Episode-2701- Instead of a Virtual Nation what about a Private Club
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (18.6MB)
We recently unloosed Episode #3 of Unloose the Goose titled The Futility of Politics and the Utility of Community. It was a great episode and exactly what I hoped for when I assembled the gaggle happened, an idea popped out. You might say we laid and idea egg.
Like most idea eggs it was tiny at first, just a topic of discussion, the concept of protecting some activities by creating a “private club” and thereby not being subject to many of the states systems.
For 48 hours now this egg has rolled around in my head and made me think more broadly, as to private clubs and how that would play with “virtual nations”. Today we reexamine the concept and ask if a global private club might be the real answer to these issues.
Please understand this idea egg is still a tiny baby, it has flaws I am sure, but I also think it has potential to some day hatch into a mighty goose! I have a lot of thoughts about how this might work, a lot of reasons it may not. My hope is to put this egg out into the world today and let anyone exposed to it do what the gaggle has been doing, act like goose.
We all know the goose will attack when it needs to, but those like me who have kept geese know there is more to them than aggression. They are amazing parents, great flock members even with other birds, alarm systems and more. Beyond all that they are also both curious and intelligent. I have watched them study things, examine them, figure them out and take action on that. I will tell two such stories to kick off today’s podcast and I hope it helps to unloose the goose in you!
Join Me Today to Discuss…
- The genesis of this idea and the unicard in Texas
- The tale of two geese to inspire you to think like a goose
- Thoughts on how a global private club might work compared to a virtual nation
- Hinges on a not for profit controlled crypto currency – this is simple and hard at the same time
- The global club would in some way be like “the Masons”, don’t let that bother you, it is about structure
- It would also not be like the Masons at all, zero hierarchy, no leader in the big club
- How not to become the next Ross Ulbricht, I am sure not going to
- The global club would be a club of clubs, may be, just a thought
- Membership is open but requires some specific actions but those are mechanical
- Individual clubs in the club set their own rules
- This is a system designed to create a structure, nothing more
- You have to let go, not control, not set rules, be an actual voluntarist
- Perhaps a one commandant religion is attached to it, “Do not hurt people and don’t take their stuff”
- No one enforces the commandant, it is to place another wall in front of the state, the individual decides
- No this is not a complete idea but there is something to it, may be global is not the way, may be only tiny clubs are the way
- May be this is all wrong but what can we take from it, or will it work, who knows
- Final thoughts
Resources for today’s show…
- Follow Life With Jack on Instagram
- TSP Facebook Group
- Join the Members Brigade
- Join Our Forum
- Walking To Freedom
- TspAz.com
- Major Tom – I’m Coming Home – Peter Schilling
Remember to comment, chime in and tell us your thoughts, this podcast is one man’s opinion, not a lecture or sermon. Also please enter our listener appreciation contest and help spread the word about our show. Also remember you can call in your questions and comments to 866-65-THINK (866-658-4465) and you might hear yourself on the air.
Join the MSB Today
Want Every Episode of TSP Ever Produced?
Remember in addition to discounts to over 40 vendors who supply stuff you are likely buying anyway, tons of free ebooks and video content, MSB Members also get every edition of The Survival Podcast ever produced in convenient zip files in blocks of 24. More info on the MSB can be found here.
“a not for profit controlled crypto currency”
controlled by who? the answer to that will tell you everything you need to know.
“Perhaps a one commandant religion is attached to it, ‘Do not hurt people and don’t take their stuff'”
and when they do?
“No one enforces the commandant, it is to place another wall in front of the state, the individual decides”
hoo boy. doing it that way you’ll find that there are a whole lotta individuals who should not be deciding any such thing.
Fear of freedom is amazing.
“Fear of freedom is amazing”
this is where “libertarianism” and similar ideas that are conceived in personal and social isolation fall flat. everyone is in favor of their own ideas about “freedom”, what it is and what it should be. the problem is that they then assume everyone else thinks (or should think!) the same way. but everyone else doesn’t – not only are some people uncivilized, some of them are outright sociopathic and quite dangerous. the “libertarians” never consider such issues because such people have been suppressed by the “unfree” society they live in, so “libertarian” proposals never envision enforcement or suppression mechanisms to deal with such people. should “libertarianism” take hold anywhere it will in surprised reaction to all the contrary forces it sets free immediately devolve into a highly suppressive society run by a tiny handful of “the enlightened” – just like every primitive government that has come before.
