You see the world clearly now, having pierced the mythology of political authority to recognize voting as ritual, legislation as theater, and the entire apparatus of legitimate government as the dangerous superstition it has always been. You understand that taxation is not a social contract but wealth extracted under threat, that the state maintains power primarily through the belief that it should have power. The edifice rests not on tanks and prisons but on the far more fragile foundation of collective imagination.

And you watch your loved ones worship at the altar without the slightest awareness that an altar is what it is.

Your brother argues that without government, who would build the roads, apparently unaware that free men built thirty thousand miles of private turnpikes before the state claimed the function for itself. Your mother trusts whatever approved sources tell her to trust, having never questioned why certain sources received approval in the first place. Your best friend enthusiastically participates in elections every cycle, convinced that this time the right people will finally fix things, despite decades of evidence that the things never get fixed regardless of who wins. You have tried to explain what you see, sharing videos and recommending books and offering arguments you found persuasive when you first encountered them. Nothing works. They politely change the subject, become defensive in ways that make further conversation impossible, or begin viewing you as the extremist who has fallen for dangerous ideas.

The relationships strain under the weight of truths you cannot unsee and they cannot yet perceive. Holiday dinners become minefields. You find yourself increasingly isolated among the very people you love most, wondering whether everyone you care about is simply beyond reach.

Here is the uncomfortable truth: the problem is not that your loved ones lack the intelligence to understand your arguments. Many of them are quite intelligent and would grasp the logic immediately if they could hear it. The problem is that the way you have been approaching them virtually guarantees they will never hear what you are actually saying.

The Frustrated Liberator’s Error Every cult uses essentially the same technique for winning converts: assert the truth with confidence, demand acceptance, and repeat with increasing intensity until the subject either capitulates or must be written off as lost. When simple assertion fails, the cult escalates to social pressure, emotional manipulation, and appeals to authority figures, all in service of implanting correct beliefs in minds that stubbornly resist receiving them. The subject either converts and joins the faithful or becomes an enemy to be cut off.

You have been making precisely the same mistake, differing from the cultist only in the content of your assertions rather than in the method of your approach.

When you lecture your brother on Austrian economics, explaining the problems with central banking in tones that suggest any reasonable person would obviously agree if they simply understood the facts, you are not communicating but programming, attempting to install correct beliefs in a mind you have implicitly judged defective. When you share that video exposing government lies, confident that this evidence will finally break through the conditioning, you are demanding conversion rather than inviting inquiry. When you become frustrated that he does not immediately see what you see, you are treating him not as a person with his own reasons and psychological defenses but as a malfunctioning machine that ought to produce correct outputs once supplied with correct inputs.

This approach fails for the same reason cult programming eventually fails: it cannot overcome genuine resistance without destroying either the person or the relationship. You may win arguments this way, leaving your brother unable to counter your points while feeling vaguely defeated and resentful. You will not win minds. The research on cult recovery discovered something important: people almost never leave destructive groups because someone argued them out. They leave because seeds of doubt germinated over time, because contradictions between ideology and reality became impossible to ignore, because someone they trusted remained present and curious rather than demanding.

What You’re Actually Fighting Étienne de La Boétie identified the problem nearly five hundred years ago in his remarkable “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude.” He asked why people obey rulers who are vastly outnumbered by those they rule, and his answer has lost none of its force: custom, education, and self-interest maintain servitude, not primarily force. People born into servitude cannot imagine alternatives. They accept chains as natural because chains are all they have ever known, and the very capacity to conceive of life without chains has been bred out of them by generations of conditioning.

Modern psychology calls this learned helplessness, a phenomenon first documented by Martin Seligman in experiments where subjects exposed to inescapable negative stimuli stopped trying to escape even when escape became possible. The critical revision came decades later when Seligman and his colleagues discovered they had the causal story backwards: passivity is not learned but is rather the default response to prolonged aversive conditions. What must be learned is the sense that actions produce outcomes, that control exists and can be exercised. This learning happens not through explanation but through demonstration; Seligman’s dogs had to be physically moved through the escape action before they would try it themselves.

