Adam Fails

[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. 

[ThoughtWater]

Wild Hope, great questions. And great points, Magnaniman. Let me push these topics another step forward.

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 that using community-organizing systems such as Cell 411 will allow people to feel - and actually be - secure against threats of violence or intrusion. However, this type of system must be tried, tested, and virtually ubiquitous well ahead of the time they are actually needed in the instance of an economic collapse or any disruption to the current protection-racket paradigm. If a community is not organized enough to protect itself, the only alternative is to hire private security. To me private security seems like a euphemism for mercenary, especially in a stateless society, but maybe that's not the case??

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.

So much to unpack here...  barriers will be removed, but with total freedom comes a new level of responsibility. Questions will arise, like what type currency to use in lieu of the fractional reserve banking system. These matters must be thought out beforehand, by all people participating in the market.

At that rate, what about state governments? Impositions such as licensing, minimum wage, and sales tax are not guaranteed to go away even without federal law intact.

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.

Elimination of government does not guarantee moral behavior, although unanimous moral awareness is definitely something to strive for. What you draw to attention best in this citation, Magnaniman, is that rampant consumerism distracts the individual from what is really important in life. While consumerism itself is not a problem localized to just the USA, it's another paradigm I believe we as Americans are intellectually well-equipped to overcome with enough time.


Again this is all great food-for-thought, and exactly what we need to be doing on this forum. Great thread, although the subject line "Adam Fails" is less than optimistic. Nonetheless, there is much to explore. Wild Hope's initial question really tips over the dominoes, here.

[AndrewG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6M3ltvrNkU
Here's an example of private policing and its effectiveness.

[Wild Hope]

ThoughtWater - thanks for the discussion.  The subject line is a reference to Adam's video by the same name.  I probably could have used a better one considering I only referenced it because I was watching it when I started to think about what the hidden costs of transition would be.  The post is really about identifying potential obstacles and exploring solutions to them, so in retrospect, I should have started this topic under "The Philosophy of Freedom", but who cares where we talk about it as long as we're talking about it.

 I think you bring up a good point.  It seems to me that community organization is key to everything.  The reason for the questions now are due to a lack of community organization and our solutions come from doing just that.  So many people have a hard time "seeing" how these concepts can work and these concepts can't truly work until we try them and tweak them until they do. 

I've heard Cell 411 mentioned in a few places on this forum.  It sounds like it's more like an emergency response application which is great.  I need to get on there and learn more about it.  What about other community organization efforts?  Does anyone have any examples or success stories of community-driven economies?  Obviously bitcoin and good ol' fashioned bartering are alternatives, but does anyone have any practical experience establishing these alternatives in their community?  It's a little daunting when you actually start to try to create these alternative systems so I'd really like to hear methods or techniques other people have tried. 

Thanks so far for the discussion!

[Wild Hope]

AndrewG - thanks for link!  I was not familiar with Dale Brown or his Threat Management Centers.  I can't help but be inspired by people like him.  I think it's awesome what he's been able to accomplish and I'm grateful for the message he sends because he really is changing the paradigm. 

[Magnaniman]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this conversation.  Andrew and ThoughtWater raised good points.

Andrew's posts about private security demonstrates that there doesn't have to be a massive hidden cost to removing government police.  In fact, as he points out, laws and police oftentimes make issues out of things that we simply don't need to concern ourselves with.

The conclusion that you came to, Wild, that communities need to be more proactive about addressing their own needs in ways that work for them, is the correct one, I believe.  The one-size-fits-all solutions that a federal government gives us simply aren't working for everyone.

You'd like examples of local solutions?  Here's one.  My family has a very large garden (2+ acres), but we still helped to establish and maintain a community garden that we participate and grow in.  Do we need that extra space?  Not at all (although we have learned that some crops grow better there).  However, it helps to motivate our neighbors, gives us more exposure as a resource that they can use, allows us to give away food to those who need or want it, and creates a place where the neighborhood can get together, making our community stronger.  Point being, by doing some of our gardening in a different spot, we're gaining things that we wouldn't have if we cloistered ourselves away.

I'll still try to get around to talking about opposition, but I'm replying to the conversation at hand.