The Prime Rule

[Trevor Watkins]

I recently made contact with Max Borders of the Advocates for Self-government, and it has been a revelation.  He writes superb articles, has access to many concepts new to  me, and is actually interested in what we are doing down here in the deep south of Africa. Here is a recent email from him.

What can be done to develop a global syndicate of classical liberals (libertarians, market anarchists, panarchists, etc) dedicated to cooperation.

But cooperation on what?

I don't know if you have the same experiences in SA with libertarians, but they're rather like cats: self-righteous, hard to rally, and steeped in their own rectitude about every matter. This causes division and fracturing instead of collective intelligence and mass cooperation. 

Criticisms aside, if there were a way to let near-unanimity and international collaboration on certain things, we might at least be able to pave the way for a liberal renaissance.

What does it look like to incentivize cooperation instead of critique? How can we bring out the pragmatism instead of the doctrinaire? On what could we find agreement and work from various parts of the world to realize 2-3 good objectives?

I'm imagining the finest minds could be recruited into this syndicate, that is, the finest of the UK, NZ, SA, US, and indeed beyond the Anglosphere. But these folks would have to be invited into a container that lets the positive bubble up to the surface and not the ideological purity tests, criticisms, and endless debates. The effort would have to accommodate how busy everyone is, so fractured, limited input. It would also have to function asynchronously, to some degree due to our various waking and sleeping schedules. 

I have some ideas, but I'd be curious to get yours, as well. There is no pressure, just exploration.

Max Borders

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Humans are naturally collaborative and social creatures. We have evolved speech specifically for this purpose and have dedicated a huge part of our brains (and thus large parts of our lives to feeding it) specifically to interacting with others. I find it interesting then when individualists, the most socially-concious of all the flavours of human, find it hard to organize in groups. It should be simple and natural for most humans, but especially for those not polluted by the isolating dogma of collectivism. All it should require is a clear, attainable and desirable goal (or two)... yet it seems to take a lot more than our natural inclination and a diploma in management to actually get it done.

It is also fascinating to look at Mensa, the original intent of that organization being to bring all the brightest minds together in the hope of finding solutions to the worlds toughest problems. In reality however, Mensa has turned out to be a social club with the almost exclusive purpose of mental masturbation i.e. the playing of games and solving of puzzles. It certainly solves a huge number of problems, but none of any real consequence or importance. I suspect that both groups (and there is some overlap of population between the two) have a similar root cause to the problem of being efficient but not effective, that being some unifying purpose, measurable goals and solid leadership.

In my view, the biggest hurdle to overcome here is finding leadership without any real power. It needs direction without being directing and purposeful without the use of force or authority. The challenge is not getting everyone to agree and follow, the challenge is getting someone principled and credible enough for everyone else to voluntarily get behind. I'll bet if you could resurrect Milton Friedman or Ludwig von Mises or Carl Menger that many of us would be happy to follow their lead, despite not fully agreeing with all their academic points... especially if they were asking us to do very specific and measurable things like; "be on 10th Ave at 08:00 on Saturday to protest Bill C-16".

Just forming a group and then hoping for it to naturally go in a direction will inevitably end with a bunch of people sitting at a pub playing scrabble, drinking beer and talking shit. What this thing needs is a goal worth attaining and a leader worth following. Someone has to coordinate these individualists and be their spokesperson, otherwise we'll all just keep doing our own thing. Oh, and of course, it should be kept in mind that we only make up 1% of the population... so whoever is trying to lead better not have any aspirations to get elected to public office. Besides being a sell-out to the dark side, it is also delusional. Whatever we're doing, keep in mind that we're doing it with a very small minority.

Just my 2c.

S.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmLKZgRx5P0BN%2BGRrQTgHVS%2BhY3nugQD7c9q8ywiUgykw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

The other mistake that us individualists tend to make is to think that democracy is freedom, that devolution of power gets us closer to freedom and that everyone in the organization should have a say. Those are all bullshit. We are also quick to forget about the prime rule of ownership of property.

There are few dictatorships as petty as an HOA, few dictators as prescriptive as the headmaster of a rural school. Devolution of power often leaves us at the mercy of the mob boss or small town mayor's budget committee. At least to the big federal government I am just a number - they don't care about the height of my fence or the bark of my dog. Sometimes a concentration of power gives us more freedom.

Democracy is just a means of legitimizing oppression by the mob. Freedom is when I want a burger for dinner and you want pizza so we each go out and get what we want. Democracy is when I want a burger then we take a vote and now I'm eating pizza. That's not freedom, that's stupid.

Why do we want to start organizations in which everyone has a say ? Why do we want to spread the power around ? Those things don't give us freedom. Those things don't create strong organizations with lofty goals and processes aimed at being effective at achieving those goals. No, they do the opposite - they distract us and occupy us with meaningless debate.

