter the law of gravity.

"My view is that there is only one truth, only one correct system of rules."

Not that I disagree, but how do you know which system is the correct one?

"chances are very high that both countries will end up with the same set of rules"

You are overlooking the element of human ignorance, which can not be overstated. The only way people end up at the same set of rules is if they have those rules given to them by someone who knows them. Otherwise, their own experiences and personal biases will affect their conclusions.

"So, if all countries have the same laws, borders are not necessary."

You're ignoring regional differences which sometimes necessitate adaptation. Your view is overly simplistic.

"I did propose previously that there should be multiple companies providing law enforcement services even in a single country."

Yes, you proposed it, but it is inefficient and confusing. Every organization has to have a tier of overhead. Why create more overhead just to solve the same problem - especially when one of the biggest problems in governance is waste? And who is ultimately going to authorize these various companies all providing the same service? What is actually going to differentiate them?

"I am not sure yet how that might look like, but I'm sure it would be better than what we have now."

You might want to re-read that sentence.

"is it not correct (as pointed out in the Declaration of Independence) that power may only be delegated from that one already possesses, i.e. that government of the People comes as The People delegate to government the expression of controls they themselves originally possess?"

I'll be honest, I am not completely sure what you are getting at here. I don't even know the meaning of some of these phrases, but let me attempt to respond.

I think the Declaration of Independence is a document about United States for gullible people. Some of it is agreeable.

Is it correct in saying that people delegate power to government? No. Which people? Nice words though... Sounds like an attempt to justify an insurrection.. which I would fully support.

Is it correct in saying that power may only be permitted to be delegated by the people that people already have? Sounds like the the government acts as an agent of the people. I would allow that, sure, but only if I had the choice not to delegate or to delegate to someone else. That's not what is happening in real life though.

What is really happening is that government (the state, a particular organization made of particular people) takes whatever power it wants, claims people gave it to it, gaslights the people, brainwashes people, steals people's property, etc.

I'm going to try responding to the rest a bit later.

"need to read more from this forum"

Sorry, I just got here recently.

However, I assumed you guys were proponents of Ayn Rand's ideas and would fit a particular categorization of opinions, some of which I would find incorrect. I was going through life yelling silently every time I heard arguments between collectivists and individualists. It was so plainly obvious to me, I couldn't hold it any longer and had tell someone that you were both wrong and that the source of your problems was predation, not socialism or capitalism.

See my first post:
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

"checks and balances"

May I put forward my suspicion that maybe these "checks and balances" are not so effective after all?

Supposedly, the separation of powers of the three branches of government (judicial, executive, legislative) were supposed to provide a limit on the power of each other. When I heard this, I found it strange that people gullibly accept this idea. Tell me, what is there to stop these three branches of government from conspiring against the people? Nothing, as far as I can tell...

I scoff at the founders' bad idea...

I'm sorry, I don't know what happened. I thought something like that was the definition.

Maybe I made a mistake in that definition too...

So, what I mean is that no single person can change how Bitcoin works, or any other decentralized system. The whole community must agree or there is going to be a split. If a state wants to take over Bitcoin, they are shit out of luck. The only thing they can do is outlaw it.

"history of the United States"

...is a story of the state never letting a good crisis go to waste...

"note the chaos caused by the various regional banks who established their own standards of lending/redemption"

I'm smelling statist propaganda...

To be fair, I don't know much about this. But it sounds like a frivolous excuse for state control.

"Congress was explicitly given the responsibility to identify and establish those standards"

Too bad they didn't chose metric, lol.

"Because you think you want to be the authority."

Not really. I don't care if people agree with me or not. I don't think highly of people's opinions.

I might know better for myself, yes. If I don't feel too confident about it, I might chose someone else's expert opinion. But it is my choice. No one has the right to make it for me.