RE: Gov't, Lies, and Internet Legal Theories
"...there are still external empires, nations, technocracy, etc, outside of America, or outside of a given country..."
That's why I include the '...along with all the other states.' part. As far as a path to transition goes, I have no idea. I do however recognize that states, like most everything else, won't last forever. For now I stick to doing my part to help erode confidence in the concept among my peers through critical thinking and discourse thereof. In my eye's it's a public service.
I also think there's quite a bit more to anarchy than free markets.
One last thing. I don't quite understand how we see "...the vulnerability of being isolated from a federal government." in animal history. Care to elaborate?
Thanks for your comments @joeyarnoldvn!
States have been lasting forever so far. Why would that change? The Middle East has power vacuums which then causes big things to happen. It is called divide & conquer and it is called destabilization. I agree with trying to minimize tyranny which exist now and it also exists within power vacuums as well. When you eliminate states, you create power vacuums for other people to come in to replace those states. Generally, in history, that is what happened. When an empire or republic or whatever fell, other things rose up to replace them. Anarchy is only good as long as it keeps the balance enforced. Well, the enforcement part is the tricky part, basically. People are evil until they choose to make better choices. Most of the world prefer that the government keeps them safe. That's why there are open borders, because then those people come into Europe and America and they vote and demand for bigger government because they prefer safety over freedom. America has had smaller government, generally. It's tough as America was infiltrated by globalists and by other people and groups. So, they've been trying to kill America since the 1800's in so many ways which means that America is not really America and is not really entirely free markets but actually crony capitalism and other things. So, we try to drain the swamp as we seek after free markets and smaller government.
In the animal kingdom, when a prey is isolated, they become more vulnerable to predators. In the human world, predators are all around us, all the time, in a variety of ways. That is why we have the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments in America especially.
States have certainly not been lasting forever. The stars don't last forever, even though the sun has hung in the daytime sky for as long as anyone has lived. Forever is quite a bit of time, to say the least.
Moreover I don't think that people are intrinsically good. I also don't think they're evil, but I'm a moral nihilist and I categorically reject both of the concepts.
Hopefully we'll get something figured out before the cosmic lights fizzle out and we still have time to enjoy it.
If people are not good or evil, then what is or who is and why do we have these words, good and evil, if they are hypothetical, theoretical, excessively, that is if we do not have connection to neither of the two, and what would a third option mean? If we are neither, does that mean we are partly good and evil? Are we more good or more evil?
I like all these questions. Sorry for such a late reply, if you're even still interested.
As for the first part about why we have the words, I see a lot of words out there that don't map directly to any real thing. Words like 'unicorn' or 'elf' come to mind as well as grammatical tools like 'the' or 'of', granted those last two aren't even nouns.
I also don't really consider any third option, like you mention. Moreover I don't think we are partly both, given that I categorically deny each of them.
One crux of the issue is that moral terms like good, bad, right and wrong seem to me to enable intellectual laziness and promote unexamined worldviews while serving as ready vehicles to manipulate the minds of those who get emotional about these moral concepts or believe in them for whatever reason.
It's kind of like how writing instructors sometimes advise that one avoid cursory one word descriptions of feelings ('happy' or 'sad') in favor of more articulate and thoughtful descriptors. In a similar way to making one's writing more effective I think that discarding moral terms (and indeed morality in total) in favor of more elaborate reflection can help make one's cognition and perspective considerations more effective.
I'm saying almost nothing of the epistemological concerns I have with morality and ethics, mind you, which I find stickier still. Instead here I argue against their use, which seems to me a bit more tangible and approachable position, if not quite as defensible.
I like using small words sometimes. But I agree with the dangers of oversimplification, etc. Also, if we are too blind to know what is good and bad, then you're right, we should try our best not to declare what we think is right and wrong from a subjective perspective. I prefer freedom and letting people decide what they want to do with private property to the extent they don't interfere with my stuff or your stuff, etc.