That's also not the way the free market works. We don't need to agree or come to a consensus or stand together - those are all concepts from the collectivist dictionary. What we need is private property. Trevor started and owns SASI - he should decide what happens to it. He owns it, it is his. The rest of us can have opinions, but we have no say in another man's property.

The free market does not require us to collaborate, it simply says here is something Trevor owns... if you think you can do better, then go start your own thing. Support, compete or get out of the way. In a free market it is not the most cohesive or the prettiest or the best that survives, it's whatever people want... but they don't do so by debating and collaborating and voting, they do so by supporting what others own or competing with it.

IBM dominated the world of IT for a long time. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did not improve the industry by sharing their thoughts and suggestions with the board of IBM, they went out and made their own organizations. They didn't run those organizations by force and sweatshops, but neither did they run it by consensus and democratic process. They had a vision and they rallied the support they needed to manifest their visions.

We don't need agreement or collaboration or conscription or power... we just need some direction. We need something which kind-of like-minded people can voluntarily join and be free to leave at any time. Something which belongs to someone with a vision. Some of us might disagree and quit or even compete with our own visions, and that is how freedom works.

If your organization is failing, you can't blame the employees.

Stephen.

On Jun 19, 2025, at 16:18, Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Stephen vJ]

Question to everyone... if you had to summarize your wish for this world in one sentence, what would that be ?

Zero government ? Abolition of all taxes ? Privatization of all goods and services ? Rule of law ? No law ? Strong borders ? No borders ?

Give us your wish for the world in a single, short sentence. Let's see if someone can come up with a vision for an international organization for individualists.

P.S. This is not a democratic process, we're not going to vote for the best idea - it is a collection of inputs and might result in nothing.

Stephen.

On Jun 19, 2025, at 23:10, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

The other mistake that us individualists tend to make is to think that democracy is freedom, that devolution of power gets us closer to freedom and that everyone in the organization should have a say. Those are all bullshit. We are also quick to forget about the prime rule of ownership of property.

[Sid Nothard]

I can’t get my head around how property rights can be enforced, and how citizens can be protected from criminals without some form of institution that wields government force. The trick is to keep government force from expanding beyond those boundaries. Maybe the  introduction of the Prime Law will do it………

 

 

The Prime Law®*

 

 (The Fundamental of Protection)

 

 Preamble

*The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily.

 

*The function of government is to provide the conditions that let individuals fulfill that purpose.

 

*The Prime Law guarantees those conditions by forbidding the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual, property, or contract.

 

Article 1

No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual’s self, property, or contract.

 

Article 2

Force is morally-and-legally justified only for protection from those who violate Article 1.

 

Article 3

No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

 

 *The Prime Law® is the fundamental, natural law of protection (that directs all decisions and actions of the Twelve Visions Party) and is not open to amendment or change.

Sid Nothard cSASI

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/E6589183-4B67-48F3-8F36-0838C198548A%40gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

I believe that the free market is our best model for cooperation towards the goal of individual freedom. The spontaneous order that arises from many individuals seeking their own selfish and personal goals will result in an optimum solution for society as a whole. 

But what is the "prime rule" of the market? I suggest - Pursuing your own self interest results in widespread benefits to the individual and the community. Not so much a rule as an insight. 

Gemini AI provides a useless answer - The prime rule of the market is to understand market cycles and their impact on investment decisions. Grok is only slightly better - The prime rule of the market is supply and demand.

Our problem is that if WE don't know what our prime rule is, if AI doesn't know, what is the chance that society as a whole knows the prime rule?  I guess our best option is to go the free market route - have lots of people suggest lots of "prime rules" (products), and see which one makes the most profit for its inventor. NOT which one is most popular, nor most internally consistent. Rather, Which prime rule attracts the most investment? In other words, if Elon Musk, Geoff Bezos and George Soros like your prime rule and invest in it, that will automatically make it the "best" prime rule, unless millions of others invest in it too. Even I am mildly offended by that suggestion. But ask yourself how do you judge the best electric car in the market? By the profit its developer makes.

Currently the NAP is probably the most popular prime rule. It is certainly not the most logical or consistent. It has not made its inventors and adherents any measurable profit. It does have market share, but no one is investing in NAP stocks.

How do you make a profit out of something you are desperate to give away for free. How do you monetise your preferred prime rule?  You link it to a real world, scarce and valuable product.  Steve Jobs did not sell the idea of universal access to communications and information. He sold an expensive real world device that enabled that concept, the cellphone. 

According to Grok, the most profitable business in the world is money centre banking. If individualists and libertarians can demonstrate that our prime rule is the best means to safeguard and grow your wealth, and protect your safety and security, then we might have a winner. I suggest a fusion of philosophy, bitcoin and insurance  could be the way to go. 

