Oleg
2005-05-25 10:05:05 UTC
Frequently Asked Questions of http://www.liberty-of-choice.org site
Q. Can you tell in a few words about the concept?
A. Freedom of choice to associate self with a State which you like (or
to create a new one). The same way as embassies of different States
now coexist, citizens of different States are able to live adjacently.
For example, the positioning 11111122233333 could be transformed into:
31121312313231 (at some moment) and 31451314313454 (at an other
moment).
Q. But what is the object of making that?
A. "You went into a store seeking to buy X brand of beans and you were
informed that because more people [majority that won an election] only
liked YYYY brand, that would be the only kind of beans you could buy.
Further, you would be told that you could not solve the problem for
yourself simply by abstaining from buying beans. You must buy them.
And you must buy brand YYYY. Further, you must eat the beans. ..."
Written by an anonymous author
With panarchy you can choose the State that you like (one of several
States) without spatial movement to it. On the contrary the State
comes to you, i.e. it places the spot where you live under its
jurisdiction. The States will extremely desire to be chosen by you.
Q. I'd like to eat the YYYY beans chosen by majority. Why not?
A. It is your right. But why you wish to enforce the others who don't
like the beans to eat them?
Q. I am an anarchist. A system without any State is better for all us.
A. If there are even two humans that think that it is better for them
to create a State, they have the right to create the State. Even if
all the others want to live without any State. The seeming innocent
addition "for all us" means the same tyranny (i.e. democracy) that we
have now.
Q. What are major drawbacks of the existing nations, which can be
eliminated?
A.
1. Territorial division: The weapons of mass destruction. Wars to
capture territories. Terrorism. Outlay originated due to frontiers:
guards, customs, taxes ...
2. Economic inefficiency: 100 % monopolization of power - there is
only a transnational competition. Within the framework of a nation,
lawmaking multiplies laws, which eventually become the very reverse of
the laws, i.e. lawlessness. Laws can become minimally necessary only
due to a competition of various systems chosen people.
The paralysis or randomness of power. If democracy try to solve modern
problems, which as a rule are not obvious, the opinions are divided as
50 % - 50 %. Then instead to allow trying in practice both variants,
the only is chosen. Or a compromise variant is galvanized - compendium
that can exist only in the dreams of the parties, not in reality.
Q. What are principles of construction of a society based on liberty
of choice?
A.
1. The fixed number of nations.
2. In case of domination of a nation - it is divided into two nations
and the weakest nation is dissolved.
3. In case of bankruptcy of a nation - it is dissolved and the
strongest nation is divided into two nations.
4. Nations pay in the federal budget common sums for all nations to
maintain federal structures.
5. Each nation has one voice in making federal laws and decisions.
Q. How does your theory relate to panarchy of P. E. De Puydt?
A. It was 02/23/04 when I've first read his text from the site
www.panarchy.org thus in the theory of Scattered States panarchy was
discovered anew.
Q. The primary assumption that is the basis of what you call
Coexistentialism is essentially Libertarianism. Libertarianism grants
all power to the market and market forces. Actually governments don't
mean a damn thing in a Libertarian system, a trait that Libertarianism
shares with Anarchism, since the market is the only true King.
A. Indeed I share the ideas of Libertarianism. And here and there in
the texts one could see that. But the system is not based on money
relations; it is based on freedom of choice of people. Any and even
all scattered States can be not capitalistic ones, if people choose
them. There are not any limitations for a scattered State that the
system dictates a priori.
The term Coexistentialism was introduced by Hector Archytas.
Independently about at the same time I suggested the idea of scattered
States.
Q. The problem with that system is the same problem that aggressive
kinds of Capitalistic systems have acting for profit only.
A. (Un)fortunately big money is big power. (Un)fortunately people have
tendency to group near successful States i.e. to increase the level of
monopolization. We could compare it with a tree that become so high
that it suppresses the other trees. It will be matter of scattered
States how they will solve the problem. By a federal law or
automatically because people associating themselves with the high tree
will degrade more and more.
Q. Why have you placed the $/gold graph of www.kitco.com on the front
page?
A. An important result of existence of current States is their phantom
misleading money. It, as a rule, is not backed by real money -
precious metals. Thus the graph is graph of how much people understand
their States and own plight to become poor after inevitable
devaluation of the hard currencies.
http://libertariannation.org/a/f73p1.html Unlike humans, real money
can't be deceived. The fiat money is the same confidence trick as
"our" States. It represents the real money to the same degree as
rulers elected with democracy represent people.
Q. In our system there are basically 4 different entities:
1) Individuals 2) Families 3) Governments 4) God(s) that are lacking
in yours.
