Achieving FREEDOM! > Adam's YouTube Channel

Adam Fails

(1/2) > >>

Wild Hope:
So I watched Adam's latest video on Youtube and the guy being interviewed said something that made me think.  What is the hidden cost of the transition to self-government?  Just like in the economy, when the government uses taxes to create jobs there is a hidden cost.  Companies and businesses that could have created other jobs instead are forced to spend their money complying with tax regulations. 

People's behavior is undoubtedly influenced by repercussions for their actions whether it be for smaller traffic crimes such as speeding or more violent, heinous crimes such as rape or murder.  Obviously, it's not enough to stop some people from still committing these crimes, but enough to curb others.  My point is not that there isn't a better system, but I'm curious to get everyone's thoughts on what they see as the hidden cost of the transition itself. 

This also reminded me of an interview I think he did on AVTM with Jesse Ventura who brought up the valid point that this transition will not be done in a vacuum.  The powers that stand to lose their control have a history of creating and inciting chaos in response to challenging the status quo.  This will inevitably be the case as the FREEDOM! movement continues to grow.

Raising awareness to the concepts of freedom is the first step.  I think promoting an independent, decentralized economy and community will help wean people off government intervention.  In the end, I believe a thorough, individual understanding of personal responsibility and accountability for our own actions and their effect on others will resolve these questions.    In the short term though, there will still be those that fail to see this vision of liberty.  They will continue to be persuaded and manipulated by those who seek to control.  How does everyone see this playing out?

What are the hidden costs in the transition to self-government?

What are the best ways to mitigate the effect of a vile, calculated opposition to freedom?

Wild Hope:
I suppose because of the premise of this post it might be better suited under "The Philosophy of Freedom" but I put it here since it specifically referenced one of your videos.

Magnaniman:
In general, I think that most of these concerns are based on the assumption that all government would be abolished at once.  If that were to happen, I think that would be more indicative of some sort of catastrophe and not a peaceful transition.  In that case, dealing with the catastrophe itself, and its side effects, would probably be terrible all around, but not a cost of anarchy, but a cost of relying upon a long chain of other people for basic needs.

To address your first concern, about the loss of law enforcement as a deterrent to crime, sure, some people probably would take advantage of a situation where other people were completely unorganized with no means of protecting themselves.  However, thinking of police as the only means of protection, and that security, as a concept, is only possible with a government, is silly.

I think one of the major hidden costs of a peaceful transition would be economic upheaval.  Without a government propping up and defending the major moneyed interests, they will collapse.  In the short term, that will cause a large deal of unemployment, foreclosures, scarcity of resources, inability to distribute available resources, and other related problems.  In the long term, those problems will be dealt with because the barriers preventing people from undertaking those tasks will be gone as well.  However, there is a large potential for harm that must be addressed to prevent cities from collapsing into diseased, starving battle grounds.

Another hidden cost will be losing a large degree of luxury that we currently take for granted.  Our economy, like every empire, is based on slavery and military domination.  Without slaves across the world to manufacture our goods, and resources stolen from other people, we will have to "tighten our belts" and learn to live with buying fewer fancy gadgets, exotic foods, and new clothes.  I believe that we will be able to return to a comparable availability of goods over time, but the short term consequences of morality will be difficult.

I'll address your second question, about opposition, later.

AndrewG:
The loss of law enforcement as a deterrent to crime? Really? Like when Di Blasio pissed off the NYPD and they had an intentional slowdown for about 2 months? I'm talking where summonses for things like open container, jay walking, and other revenue generators were all down like 80%.... And what do you know, crime dropped. It's easy to show high crime numbers when everything is a crime, thus fostering the belief that we "need" these gangsters policing us. More people in the populace armed is a much better deterrent than the police because if a would be criminal doesn't know if you're armed or not he is a lot less likely to target you.

Wild Hope:
AndrewG - Again, my point was not to argue for police only to point out that there will be hidden costs and to get a feel for what everyone thought those might be.

Magnaniman - I think you made some good points.  It is silly to think there won't be something to take the place of services currently provided by government.  I guess being somewhat new to the idea of it, I'm curious to what exactly those might be.  I look forward to your response about opposition because whatever system does take the place of government services will be vulnerable to gladio style operations by those looking to ruin the public's perception of it. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page