RE: That's not censorship
Humans are social creatures. The much venerated "individual" owes his life to the sociocultural and sociopolitical circumsatances of his birth. What "rights" can a man claim to be his when his entire being is borrowed? In a more ancient and elegant civilizations, every man recognized his duties and obligations owed to his station from the dictates of fate. Only in our degenerate era does the "individual" declare himself a claygod, dictating to Heaven his whims, imagining himself created ex nihilo by his will, claims "rights" owed to him from the universe. The overweening hubris of the modern "individual" makes Oedipus seem like a humble saint.
That all men are created unequal is an immutable fact observed by every rational human thinkers and societies. Those who are born to rule have a duty towards his subjects, not "rights" to exercise his whims. Those who are born to serve have an obligation towards their liege, not "rights" to rebel according to their base desires. This modern world, built upon false premises, is not only ensuring the extinction of the human race, but the destruction of all life on this planet, as has existed since the beginning of creation.
Bad ideas has killed more people and caused far more destruction than all the collective actions of psychopaths and sociopaths combined. Only in this degenerate era will a sociocultural perspective allow "free" spread of toxic ideology, while imprisoning those who have killed or harmed at most a few dozen. Bad ideas ought to be treated as epidemics of small pox or syphilis.
Regarding more ancient and elegant civilizations, where men died chock full of worms and poked full of holes by other men on the other side of ditches pretty regularly, I doubt strongly that there were major differences in the minds of men than there are now. Many were sheep, eager to serve them they considered their betters, and others were not, choosing the way of flint and steel to make their way as they saw fit. History, such as we can glimpse of it, seems to support this conjecture.
In every period of history we do have glimpses of, we see both kinds of men grubbing in the dirt, and hacking their way across continents with little more than ambition and what they can pilfer from the former on the way. Through it all we also see that pernicious and self-serving men tricked and coddled them into effecting their aims, so that they might lord over them after.
Those tricks and flatteries seem to me to be the 'bad ideas' you refer to withal. It is from such bad ideas that the parasite laden soldiery died, more than the clubs and spears of their opponents, and I absolutely agree that such manipulative sociopaths should be treated as lepers, and cast out of the brotherhood of free men that is being empowered today by means of production delivering to their hands the powers once inconceivable by even the most whimsical of dreamers in days when foot was the only form of transport.
Those were the bad old days, my friend, and ahead lies the golden age of men, potent to effect their will at their sole option due to their power to secure themselves, kith, and kin from the sociopathic parasites seeking their wealth and power, and further able to go where none have gone before: the very stars beguile and lay ripe for plunder at our feet. The good days to come promise freedom and prosperity never dreamt of in opium fevers, religious prophecies, or besotted rampages before.
I wish you the best of it.
There have been, and there always will be those, that ignore their duties, obligations, and station, causing misery and mayhem for other humans. Yet, the sociocultural system the merchant scum advocate are founded upon ignorance of a man's station and duties as the cornerstone of their matrix. Any viable sociocultural system will seek to limit the overweening hubris of man, not encourage and fostet it. You envision a future, derived from this pernicious system, in which the base-born muck despoil the entire universe, even as they have yet to completely rape this planet. "Freedom" is a terminal illness of a man's soul.
Perhaps a bit of the difference between us might be resolved, as I note what seems to be a misunderstanding of my conception of the technological development and concomitant increase of personal agency ongoing.
No. Prior to the advent of states, centralization of wealth and power was far less potential, as parasitization was also, and folks retained their own to far greater degree. History has been both deliberately obfuscated regarding such societies, and otherwise largely lost from our purview, so we can know little of societies largely free from parasitization that have previously existed. We can be certain they did, because parasitism depends on numbers, and many societies existed which did not concentrate nominal numbers to support parasites, if for no other reason (and I can think of many, besides).
After the industrial revolution, centralization of wealth greatly increased, facilitated by greater wealth withal, as the increase in technology delivered to ordinary and overlord alike more and better goods and services, except as inequity and corruption continued to debase the ordinary to favor overlords.
While continued advance and development of technology is the basis for my predictions, it is not based upon mercantilism, but rather upon the crafting society that pre-existed the industrial revolution, because that is the production, distribution, and wealth creation mechanism it most resembles. It's just a vastly improved wealth of goods and services than handwork makes possible. Security technology prevents the parasitism that centralized states have heretofore committed, because WMDs aren't suitable to making slaves obey. They can only eliminate them, and with them the potential profitable parasitization. Weapons wielded by individuals are necessary to subdue and force their victims to obey, and as security technology has evolved it has become impossible to such a gang of thugs to survive nominal defenses and even get within range to deploy their weaponry. Firearms are 1000 year old technology, and there is a reason that they are how wars are fought, and how police gangs are armed. It's the peak enslaving tech that is possible.