@gman this statement
“libertarian” proposals never envision enforcement or suppression mechanisms to deal with such people”
Shows a complete ignorance to what libertarians and anarchists propose. I mean it is so off base it is not worthy or additional response. Private conflict resolution and security are key components in any well reasoned stateless society argument.
Not that it is even relevant to what was proposed in this podcast.
I’m not sure why you think non-state ideologies = ideologies of “personal and social isolation”.
Nor do any of them preach that everyone else must believe as they do (quite the opposite).
You do not need a ‘them’ (a state) to have an ‘us’. We can be ‘us’ simply by voluntary association. All of these ‘social isolation’ beliefs are perfectly OK with you forming any sort of ‘us’ you want, providing you don’t force anyone to join it via force.
As for ‘suppressing the evil’, states aren’t good at that. Their expertise and raison d’etre IS force. If you think they’re doing a good job, check out any of the scholarly books on where most of the pysho & sociopaths end up (hint: it’s not in prison).
Freedom is NOT isolation. Nor does it preclude group action or organization in any way.
“Private conflict resolution and security are key components in any well reasoned stateless society argument”
actually most states throughout history began exactly that way – they start with multiple competing private conflict resolution and security systems, and eventually someone wins and ends the fighting by imposing his own personal private conflict resolution and security system on everyone else (usually to everyone’s relief).
“Shows a complete ignorance to what libertarians and anarchists propose”
unfortunately that’s backwards. libertarians/anarchists believe that if everyone just plays by rational libertarian/anarchist rules that everything will be wonderful (and maybe it would be) – but what they just don’t get and just don’t comprehend is that not everyone will play by libertarian/anarchist rules. so there we are – libertarianism/anarchism cannot exist as a society, it can only exist as a hobby on the fringes of a lenient authoritarian society.
Again you are speaking from a level of willful ignorance, you can cure a lot of things but willful ignorance is terminal. Has about the same chance of being cured as late state liver cancer, 2%. It is barely better than stupidity.
“unfortunately that’s backwards. libertarians/anarchists believe that if everyone just plays by rational libertarian/anarchist rules that everything will be wonderful”
This is not the position of a single serious libertarian, never has been, never will be.
“I’m not sure why you think non-state ideologies = ideologies of ‘personal and social isolation’”
well theoretically perhaps they don’t have to be, but in practice they most certainly are, both in conception and in proposed operation. but libertarians/anarchists never see it that way, because they are so isolated personally and socially that they see themselves and their ideas as being … well, as being all that is rational and right and good, and any other rational and right and good thing will be just like them.
“Nor do any of them preach that everyone else must believe as they do (quite the opposite)”
(laugh) no, they don’t, that would never occur to them. rather (like their proposals) they disregard and discount anyone who doesn’t. “it is so off base it is not worthy or additional response”.
“You do not need a ‘them’ (a state) to have an ‘us’”
this is a miscomprehension. you view the state as being something outside yourself. but as soon as you form an “us” you’ve formed a state – perhaps embryonic and nascent, but a state nonetheless – and it will grow by popular demand.
“As for ‘suppressing the evil’, states aren’t good at that”
they’re better than individuals. that’s why they exist. “that to secure these rights governments are formed among men”.
“Freedom is NOT isolation. Nor does it preclude group action or organization in any way”
sure. “freedom under law” and all that. but for many libertarians/anarchists the freedom they crave can be achieved only by isolation (notice how many of them live in semi-isolation), and group action or organization is indeed hateful to them.
My experience differs. I’m not a statist, and I spend most of my time organizing and encouraging non-state (voluntary) association for the purpose of increased individual & GROUP freedom. Freedom can only be experienced (like all things) BY the individual. It has no character en masse (the group(ing) is only as ‘free’ as the individual members are).