Your loved ones suffer from both conditions simultaneously. They cannot imagine life without the state because they have never experienced it and have been systematically taught that such life is impossible, dangerous, and morally suspect. Compulsory schooling, as John Taylor Gatto documented across decades of research, trains compliance as its primary function rather than its unfortunate byproduct. Media reinforces the necessity and benevolence of political authority. Every institution your loved ones encounter assumes the state is natural, inevitable, and good, so that questioning this assumption feels not like reasonable inquiry but like questioning whether gravity exists or whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

They are not stupid. They are conditioned. And you cannot uncondition them by lecturing any more than Seligman could cure learned helplessness by explaining escape theory to dogs.

The Candle Method Larken Rose spent decades making arguments against statism before realizing why they rarely worked. The problem was not the arguments, which were logically sound and well-supported by evidence. The problem was that people’s psychological defenses triggered the moment they perceived a challenge to fundamental beliefs, shutting down the capacity for rational evaluation before it could engage. They literally could not hear what he was saying because their minds had already classified it as threat and initiated countermeasures designed to protect core identity.

His solution, developed through years of trial and painful error, was elegantly simple: stop arguing and start asking.

Questions bypass defenses in ways that statements cannot. When you ask someone how they know government is necessary, you are not attacking their belief but inviting them to examine it, and the examination itself is neutral territory where defensiveness need not arise. When you ask what specifically would happen without taxation, you are not asserting your position but creating space for them to discover gaps in their own reasoning. The difference between “Taxation is theft” and “What makes taxation different from theft?” may seem subtle, but it is the difference between a frontal assault that triggers defensive fortifications and a flanking maneuver that arrives at the same destination without ever engaging the defenses at all.

The Socratic method has worked for two and a half millennia precisely because it respects this psychological reality. Plato described it as midwifery: the teacher’s job is not to implant ideas but to help the student birth their own understanding through careful questioning that reveals what they already know, or exposes the contradictions in what they thought they knew. You cannot birth understanding in someone else, for the understanding must be theirs or it will not survive. You can only assist the process, asking questions that create the conditions for insight while leaving the actual insight to emerge from within.

Street Epistemology, the modern systematization of these ancient techniques, applies the same insight with particular focus on epistemology itself. Rather than debating specific claims about government or economics or social organization, practitioners ask about the method someone used to arrive at their conclusion, probing the foundation rather than the structure built upon it. “What would it take to change your mind?” reveals whether genuine inquiry is possible or whether you are speaking to someone whose beliefs are held as unfalsifiable axioms. “How confident are you in that belief, and why?” creates space for doubt that arguments never could, because the doubt emerges from the person’s own reflection rather than being imposed from outside.

The point is not clever rhetoric or psychological manipulation but genuine curiosity about how another person thinks, combined with questions that naturally expose contradictions without requiring you to point them out. If their position is sound, the questioning will reveal that soundness and you will have learned something. If it is not, they will discover the problems themselves, and discoveries made by oneself stick in ways that lectures from others never can.

Practical Principles First, abandon the goal of changing their mind, which sounds like defeat but is actually liberation from an impossible burden. Your goal is to plant seeds, ask questions, and preserve the relationship that makes future conversations possible. Whether those seeds germinate is not within your control and never was. Some people will never question their conditioning regardless of how skillfully you approach them. Some will question decades later, long after you have forgotten the conversation that planted the first doubt. Some will question and then retreat to comfortable beliefs when the implications become too threatening. None of these outcomes represent failure on your part, for you were never responsible for their conclusions in the first place.

Second, ask instead of tell, which requires more patience and genuine curiosity than most people possess but which pays dividends that lecturing never can. “Why do you think that?” opens inquiry where “That’s wrong because…” closes it. “What would have to be true for you to reconsider?” invites reflection where “Here’s evidence you’re wrong” triggers defense. “How would you test that belief?” treats them as a fellow inquirer where “Let me test it for you” treats them as a student in need of correction.

Third, accept emotional responses without matching them, recognizing that defensiveness and anger are signs you have touched something important rather than evidence of bad faith. When your brother gets defensive about his political beliefs, he is demonstrating that those beliefs are load-bearing structures in his psychological architecture, which is precisely the information you need. Do not escalate. Acknowledge his frustration, express care for him as a person rather than as a target for conversion, and either drop the subject or gently continue if he shows willingness. The goal is keeping the door open for future conversations, not winning this particular exchange.