A. A priori I am not in opposition to any of systems except those that
will be based on deprivation of freedom of choice. What system is
better can be stated practically as result of freedom of choice of
people. There are only two possibilities in what to do with people
that disagree with a system. To bend them to the system. Or to give
them a possibility to organize a new system. Now I am very skeptical
on that advantages of a system are proved theoretically. There are of
course hypnotizable people that can be brought over by words.
Temporarily. The words is too little for people. The best for them are
real humans, things, associations.
Q. Your system may grant governments what look like rights, but these
governments do not respect each other, and their respective nationals,
but they actually compete with each other, just like the Capitalist
governments competed for half a century with the Communist
governments, and guess who lost BIG TIME while they were struggling
with each other?
A. I don't care what political views my neighbors have. I have not any
wish to struggle with them. The same, as I believe, a lot of people
think. Yet you are right - humanity must achieve certain level of
development to be tolerant to others. Then main matter of people will
be to make right choice, not political struggle as now. I think that
the States, that will wish to struggle with weapon, will attract only
thin layer of population.
As to governments. A scattered State can choose to exist without any
government. Even to be a zero State. I.e. stateless persons are an
option. The people will be only under federal laws. Probably it is not
a time to think that the world will tolerate people that will do all
they wish - to murder, steal and so on.
As to BIG TIME. If a system make it in short time, and the feature be
enough to attract people, it all will be nice. But in the case that
the other people that disagree with the system will able to choose
another one.
Q. Why are governments supposed to compete with each other if they
were created to protect the rights and customs and languages of their
people? I don't get it. The moment governments start competing - for
citizens in your system, it seems, but you conveniently disregard the
geopolitical aspects - they don't have inalienable rights anymore.
That means that they can actually go bankrupt like companies! We are
not talking about a company here going bankrupt; we are talking about
an entire society or nation! That makes absolutely no sense.
A. Any State can not compete at all. It is people who will decide to
be or no in the State. Yes, the State abandoned by people is bankrupt
and makes absolutely no sense. Now a lot of States are potentially
abandoned. They exist due to their frontiers.
Scattered States give the way of abandoning - people are able to
refuse to be citizen of the State and choose an other State, all this
without a resettlement.
Geopolitical aspect. Some time old States will exist in their
frontiers. If they remain not scattered, they will increasingly decay.
At the same time virtual States will grow. Then the old frontiers
become a matter of history.
There is not an imperative to States to exist only as scattered ones.
Territorially coherent States/federations based of liberty of choice
are also possible.
Q. Can you tell in a few words about the concept?
A. Freedom of choice to associate self with a State which you like (or
to create a new one). The same way as embassies of different States
now coexist, citizens of different States are able to live adjacently.
For example, the positioning 11111122233333 could be transformed into:
31121312313231 (at some moment) and 31451314313454 (at an other
moment).
Q. But what is the object of making that?
A. "You went into a store seeking to buy X brand of beans and you were
informed that because more people [majority that won an election] only
liked YYYY brand, that would be the only kind of beans you could buy.
Further, you would be told that you could not solve the problem for
yourself simply by abstaining from buying beans. You must buy them.
And you must buy brand YYYY. Further, you must eat the beans. ..."
Written by an anonymous author
With panarchy you can choose the State that you like (one of several
States) without spatial movement to it. On the contrary the State
comes to you, i.e. it places the spot where you live under its
jurisdiction. The States will extremely desire to be chosen by you.
Q. I'd like to eat the YYYY beans chosen by majority. Why not?
A. It is your right. But why you wish to enforce the others who don't
like the beans to eat them?
Q. I am an anarchist. A system without any State is better for all us.
A. If there are even two humans that think that it is better for them
to create a State, they have the right to create the State. Even if
all the others want to live without any State. The seeming innocent
addition "for all us" means the same tyranny (i.e. democracy) that we
have now.
Q. What are major drawbacks of the existing nations, which can be
eliminated?
A.
1. Territorial division: The weapons of mass destruction. Wars to
capture territories. Terrorism. Outlay originated due to frontiers:
guards, customs, taxes ...
2. Economic inefficiency: 100 % monopolization of power - there is
only a transnational competition. Within the framework of a nation,
lawmaking multiplies laws, which eventually become the very reverse of
the laws, i.e. lawlessness. Laws can become minimally necessary only
due to a competition of various systems chosen people.
The paralysis or randomness of power. If democracy try to solve modern
problems, which as a rule are not obvious, the opinions are divided as
50 % - 50 %. Then instead to allow trying in practice both variants,
the only is chosen. Or a compromise variant is galvanized - compendium
that can exist only in the dreams of the parties, not in reality.
Q. What are principles of construction of a society based on liberty
of choice?
A.
1. The fixed number of nations.
2. In case of domination of a nation - it is divided into two nations
and the weakest nation is dissolved.