More advanced personal arms utterly preclude gangs of thugs, and through various institutional mechanisms, such as censorship, understanding of such tech has been concealed. The advent of personal means of production enables folks to not only make them themselves, but to invent them. Clearly overlords had no interest in even allowing such tech to eventuate, as it destroys their ability to parasitize their victims, much less mass produce it.
I won't go into much detail here, but with a moat of microwave ovens around my home, no unwelcome persons would overstay their welcome, nor ever approach without my assent. Firearms have been obsolete for a long time, and I cannot count other security mechanisms that preclude their utility by thugs. Today we buy all our microwaves from merchants, and they don't sell moats of them.
Free men will make moats of them, and far better mechanisms to ensure their security, and it will be impossible to project force as a result.
It is not ordinary folks that have effected such antisocial measures as Enclosure, or The Clearances of medieval Scotland, or war. It is overlords empowered by those merchant scum we both revile. Ordinary folk in communities I have been part of tend to be pretty good neighbors to each other - where none employ nepotic connections to overlords.
It is overlords and merchant scum that rape this planet, society itself, and who will never debase the breadth of the universe similarly, because they will not command hordes of hapless slaves to do it. Free men working together have no interest in such rapine, except when availed of the ability to parasitize their peers and thereby become their overlords.
Decentralization is the end of such parasitization, and of the very way of life vampires undertake. I don't see decentralization as derived from centralization, but the end of it, and a restoration of the natural relationships between individuals in society, nature, and whatever gods may be.
Freedom is our natural state. Slavery is the hell that destroys the soul.
How did the "individuals" come to own property? How did the muck define boundaries? How did the people even assign value to creation around them for "fair" exchange? It is not the crown and the central government that are parasites, but the humanist muck that refuse to render their dues owed to the state, while enjoying, no demanding, the benefits provided by the state. Those who prattle about "freedom," "voluntarism," "human rights" are no better than squatters claiming their previleges to some public space as their private domain. What does man truly own anything, when his entire being is borrowed?
You write of "individuals" carving out a portion of creation and "defending" said arbitrary boundary with weapons and force; then what of the others "rights" to use of the said piece of creation? By what legitimacy do your set of "individuals" claim priority rights to use of creation over another set? There are several million Central and South American individuals who challenge the legitimacy of the USA in assigning arbitrary limits to the "rights" of movement into and out of the sociopolitical entity known as USA. Will you also argue that the "parasitic" US government and citizens desist in border enforcement?
Humanism is born from the hubris of mercantile scum and secomd-rate nobility in their ignorant rebellion against their betters. In their inadequacy, these rebel scum sowed the seeds of not only their extinction, but of the entire human race. The blood orgies of the French Revolution, the French Commune, the Communist Internationalism, and capitalist rape all stem from the ignorant arrogance of base-born merchant scum who dare imagine themselves equal to God, demanding "rights" from the Universe existing beyond their pitiful ken. All the miseries and horrors of the so-called "modern" era stem from men losing faith and principles. Now men only value rebellion, power, egotism, and crass desires. Rather than embracing their station and purpose, men rebel against nature, community, society, and God, in the guise of "freedom" and "rights." Remained unchecked, humanism, as the true parasite that have infected modern man's soul, will affect the extinction of man.
People able to secure property exercise ownership. Rational societies support mechanisms allowing reasonable ownership, not unbalanced feudal systems. Value is a natural metric assigned by individuals undertaking trade to goods and services they find desirable, and involves various aspects such as scarcity, labor cost, and etc.
Not rocket science bro.
What does this even mean?
We apparently agree on the scumminess of mercantilism, yet you keep trying to ignore that H. sapiens are actual beings that aren't either born workers or overlords. We're not some kind of eusocial insect born into roles. Each of us pops out and is raised with equal allegiance to others and rights to live - except as corruption and violence is deployed to subjugate some and elevate others, generally effected by psychologically diseased and broken sociopaths incapable of normal socialization.
Despite politics, physics makes the rules that determine what power individuals can possess, and physics is enabling individuals to provide luxury quality wealth and security that will make all politics irrelevant. It's just what it is. It doesn't care if you like it, or if I don't.
Overlords are just violent plebs, and soon they'll be subject to evolutionary forces if they are incapable of normal socialization. This is the future our sons will inherit. Since human prosperity and happiness will be greatly increased, I reckon that's a good thing.