Fourth, model rather than preach, recognizing that living without the fears they have been taught to have is more persuasive than any argument you could construct. Homeschooling your children demonstrates that education need not come from the state. Building parallel economic relationships demonstrates that commerce need not be licensed and regulated into submission. Achieving independence through action rather than permission creates cognitive dissonance that pure argument never can, because when your life contradicts their worldview they must either dismiss you as crazy or reconsider the worldview, and dismissing someone they know and love as crazy becomes increasingly difficult over time.

Fifth, be patient beyond all reasonable expectation, which is perhaps the hardest discipline of all for those who see clearly and want others to see as well. You did not arrive at your current understanding in a single conversation. Neither will they. The person who awakens after five years of patient questioning is not a failure of the first four years but a success that required those years of careful cultivation.

The Limits of Light Some people will never see, and accepting this truth is essential to preserving both your sanity and your relationships. Doxastic closure, the technical term for minds sealed against revision, is a real phenomenon that no technique can overcome. Some people have fused their identity so completely with their beliefs that questioning the beliefs feels like annihilation of the self, and no amount of gentle inquiry will penetrate defenses erected to prevent psychological death. You cannot reach everyone, and attempting to do so will exhaust you while damaging relationships beyond repair.

La Boétie observed that those closest to power have the strongest incentive to maintain the system that grants them proximity. Your brother who works for the state faces costs you do not face if he questions its legitimacy. Your mother whose pension depends on government solvency has reasons beyond mere conditioning to believe the government will remain solvent. Your friend whose identity is built on being a good citizen who participates in democracy and trusts proper authorities cannot abandon that identity without becoming, in his own eyes, a bad person. Respect that their situations differ from yours in ways that make change genuinely harder, not merely slower.

Your job is not to save everyone but to be a candle in the dark, providing light for those ready to see while not burning down relationships with those who are not. The candle does not chase people through the room demanding they look at its flame. It stays lit, and those with eyes eventually notice.

The most dangerous superstition persists not through force but through minds that cannot imagine alternatives. Every person who begins to question weakens the foundation. Every relationship preserved keeps a door open for future questioning. Every act of patient engagement plants seeds whose harvest cannot be predicted or controlled.

You cannot determine whether your loved ones will wake up. You can only determine whether you remain someone worth waking up toward, someone who modeled freedom rather than demanded conversion, someone who asked questions rather than delivered lectures, someone who cared more about the person than about being right.

Stay lit.

Questions Worth Asking The following questions are offered not as a script to be memorized but as examples of the kind of inquiry that opens minds rather than closing them. Adapt them to your conversations, ask with genuine curiosity rather than rhetorical intent, and be prepared to sit with silence while the other person thinks.

On Authority and Legitimacy

If a group of people cannot delegate a right they do not have, where did government get the right to do things that would be crimes if you or I did them?

When you say we need government to protect us from bad people, what prevents the government positions from being filled by bad people?

If voting creates obligation, are the people who voted against the winner also obligated to obey? What about those who did not vote at all?

How would you know if a law were unjust? What would you do if you concluded that it was?

On Consistency

If someone took money from your wallet without permission and used it to buy something you approved of, would that make the taking acceptable?

When a private company does something harmful, we say the solution is government oversight. When government does something harmful, what is the solution?

If you discovered that a charity was using ninety percent of donations on administrative overhead and executive salaries, would you keep donating? How does this compare to how tax revenue is used?

You say people are too selfish and short-sighted to organize society without rulers. Who do you think seeks political power?

On Origins of Belief

When did you first come to believe that government is necessary? Was it something you concluded through investigation, or something you absorbed from your environment?

Have you ever seriously tried to steelman the opposing view, constructing the strongest possible case that government is unnecessary before rejecting it?

If you had been raised in a society without government, do you think you would be advocating for creating one?

What sources do you rely on to understand whether government is working well? Who produces those sources?

On Evidence and Falsifiability

What evidence would you expect to see if government were actually making things worse rather than better? Do you see any of that evidence?

Can you name something government does that you believe could not be done at all without government? How confident are you, and what is that confidence based on?

If private organizations successfully provided a service you currently believe requires government, would that change your view? Has this already happened with anything?

