pull down to refresh
As I said on the Larken Rose thread, complex systems can only emerge, they can never be effectively planned or even imagined by humans, who can barely see first-order effects.
I always appreciate any attempt at a real argument, like this article, and I will never write one myself. Study complex systems if you want to understand why :) Anything long enough turns into nitpicking, and it is pointless anyway: I do not believe the mass of "humans organizes at scale" into anything worth calling free. I only believe there are a few who belong to distinct humanoid subspecies, the ones I wrote about here: https://aillia.substack.com/p/roads-less-traveled
There are people already living lives most would call impossible: living “off-grid” inside the grid, using the system’s own holes against it while staying in places you actually like, is the highest-skill version of this sovereign life game :)
The fact that something didn’t exist before is not proof it’s impossible.
It’s only proof the time and the tools weren’t ripe yet.
Gunpowder was impossible, until it wasn’t.
The printing press was impossible, until it wasn’t.
A global, private-by-default, seizure-resistant money was impossible and truly usable until the last few years.
Now it’s here.
The time is ripe.
Not for everyone.
Maybe never for everyone.
But perhaps (finally!) for the tiny fraction who actually want freedom and the responsibility that inescapably comes with it.
We don’t need to convert the herd.
We just need to become a different species in the same jungle.
Different ways. Different laws. Different hours of the day.
The herd will keep grazing on subsidized grass while we move at night.
That’s enough.
reply
@SoulReaver what's the point? I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't a brief. Hasnas isn't handing you a blueprint. The article is one distinction: a rule can bind you without being anyone's command.
Your eight points show grown rules can be unjust, slow, and later corrected by statute. He already grants that. Origin, justice, and domination are different questions. Showing the illustrations are flawed does not touch the distinction.