4 ms·

I never realized license plates were able to be utilized by a well funded private data aggregation operation. Great observation. How far do we have to go with a

I never realized license plates were able to be utilized by a well funded private data aggregation operation. Great observation. How far do we have to go with allowances for information and actions that are taunts for death and destruction? It seems to me that the only fair way to shape society and well..shared reality..is to allow everyone to do everything and anything and allow others who feel strongly to enact responses..ie punishments. This will eventually maybe be the case ala Star Wars, independent agents roaming reality, with no law other than consequence by others. It seems this is untenable too because it evolves into unfair reality, biased on wealth and capital of weaponry and defense. Not only physically but on a knowledge and information and technological basis. Isnt the real underlying archtype of license plates and well..any authoritarian laws by the government a sort of protectionism for those of us without the money for defense and offense of our own free persons? [1] https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA I am libertarian..but freedom in reality is a function of resources. So I cannot square this circle... laws are a hard issue.

mindslight 8y ago
You're really just describing an anarcho (-capitalist) framework. Which is fine, but isn't actually libertarianism, anarchism, or really any -ism without accompanying heuristics. Essentially your first three paragraphs describe what we already have, just in different terms - really, read them with that in mind. The real questions are about who gets that power, how it accumulates, and what that power is actually able to compel. Ancap/Libertarianism subscribe to an assumption that markets are generally efficient, and so kind of throw up their hands with regards to these questions in the small. > Isnt the real underlying archtype of license plates and well..any authoritarian laws by the government a sort of protectionism for those of us without the money for defense and offense of our own free persons? No, not inherently. For instance, one can also say that authoritarian laws by the government are to serve those with the resources funding the government, in order to enact their agenda. Both are right, but not completely. One of the biggest instances of market inefficiency is the power dynamics of a given situation, which are indeed effected by technology. For instance, a gang of four thugs can easily beat and rob you with impunity. But if all five of you have guns, then that gang has to weigh the risk that you might just get a lethal shot off [0]. That is a qualitative change to the dynamics of the situation. To bring things back to a very concrete example about the current topic, we all know how draining and damaging being the target of a baseless lawsuit by a well-funded adversary is. If one can only post online along with their real name, that means every small-fry whistleblower or critic is under immediate threat by this type of might-makes-right retaliation. Whereas if one is able to post anonymously, then they have an opportunity to completely sidestep being attacked in this manner. [0] disclaimer: of course, maybe we don't think that people getting shot all the time is the type of chaos to structure a society around, but that was an example not a universal endorsement.

mindslight 8y ago

You're really just describing an anarcho (-capitalist) framework. Which is fine, but isn't actually libertarianism, anarchism, or really any -ism without accompanying heuristics. Essentially your first three paragraphs describe what we already have, just in different terms - really, read them with that in mind. The real questions are about who gets that power, how it accumulates, and what that power is actually able to compel. Ancap/Libertarianism subscribe to an assumption that markets are generally efficient, and so kind of throw up their hands with regards to these questions in the small. > Isnt the real underlying archtype of license plates and well..any authoritarian laws by the government a sort of protectionism for those of us without the money for defense and offense of our own free persons? No, not inherently. For instance, one can also say that authoritarian laws by the government are to serve those with the resources funding the government, in order to enact their agenda. Both are right, but not completely. One of the biggest instances of market inefficiency is the power dynamics of a given situation, which are indeed effected by technology. For instance, a gang of four thugs can easily beat and rob you with impunity. But if all five of you have guns, then that gang has to weigh the risk that you might just get a lethal shot off [0]. That is a qualitative change to the dynamics of the situation. To bring things back to a very concrete example about the current topic, we all know how draining and damaging being the target of a baseless lawsuit by a well-funded adversary is. If one can only post online along with their real name, that means every small-fry whistleblower or critic is under immediate threat by this type of might-makes-right retaliation. Whereas if one is able to post anonymously, then they have an opportunity to completely sidestep being attacked in this manner. [0] disclaimer: of course, maybe we don't think that people getting shot all the time is the type of chaos to structure a society around, but that was an example not a universal endorsement.