I’m NOT in my 20’s, so I spend very little time debating stale philosophies. =)
The State is ‘outside of myself’. All purely conceptual organizational units are. Forming a family is not ‘forming a state’.
def. : ‘A politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ESPECIALLY: one that is sovereign’
“The State is ‘outside of myself’. All purely conceptual organizational units are. Forming a family is not ‘forming a state’”
yes it is. a micro-mini state to be sure, but a state nonetheless (perhaps for you the key distinction between “state” and “family” appears to be your personal level of influence and control within the organization – yes?). it even has an authoritarian welfare structure – care for children.
Any argument that is strewn throughout with, “the libertarian” or “libertarians, followed by the assumptions of their collective thoughts, feelings, actions, philosophy, ….. instantly looses my intrest.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/florida-man-arrested-enforcing-social-distancing-firing-shots-hotel-lobby
Excellent example of the state creating conflict, that is what you were going for right?
“Excellent example of the state creating conflict, that is what you were going for right?”
the state didn’t make him do that (the state will oppose his action), he acted on his own recognizance in pursuit of his own values. this is what a libertarian/anarchist society would have to deal with – and not just on the level that presently occurs with state law enforcement in full swing, but on the level that will occur if state law enforcement no longer existed.
I voluntarily choose to enter into & remain within my ‘family organization’ (free association). I voluntarily decide, on a daily basis, what actions I will take & not take towards other members of the organization (family).
My children do not hold a gun to my head until I buy them a bicycle. Nor does my wife incarcerate me if I choose not to do the dishes.
At any time, I can decide I no longer want to participate in this voluntary organization and leave.
Free association is just that. Free; from forced coercion.
All organizations of people are not ‘states’. That’s why we have the word ‘organization’, for the category of things. See: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/equivocation.html
As for dealing with crazies. ‘We’ (all those within a society) have to deal with them. Yes, outsourcing is popular (people like it when other people deal with their problems).
But you’re basically saying ‘this job can only be performed by the state’. Which is laughable. I can think of dozens of ways to deal with such a person from purely social responses to mechanical systems and devices. None of them require a group with a monopoly on force.
Also, you’re saying:
‘Without the STATE this event would happen’…about, you know, the event that DID happen WITH the STATE in place. Yes, people choose to do stuff. Yes, some of it is crazy. Yes, ‘society’ (all of us) will occasionally have to deal with it. But again, society != <> the state. Check the venn diagram.
“the event that DID happen WITH the STATE in place”
yes. these events always happen. only a perfect state could prevent them perfectly – and no-one wants that, yes? but without states these actors will be free to act and such events will multiply a hundred fold to their natural frequency.
“society != <> the state”
true (assuming what you meant to type …). but every society above that of “casual acquaintance” has a state, and every state is associated with a society.
Uh-oh. I’ve got to leave. You could have said something vanilla about it but you chose to agree with the haters.
wut?
“It always seems impossible until it’s done.”
– Nelson Mandela
“It always seems impossible until it’s done”
but it has been done. the survivors always run away from it.
There it is, I knew it existed but could not remember it exactly or who said it, so I could not find it!
Church of Non-Aggression? I’d be excited to join that!
I’d like to start the denomination that believes in Off-Grid living. Maybe I won’t have to become Amish to keep the county from spoiling my Off-Grid Dreams:)
“I’d like to start the denomination that believes in Off-Grid living”
a denomination of one? you could be your own apostle, pastor, and congregant. (you wouldn’t be the only one, some protestants function exactly this way ….)
I’m noticing a certain theme =)
lonely?
“I’m noticing a certain theme =)”
(smile) just responding to the central theme.
“lonely?”
libertarians/anarchists are never lonely.
I have never claimed that anyone was never lonely. Nor has anyone else here. Do you know what kind of fallacy is invoked when one creates a fake point of argument?
That episode was fire! Nice to see the passion. Ty 🙂
Hundreds of thousands of people, if not several million, congregate on various websites and podcast threads talking about freedom and liberty while at the same time spending a large portion of that time trying to build communities (real physical communities as much as they can), and this is considered isolationist? Why? In what world is this considered a rational conclusion?
More of a practical consideration on the topic. We have clubs and sub clubs (or interconnected cells). We have a new club exclusive currency.
Crypto’s run on networks with nodes keeping the ledgers. Pick the right crypto and overhead can be low but still, the more nodes the more secure and efficient the network and there is a cost to that. Ideas:
1. Some reward for nodes seems appropriate at first glance. I think those should be economic in nature only and not contribute to a power structure if they are appropriate at all.
