format_quote Originally Posted by
Abz2000
imagine everybody made their own laws because they thought they were just, wouldn't you have to run and hide from the rapists and robbers and murderers?
You would still have the real world, and its necessary and inevitable truths.
Rapists: One half of the act contributes to survival from generation to generation. It is the other half that is a problem. A rapist will abandon/dump his victim. That is detrimental to survival from generation to generation, because it seems to be, more often than not, a necessity that the man continuously supplies resources to the woman and their children for the breed to be successful. Therefore, the male who confiscates such female from her relatives would also have to keep her around, for the entire setup to remain workable. But then again, if the man defeats the female's relatives in battle, he can indeed claim her for himself. Who would prevent him from doing that anyway? The defeated lot?
robbers and murderers: men tend to cooperate when dealing with adversity. Therefore, the question is: Can robbers and murderers gang up more successfully than the ones who want to get rid of them? I doubt it. But then again, sometimes that happens too. Still, without a national state around, robbers and murderers, who are unsuccessful at ganging up, would get a much harsher treatment than they are getting now.
I strongly suspect that the laws of nature (and hence the Creator-God) would rather sooner than later reassert themselves. The idea that you would need a national state to enforce laws is widespread, but also seriously questionable. I avoid trading when the national state is likely to stick their noses into the deal, because in my experience they never bring justice but rather try to justify injustices. We have proven black on white that you do not need a national state to emit currency: Bitcoin. I think that a technologically sufficiently advanced society should be able to prove that you do not need national states to enforce justice either.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Abz2000
What if she came a cross a big dude who thinks it's just and right to kill people of a different biological race to themselves, or maybe another madman son of a madman who kill a million people between themselves and then say: but we need the oil?
It took them quite a few years in Iraq to discover how to get rid of the occupation, but eventually they discovered everything they needed to know. The IED (Improvised Explosive Device) was pretty much invented in Iraq. It renders armoured vehicles and tanks utterly ineffective. Somalia had already shown that helicopters are more of a liability than an asset. I somehow suspect that the war in Syria will at some point prove that fighter jets no longer work. We have all understood that you cannot take on tribal insurgents in urban warfare either. In fact, all these wars are gradually but surely disarming the madmen. Necessity is the mother of invention. If these wars go on like that, national armies will find themselves totally disarmed, because for everything they use, the insurgency will already have discovered or invented simple counter-veiling measures.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Abz2000
isn't it wiser to find a just and authoritative source of common dispute settlement ...
Yes, but without establishing a state monopoly on the job of judge. I never use the national states for disputes. For example, bitcoin transactions tend to be escrowed, with the marketplace itself being the judging and adjudicating authority. Therefore, for every transaction, it is indeed wise to clearly appoint the third party who is going to be the judge of it. Trade on the internet is borderless. Even the fiat money transactions would never appoint a state actor as a judge. It would rather be the credit-card company who would judge. Seriously, nobody wants the government as judge. They are known to do an utmost lousy job. They are costly, slow, inefficient, and worst of all, systematically unfair. A state-appointed court is never a tool to bring justice, but always a tool to justify injustices.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Abz2000
the nation states have become like the bedouin tribes of pre-Islamic arabia ...
Yes, good idea. I do not like the national states. The more they destroy each other, the better.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Abz2000
i tried to isolate myself totally but find it's quite bothersome for each individual to make their own furniture, make their own cement, cloth, foods etc and much easier when we work together as a community, but to work as a community we need a common frame of reference in dispute since otherwise we'd end up tearing each others heads off until the big fat man was left standing or the clever little one, quite an unpleasant outcome no?
We collaborate very intensely on the Tor network. There is no national state involved whatsoever. We would not want them there anyway. We trade for billions. So, where is the problem? Of course, national states will always try to prove that they are indispensable by shutting down alternatives. That is why they hate Tor, bitcoin, bittorrent, and all other decentralized peer-to-peer technologies. They always want to centralize things, because that is what allows them to steal funds, be unfair, restrict access, discriminate against the ones, and favour the others. But then again, who cares? We are technologically much more advanced than them. So, national states are mostly a non-issue for us.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Abz2000
bitcoin ... is another ploy touted as a rebel's currency,when in fact it is not rebellious at all to the usurious banking system ...
Well, ask the banks if they like bitcoin! ;-)
I don't think so! ;-)
We are happily busy defeating the riba/interest-infested banks AND the governments, and gradually expelling them out of the currency. It is very much a question of patience, but in the meanwhile, we also make very good money in the bitcoin/tor realms. You can reasonably say that I personally make a good living by working in a community that endeavours to utterly destroy the banks and ransack the governments that support them. Our original goal was not really to make money. The original goal was to get rid of the banks (read the original bitcoin paper). Making money is just one side effect from doing it successfully. So, yes, we aim to destroy the fiat banking system and to bring the national states to their knees. Therefore, yes, I spend the income gained with great pleasure, because I know that my sweat and efforts will have contributed to the destruction of things that I really do not like.
Of course, I am certainly always on the outlook for a way to make money by ransacking paganism too. I would obviously, immediately jump on such opportunity. There is just One God, and look, now I have made some money again, by bankrupting the pagans! ;-)