How do you distinguish between things that are illegal because they are harmful and things that appear harmful because they are illegal?

On Implications

If the social contract is real, can you show me where I signed it? If consent can be implied by residence, can any terms be imposed on residents by those claiming authority?

If democracy means the people rule themselves, why do the people need to petition, beg, and lobby their own employees to get what they want?

You trust government to regulate businesses because businesses have profit motives. What motives do you think government officials have?

If political solutions work, why do the same problems persist across decades and across changes in ruling parties?

On Alternatives

Before public schooling existed, how do you think people learned to read? Were literacy rates higher or lower than today?

How did people resolve disputes, build infrastructure, and maintain order in the many times and places throughout history that lacked centralized government?

If you wanted to leave the system entirely and live without government services or obligations, where could you go? What does it mean that no such place exists?

What would you personally do differently if you woke up tomorrow and there were no government? How many of those things could you do right now?

Loading preview...

nostr:naddr1qqgrydnzxenrvwp5xgcr2dfkxajrqq3qklkk3vrzme455yh9rl2jshq7rc8dpegj3ndf82c3ks2sk40dxt7qxpqqqp65wmz7qj4

Kind: 30023

You see the world clearly now, having pierced the mythology of political authority to recognize voting as ritual, legislation as theater, and the entire apparatus of legitimate government as the dangerous superstition it has always been. You understand that taxation is not a social contract but wealth extracted under threat, that the state maintains power primarily through the belief that it should have power. The edifice rests not on tanks and prisons but on the far more fragile foundation of collective imagination.

And you watch your loved ones worship at the altar without the slightest awareness that an altar is what it is.

Your brother argues that without government, who would build the roads, apparently unaware that free men built thirty thousand miles of private turnpikes before the state claimed the function for itself. Your mother trusts whatever approved sources tell her to trust, having never questioned why certain sources received approval in the first place. Your best friend enthusiastically participates in elections every cycle, convinced that this time the right people will finally fix things, despite decades of evidence that the things never get fixed regardless of who wins. You have tried to explain what you see, sharing videos and recommending books and offering arguments you found persuasive when you first encountered them. Nothing works. They politely change the subject, become defensive in ways that make further conversation impossible, or begin viewing you as the extremist who has fallen for dangerous ideas.

The relationships strain under the weight of truths you cannot unsee and they cannot yet perceive. Holiday dinners become minefields. You find yourself increasingly isolated among the very people you love most, wondering whether everyone you care about is simply beyond reach.

Here is the uncomfortable truth: the problem is not that your loved ones lack the intelligence to understand your arguments. Many of them are quite intelligent and would grasp the logic immediately if they could hear it. The problem is that the way you have been approaching them virtually guarantees they will never hear what you are actually saying.

The Frustrated Liberator’s Error Every cult uses essentially the same technique for winning converts: assert the truth with confidence, demand acceptance, and repeat with increasing intensity until the subject either capitulates or must be written off as lost. When simple assertion fails, the cult escalates to social pressure, emotional manipulation, and appeals to authority figures, all in service of implanting correct beliefs in minds that stubbornly resist receiving them. The subject either converts and joins the faithful or becomes an enemy to be cut off.

You have been making precisely the same mistake, differing from the cultist only in the content of your assertions rather than in the method of your approach.

When you lecture your brother on Austrian economics, explaining the problems with central banking in tones that suggest any reasonable person would obviously agree if they simply understood the facts, you are not communicating but programming, attempting to install correct beliefs in a mind you have implicitly judged defective. When you share that video exposing government lies, confident that this evidence will finally break through the conditioning, you are demanding conversion rather than inviting inquiry. When you become frustrated that he does not immediately see what you see, you are treating him not as a person with his own reasons and psychological defenses but as a malfunctioning machine that ought to produce correct outputs once supplied with correct inputs.

This approach fails for the same reason cult programming eventually fails: it cannot overcome genuine resistance without destroying either the person or the relationship. You may win arguments this way, leaving your brother unable to counter your points while feeling vaguely defeated and resentful. You will not win minds. The research on cult recovery discovered something important: people almost never leave destructive groups because someone argued them out. They leave because seeds of doubt germinated over time, because contradictions between ideology and reality became impossible to ignore, because someone they trusted remained present and curious rather than demanding.