Those who are able to "secure" property exercise "ownership." Who do you think "secures" a portion of creation for your precious "individuals" to use as property, but the crown and the state? You defend the non-existing "rights" of the muck, that did not shed blood to seize the land, that did not found political infrastructure to establish order, that use coinage struck by the crown to measure the value of his surrounding, or even organize faith to give meaning to his purposeless life.
Rational humans, and rational societies, will reject the ludicrous premises of humanism and "human rights." Humanists that prattle of "freedom" and "tyranny" are no better than ignorant thieves that can not even recognize the concept of theft. Rather than expressing gratitude for previleges the state grants, the humanist muck denounce his benefectors, demanding additional concessions, imaginging himself a god. Those that prattle of "freedom" are truly shameless.
The infection of humanism must be purged from the collective sum of human consciousness, if humanity is to survive as a species. Those that peddle "freedom" are leading humanity into racial suicide.
Americans wrested property from the Crown for themselves. Somehow we now have got saddled with a state that wrests our property from us, but that will soon be rectified, as I reiterate. Free men once were the sole title holders, or claimants thereto, of all the world. It has not been stolen by them, but from them, and the thieves you speak of are the cabal of banksters and sociopaths that wield institutions and government as weapons against free men. It is not the free men of the world that are the beneficiaries of gangs of thugs, but the thugs that parasitize the essence of their prey.
The epithets and injury you hurl at free men inure instead to their predators. It is they that are muck, inhuman, and incapable of normal socialization, rapt in their own minds with themselves, wrapped up and sealed away from normal life, deprived of love, honor, or joy. It is inhumanism, corporate rule, institutional malignancy that deprives mankind of it's full potency, and it is stolen by beasts for the quivering of a pulsating gland. Animals, devoid of humanity, cursed to love and admire only themselves, depraved and feotid, they deprive us of our wont, of our will to create, to prosper, and to leave a legacy of primacy to our posterity - but not for long.
Soon the profiteering will end. The parasites will shrivel and faint with pangs of hunger, their feast over. No more will we need to slave for them to attain to the goods we need to thrive. No longer will our minds be battered and scarred from their arcane, twisted torments. We wake, like a fever victim, to our bemusement and begin to grasp our surroundings; to see the possibilities before us, our duty, and our right to attain.
I cannot say how much longer it will last, this savage condition of impotence we have succumbed to, but the sacrifice of centuries building and discovering within the constraints imposed on us by rude technology have been worth it; will be worth it to our sons. They will work to make the goods of the new age, and they will work for themselves, at home. AI will arise on a million fronts and deliver to each the skill of thousands of experts. Not AI owned by Google, or the cabal, but AI in little Dapps, like Excel, or Audacity. We will print our hardware and trust it. No more back doors. We will teach our sons the truth. No more indoctrination. We will set them free so we can rule ourselves. No more overlords.
Soon, working together with our personal means of manufacturing every good we can invent, we will sort the stars out of the vacuum, and hitherto we'll go. Nevermore will the overseers lash, the spittle of the torturer, or the screams of the innocent taken by them as would possess them like chattel, disgrace the hides of free men, and that sacred burden and treasure, free society, will journey wherever they will take it at their sole option.
It doesn't matter that you prefer to rule the world. The world will not be ruled, and you will be just another pleb. Just like me. Just like the worst or best man in the world. You will be free. Prepare to live life you love.
Most of the colonists were loyal to the Crown, only a minority led by second-rate aristocracy and smuggler mafia rebelled against their rightful masters. The only reason for the 'Muricans worshipping "free" speech of the "press" is because all the propaganda outlets in the Colonies were in the hands of the rebel leaders. It was not the "free" men who rebelled against their betters, but second-rate malcontents grasping at that which is beyond their ken. It is not at all surprising that the Colonies experienced economic collapse only a couple of years after their ill-conceived rebellion. If the 'Muricans did not reorganise their government into a more centralised authority, in order to steal indigenous land, the rebellion would have ended with the colonists returning back to His Majesty King George the Third.
There is no such a thing as "free" man. It is a meaningless drivel the merchant scum use to manipulate the muck into action contrary to their own self-interests. Shiny new baubles will not bring-forth garden of Eden, when men are displaced in their thought and action by edemic rebelliousness, malcontent, ingratitude, and hubris. Men need to be governed; the anarchy, for which you desire and pray, will ensure the extinction of the human race. The miseries of the human race were not engendered by the orderly governance according to natural and divine law, but by the ignorant rebellion of the humanist muck.