2. Perhaps for membership in the umbrella club your ‘subclub’/cell will have to run at least one node. Maybe this as a price of membership could eliminate the need for a reward so long as the overhead isn’t to high.
3. If mining isn’t necessary, because this coin is tied to a base coin and is created as the base coin is deposited in a club wallet, then only the ledger and confirmation functions need to operate. Again this lowers computational overhead.
Social and community issues:
1. As Jack said,interpersonal trust will still have to be cultivated over time. Part of this may be for grey and/or black markets and subversive activity. This means people meeting people and having knowledge (evidence) about each other. If this were just a local club or cell all this crypto club networking wouldn’t be necessary. Building that kind of trust beyond local takes time and introduces more risk.
2. Some of the personal risk can be mitigated by impersonal transactions. Example: I’m in Colorado and I want to buy raw milk from a club member in Kansas (illegal). I can make the deal anonymously through the club. One or both clubs can have exchange locations (blind drops etc…) set up and perhaps yet another club can act to hold payment in escrow. That’s all been done elsewhere with success and adds privacy and security to the transaction. As time goes on, trust, reputations and transaction systems will multiply and become more sophisticated. Quality, security and trust will improve. Still we have the Silk Road problem. I ain’t joining Ross anytime soon either.
3. Thus, should this just be kept to grey markets? And if so, how is that designed into the mix? I’d think slowly.
I think what gman is missing is that we don’t want to be isolated at all. We want to belong to a market and a community. You know, ‘We do not seek to be alone, only to be left alone.’ I don’t think exchanging raw milk for crypto across state lines is immoral. However we do have to ‘isolate’ that transaction from unwanted attention or someone will point a gun at us because of stupidity. Perhaps we wish to starve the beast of our blood as well. They’ll point guns at you if you do that technically wrong as well. I want to be part of a free community. I want ‘them’ to be a part of it too. Until ‘they’ quit pointing guns at me for silly shit and stealing my life’s blood, we need security from them. They’ve removed themselves from a moral and free culture and isolated themselves from us who were born with that freedom in liberty. It’s a two way street. These two views don’t mix. The segregation is mutual and necessary to avoid war. One we would lose at this point and one I can’t morally fight to force them to agree with me anyway. Thus, evading their attention till we can win peacefully is my only acceptable avenue. They don’t have a problem with aggression and I can’t successfully employ self defense. Private subtle subversion is all I have and I’ll not do nothing or no one will ever have that free society.
I’ve talked to long now.
Later.
“I think what gman is missing is that we don’t want to be isolated at all. We want to belong to a market and a community. You know, ‘We do not seek to be alone, only to be left alone.’”
after decades of observation and consideration it is apparent that this end of the character spectrum does indeed wish to be alone. not isolated, true – it wishes access to black-box interactions with black-box social entities to obtain the goods they need – but alone oh yes indeed. that’s why they are attracted to the net and crypto – it’s all black-box interactions.
“I want to be part of a free community”
when asked to describe this, most relate a theoretical system of rules and regulations that boil down to “no one speaks to me unless spoken to”. that’s not a community, that’s a personal situation that can exist only on the fringes of a host community that will tolerate such behavior. when the host community breaks down and attempts to reform, the toleration will end and you’ll be required to participate or leave.
“Until ‘they’ quit pointing guns at me for silly shit and stealing my life’s blood, we need security from them.”
without “them” there will be a lot more people pointing guns at you. not rhetorically, but for real.
“After decades of living in confirmation bias”. There I fixed it for you. Honest to God the more you say about libertarians the more your total ignorance of who libertarians are and what they believe becomes evident. I mean I thought we just disagreed at first I had no idea how ignorant you really were on this subject.
“Honest to God the more you say about libertarians the more your total ignorance of who libertarians are and what they believe becomes evident”
(nod) as the time for fully enacting the society that you envision approaches, you will find it disappears altogether.
Again you show your ignorance. We are not tying to transform society. The NAP means we must leave you to be a slave if you choose to be one.
40:30 “What if your aunt had balls? She’d be your uncle.” Is that a Paul Heyman reference?