What You’re Actually Fighting Étienne de La Boétie identified the problem nearly five hundred years ago in his remarkable “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude.” He asked why people obey rulers who are vastly outnumbered by those they rule, and his answer has lost none of its force: custom, education, and self-interest maintain servitude, not primarily force. People born into servitude cannot imagine alternatives. They accept chains as natural because chains are all they have ever known, and the very capacity to conceive of life without chains has been bred out of them by generations of conditioning.

Modern psychology calls this learned helplessness, a phenomenon first documented by Martin Seligman in experiments where subjects exposed to inescapable negative stimuli stopped trying to escape even when escape became possible. The critical revision came decades later when Seligman and his colleagues discovered they had the causal story backwards: passivity is not learned but is rather the default response to prolonged aversive conditions. What must be learned is the sense that actions produce outcomes, that control exists and can be exercised. This learning happens not through explanation but through demonstration; Seligman’s dogs had to be physically moved through the escape action before they would try it themselves.

Your loved ones suffer from both conditions simultaneously. They cannot imagine life without the state because they have never experienced it and have been systematically taught that such life is impossible, dangerous, and morally suspect. Compulsory schooling, as John Taylor Gatto documented across decades of research, trains compliance as its primary function rather than its unfortunate byproduct. Media reinforces the necessity and benevolence of political authority. Every institution your loved ones encounter assumes the state is natural, inevitable, and good, so that questioning this assumption feels not like reasonable inquiry but like questioning whether gravity exists or whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

They are not stupid. They are conditioned. And you cannot uncondition them by lecturing any more than Seligman could cure learned helplessness by explaining escape theory to dogs.

The Candle Method Larken Rose spent decades making arguments against statism before realizing why they rarely worked. The problem was not the arguments, which were logically sound and well-supported by evidence. The problem was that people’s psychological defenses triggered the moment they perceived a challenge to fundamental beliefs, shutting down the capacity for rational evaluation before it could engage. They literally could not hear what he was saying because their minds had already classified it as threat and initiated countermeasures designed to protect core identity.

His solution, developed through years of trial and painful error, was elegantly simple: stop arguing and start asking.

Questions bypass defenses in ways that statements cannot. When you ask someone how they know government is necessary, you are not attacking their belief but inviting them to examine it, and the examination itself is neutral territory where defensiveness need not arise. When you ask what specifically would happen without taxation, you are not asserting your position but creating space for them to discover gaps in their own reasoning. The difference between “Taxation is theft” and “What makes taxation different from theft?” may seem subtle, but it is the difference between a frontal assault that triggers defensive fortifications and a flanking maneuver that arrives at the same destination without ever engaging the defenses at all.

The Socratic method has worked for two and a half millennia precisely because it respects this psychological reality. Plato described it as midwifery: the teacher’s job is not to implant ideas but to help the student birth their own understanding through careful questioning that reveals what they already know, or exposes the contradictions in what they thought they knew. You cannot birth understanding in someone else, for the understanding must be theirs or it will not survive. You can only assist the process, asking questions that create the conditions for insight while leaving the actual insight to emerge from within.

Street Epistemology, the modern systematization of these ancient techniques, applies the same insight with particular focus on epistemology itself. Rather than debating specific claims about government or economics or social organization, practitioners ask about the method someone used to arrive at their conclusion, probing the foundation rather than the structure built upon it. “What would it take to change your mind?” reveals whether genuine inquiry is possible or whether you are speaking to someone whose beliefs are held as unfalsifiable axioms. “How confident are you in that belief, and why?” creates space for doubt that arguments never could, because the doubt emerges from the person’s own reflection rather than being imposed from outside.

The point is not clever rhetoric or psychological manipulation but genuine curiosity about how another person thinks, combined with questions that naturally expose contradictions without requiring you to point them out. If their position is sound, the questioning will reveal that soundness and you will have learned something. If it is not, they will discover the problems themselves, and discoveries made by oneself stick in ways that lectures from others never can.