3. In case of bankruptcy of a nation - it is dissolved and the
strongest nation is divided into two nations.
4. Nations pay in the federal budget common sums for all nations to
maintain federal structures.
5. Each nation has one voice in making federal laws and decisions.
Q. How does your theory relate to panarchy of P. E. De Puydt?
A. It was 02/23/04 when I've first read his text from the site
www.panarchy.org thus in the theory of Scattered States panarchy was
discovered anew.
Q. The primary assumption that is the basis of what you call
Coexistentialism is essentially Libertarianism. Libertarianism grants
all power to the market and market forces. Actually governments don't
mean a damn thing in a Libertarian system, a trait that Libertarianism
shares with Anarchism, since the market is the only true King.
A. Indeed I share the ideas of Libertarianism. And here and there in
the texts one could see that. But the system is not based on money
relations; it is based on freedom of choice of people. Any and even
all scattered States can be not capitalistic ones, if people choose
them. There are not any limitations for a scattered State that the
system dictates a priori.
The term Coexistentialism was introduced by Hector Archytas.
Independently about at the same time I suggested the idea of scattered
States.
Q. The problem with that system is the same problem that aggressive
kinds of Capitalistic systems have acting for profit only.
A. (Un)fortunately big money is big power. (Un)fortunately people have
tendency to group near successful States i.e. to increase the level of
monopolization. We could compare it with a tree that become so high
that it suppresses the other trees. It will be matter of scattered
States how they will solve the problem. By a federal law or
automatically because people associating themselves with the high tree
will degrade more and more.
Q. Why have you placed the $/gold graph of www.kitco.com on the front
page?
A. An important result of existence of current States is their phantom
misleading money. It, as a rule, is not backed by real money -
precious metals. Thus the graph is graph of how much people understand
their States and own plight to become poor after inevitable
devaluation of the hard currencies.
http://libertariannation.org/a/f73p1.html Unlike humans, real money
can't be deceived. The fiat money is the same confidence trick as
"our" States. It represents the real money to the same degree as
rulers elected with democracy represent people.
Q. In our system there are basically 4 different entities:
1) Individuals 2) Families 3) Governments 4) God(s) that are lacking
in yours.
A. A priori I am not in opposition to any of systems except those that
will be based on deprivation of freedom of choice. What system is
better can be stated practically as result of freedom of choice of
people. There are only two possibilities in what to do with people
that disagree with a system. To bend them to the system. Or to give
them a possibility to organize a new system. Now I am very skeptical
on that advantages of a system are proved theoretically. There are of
course hypnotizable people that can be brought over by words.
Temporarily. The words is too little for people. The best for them are
real humans, things, associations.
Q. Your system may grant governments what look like rights, but these
governments do not respect each other, and their respective nationals,
but they actually compete with each other, just like the Capitalist
governments competed for half a century with the Communist
governments, and guess who lost BIG TIME while they were struggling
with each other?
A. I don't care what political views my neighbors have. I have not any
wish to struggle with them. The same, as I believe, a lot of people
think. Yet you are right - humanity must achieve certain level of
development to be tolerant to others. Then main matter of people will
be to make right choice, not political struggle as now. I think that
the States, that will wish to struggle with weapon, will attract only
thin layer of population.
As to governments. A scattered State can choose to exist without any
government. Even to be a zero State. I.e. stateless persons are an
option. The people will be only under federal laws. Probably it is not
a time to think that the world will tolerate people that will do all
they wish - to murder, steal and so on.
As to BIG TIME. If a system make it in short time, and the feature be
enough to attract people, it all will be nice. But in the case that
the other people that disagree with the system will able to choose
another one.
Q. Why are governments supposed to compete with each other if they
were created to protect the rights and customs and languages of their
people? I don't get it. The moment governments start competing - for
citizens in your system, it seems, but you conveniently disregard the
geopolitical aspects - they don't have inalienable rights anymore.
That means that they can actually go bankrupt like companies! We are
not talking about a company here going bankrupt; we are talking about
an entire society or nation! That makes absolutely no sense.
A. Any State can not compete at all. It is people who will decide to
be or no in the State. Yes, the State abandoned by people is bankrupt
and makes absolutely no sense. Now a lot of States are potentially
abandoned. They exist due to their frontiers.
Scattered States give the way of abandoning - people are able to
refuse to be citizen of the State and choose an other State, all this
without a resettlement.
Geopolitical aspect. Some time old States will exist in their
frontiers. If they remain not scattered, they will increasingly decay.
At the same time virtual States will grow. Then the old frontiers
become a matter of history.
There is not an imperative to States to exist only as scattered ones.
Territorially coherent States/federations based of liberty of choice
are also possible.