Practical Principles First, abandon the goal of changing their mind, which sounds like defeat but is actually liberation from an impossible burden. Your goal is to plant seeds, ask questions, and preserve the relationship that makes future conversations possible. Whether those seeds germinate is not within your control and never was. Some people will never question their conditioning regardless of how skillfully you approach them. Some will question decades later, long after you have forgotten the conversation that planted the first doubt. Some will question and then retreat to comfortable beliefs when the implications become too threatening. None of these outcomes represent failure on your part, for you were never responsible for their conclusions in the first place.

Second, ask instead of tell, which requires more patience and genuine curiosity than most people possess but which pays dividends that lecturing never can. “Why do you think that?” opens inquiry where “That’s wrong because…” closes it. “What would have to be true for you to reconsider?” invites reflection where “Here’s evidence you’re wrong” triggers defense. “How would you test that belief?” treats them as a fellow inquirer where “Let me test it for you” treats them as a student in need of correction.

Third, accept emotional responses without matching them, recognizing that defensiveness and anger are signs you have touched something important rather than evidence of bad faith. When your brother gets defensive about his political beliefs, he is demonstrating that those beliefs are load-bearing structures in his psychological architecture, which is precisely the information you need. Do not escalate. Acknowledge his frustration, express care for him as a person rather than as a target for conversion, and either drop the subject or gently continue if he shows willingness. The goal is keeping the door open for future conversations, not winning this particular exchange.

Fourth, model rather than preach, recognizing that living without the fears they have been taught to have is more persuasive than any argument you could construct. Homeschooling your children demonstrates that education need not come from the state. Building parallel economic relationships demonstrates that commerce need not be licensed and regulated into submission. Achieving independence through action rather than permission creates cognitive dissonance that pure argument never can, because when your life contradicts their worldview they must either dismiss you as crazy or reconsider the worldview, and dismissing someone they know and love as crazy becomes increasingly difficult over time.

Fifth, be patient beyond all reasonable expectation, which is perhaps the hardest discipline of all for those who see clearly and want others to see as well. You did not arrive at your current understanding in a single conversation. Neither will they. The person who awakens after five years of patient questioning is not a failure of the first four years but a success that required those years of careful cultivation.

The Limits of Light Some people will never see, and accepting this truth is essential to preserving both your sanity and your relationships. Doxastic closure, the technical term for minds sealed against revision, is a real phenomenon that no technique can overcome. Some people have fused their identity so completely with their beliefs that questioning the beliefs feels like annihilation of the self, and no amount of gentle inquiry will penetrate defenses erected to prevent psychological death. You cannot reach everyone, and attempting to do so will exhaust you while damaging relationships beyond repair.

La Boétie observed that those closest to power have the strongest incentive to maintain the system that grants them proximity. Your brother who works for the state faces costs you do not face if he questions its legitimacy. Your mother whose pension depends on government solvency has reasons beyond mere conditioning to believe the government will remain solvent. Your friend whose identity is built on being a good citizen who participates in democracy and trusts proper authorities cannot abandon that identity without becoming, in his own eyes, a bad person. Respect that their situations differ from yours in ways that make change genuinely harder, not merely slower.

Your job is not to save everyone but to be a candle in the dark, providing light for those ready to see while not burning down relationships with those who are not. The candle does not chase people through the room demanding they look at its flame. It stays lit, and those with eyes eventually notice.

The most dangerous superstition persists not through force but through minds that cannot imagine alternatives. Every person who begins to question weakens the foundation. Every relationship preserved keeps a door open for future questioning. Every act of patient engagement plants seeds whose harvest cannot be predicted or controlled.

You cannot determine whether your loved ones will wake up. You can only determine whether you remain someone worth waking up toward, someone who modeled freedom rather than demanded conversion, someone who asked questions rather than delivered lectures, someone who cared more about the person than about being right.

Stay lit.

Questions Worth Asking The following questions are offered not as a script to be memorized but as examples of the kind of inquiry that opens minds rather than closing them. Adapt them to your conversations, ask with genuine curiosity rather than rhetorical intent, and be prepared to sit with silence while the other person thinks.

On Authority and Legitimacy

If a group of people cannot delegate a right they do not have, where did government get the right to do things that would be crimes if you or I did them?

When you say we need government to protect us from bad people, what prevents the government positions from being filled by bad people?

If voting creates obligation, are the people who voted against the winner also obligated to obey? What about those who did not vote at all?

How would you know if a law were unjust? What would you do if you concluded that it was?

On Consistency

If someone took money from your wallet without permission and used it to buy something you approved of, would that make the taking acceptable?

When a private company does something harmful, we say the solution is government oversight. When government does something harmful, what is the solution?

If you discovered that a charity was using ninety percent of donations on administrative overhead and executive salaries, would you keep donating? How does this compare to how tax revenue is used?

You say people are too selfish and short-sighted to organize society without rulers. Who do you think seeks political power?

On Origins of Belief

When did you first come to believe that government is necessary? Was it something you concluded through investigation, or something you absorbed from your environment?

Have you ever seriously tried to steelman the opposing view, constructing the strongest possible case that government is unnecessary before rejecting it?

If you had been raised in a society without government, do you think you would be advocating for creating one?

What sources do you rely on to understand whether government is working well? Who produces those sources?

On Evidence and Falsifiability

What evidence would you expect to see if government were actually making things worse rather than better? Do you see any of that evidence?

Can you name something government does that you believe could not be done at all without government? How confident are you, and what is that confidence based on?

If private organizations successfully provided a service you currently believe requires government, would that change your view? Has this already happened with anything?

How do you distinguish between things that are illegal because they are harmful and things that appear harmful because they are illegal?

On Implications

If the social contract is real, can you show me where I signed it? If consent can be implied by residence, can any terms be imposed on residents by those claiming authority?

If democracy means the people rule themselves, why do the people need to petition, beg, and lobby their own employees to get what they want?

You trust government to regulate businesses because businesses have profit motives. What motives do you think government officials have?

If political solutions work, why do the same problems persist across decades and across changes in ruling parties?

On Alternatives

Before public schooling existed, how do you think people learned to read? Were literacy rates higher or lower than today?

How did people resolve disputes, build infrastructure, and maintain order in the many times and places throughout history that lacked centralized government?

If you wanted to leave the system entirely and live without government services or obligations, where could you go? What does it mean that no such place exists?

What would you personally do differently if you woke up tomorrow and there were no government? How many of those things could you do right now?

Loading preview...

nostr:naddr1qqgrydnzxenrvwp5xgcr2dfkxajrqq3qklkk3vrzme455yh9rl2jshq7rc8dpegj3ndf82c3ks2sk40dxt7qxpqqqp65wmz7qj4

Kind: 30023

The ideal third party service would be open source and would perform the following functions:

collect raw data such as follows (kind 3 notes), reports, zaps, reactions, ratings, whatever data is both available and relevant

calculate trust metrics personalized to individual users

deliver trust metrics to clients throughout nostr

Loading preview...

nostr:naddr1qqc8xetjwe5kxefdwpex7anfv3jhyuedvehhyttsv4e8xmmwv9kxj7n9vskhgun4wd6z6mt9w3exjcmnqgsw2feday2t6vqh2hzrnwywd9v6g0yayejgx8cf83g7n3ue594pqtcrqsqqqa28u7z3ke

Kind: 30023

The ideal third party service would be open source and would perform the following functions:

collect raw data such as follows (kind 3 notes), reports, zaps, reactions, ratings, whatever data is both available and relevant

calculate trust metrics personalized to individual users

deliver trust metrics to clients throughout nostr

Loading preview...

nostr:naddr1qqc8xetjwe5kxefdwpex7anfv3jhyuedvehhyttsv4e8xmmwv9kxj7n9vskhgun4wd6z6mt9w3exjcmnqgsw2feday2t6vqh2hzrnwywd9v6g0yayejgx8cf83g7n3ue594pqtcrqsqqqa28u7z3ke

Kind: 30023

When GFY1 points strongly in a positive direction (high benefit), GFY2 points equally strongly in the negative direction (low detriment). Conversely, if GFY2 increases (more frustration), GFY1 decreases (less benefit). The sum of these opposing forces is always zero: GFY1 + GFY2 = 0, which symbolizes the balance (or tension) between good and bad.

highlight verb [ T ] US /ˈhaɪ.laɪt/ UK /ˈhaɪ.laɪt/ Add to word list B2 to attract attention to or emphasize something important:

Source: dictionary.cambridge.org