Now I must take  my dog for a walk.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

Virus-free.www.avg.com

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S79AaJ67vJXCVrsKOypuaimQ%3Df4550P0_tMfXuxj9YZVA%40mail.gmail.com.

[vlie...@btinternet.com]

The Free Market concept assumes that both buyers and sellers have the economic strength to affect the market. In practice, we find that many markets are monopolies or oligopolies where the “big boys” set the price and the herd follow.  One of the biggest flaws in the Free Market concept is the failure to handle long-term effects of spikes in supply and demand. If there is a very good harvest, may farmers will go under because there is a glut and prices fall below the level at which it is profitable for the farmer to go to market. Likewise, if there is a very bad harvest, many farmers will go under because they have produced very little.

 

If you wish to model the free market situation, your model needs to recognise that both supply and demand have a time-dependency and if the two have largely differing time constants, then the model itself needs to be replaced by one in which either then supply or the demand becomes inelastic. Many of these concepts are covered in a basic Economic  module (I have at least passed UNISA Economic I).  To put this into perspective, suppose that there is only one petrol station in Blikkiesfontein  and it is 50 km to the next nearest petrol station. Do we have a free market situation, or does the petrol station owner have a monopoly?   If a second petrol station opens up, then the owner of that petrol station would maximise his profits, not by undercutting the opposition, but by matching the opposition – in this way, the two will split the market. Even if there is no communication between them whatsoever, one matching but never undercutting the other will produce maximum profits for both.

 

Martin

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Trevor Watkins
Sent: 20 June 2025 11:00
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: The Prime Rule

 

I believe that the free market is our best model for cooperation towards the goal of individual freedom. The spontaneous order that arises from many individuals seeking their own selfish and personal goals will result in an optimum solution for society as a whole. 

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkUtGqSMzN-S_o1HF0n%2BkYf-ou_zpP1gvSrJnXe_qnfRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Nice question? I long for a world in which some magical power ensures that I am never harmed without my consent, so long as I respect the same condition for others. I believe all my desired freedoms would flow from that simple condition.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

Virus-free.www.avg.com

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/E6589183-4B67-48F3-8F36-0838C198548A%40gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Property rights are protected by insurance. If I will always get restitution (plus 10%) for property rights violations, I will look forward to such violations. Unfortunately it does not apply to protection of persons. There is no restitution for death.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

Virus-free.www.avg.com

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000e01dbe1ba%24b9f0bc10%242dd23430%24%40mweb.co.za.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Why does there have to be a single winner ? Why can't Tesla and Toyota and Rolls Royce and BMW and Ferrari and Fiat all exist at the same time ?

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkUtGqSMzN-S_o1HF0n%2BkYf-ou_zpP1gvSrJnXe_qnfRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Colin Phillips]

@Stephen van Jaarsveldt is obviously too young to remember the carnage and unnecessary loss of life from when we tried this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola_wars

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7pA39TxwGbRYgY15CcS6wFfE7YwpQKGXfBkqbOK63rMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

You're not the only one, but just because we can't get our heads around it, does not mean the answer does not exist. Until 1776 it was inconceivable that a country could exist without a king and some of the initial proposals was to call George Washington "his royal majesty"... it is hard to explain to modern people just how foreign the concept of a democratically elected president was in 1776... or more correctly 1784. Now that is the rule, not the exception, but it was not always so.

It was also until very recently inconceivable that someone could tell you to wear a seatbelt in your own car or where you can and cannot smoke or that children could not work for a living. Go back a few years and these now common things would be absolutely inconceivable. Just because people can't get their heads around it does not mean it cannot happen... maybe there is a future in which government does not exist because we figured out the answer and implemented it.

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000e01dbe1ba%24b9f0bc10%242dd23430%24%40mweb.co.za.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Magical power... very interesting answer Trevor. I'm going to have to think about this for a bit, but my initial thought is that the market should provide insurance, private security services, guns, etc. and there are plenty of real world examples of charities helping the poor who are not able to afford the essentials themselves, so I don't think the power needs to be magical. Unless your definition of magic is anything we don't understand, in which case basic economics qualifies as magic to most people. I guess to many it is like an invisible hand.

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LnD%3DLMBnefzT1v8h32FhudE%3D%3DT7bzEy27FFLjPRNNzWpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Just because we can't conceive of it yet, doesn't mean it's impossible. I don't know how, but maybe one day we'll be able to say, look this guys was dead and now he lives, as foretold in Robocop 2:16.

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3DaiAVWOo99gTVBGkhq-s%2B%3D4Lz%2BV7TzvB%3DKTqU__9vrNw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Ah, I remember that. The good old days when our drinks were chilled by the mere proximity to the Cold War.

Luckily Pepsi won and I believe in large part because they had the bigger naval fleet. https://youtu.be/egI6yM5NEwo

S.

[vlie...@btinternet.com]

The free market assumes a large number of suppliers and a large number of consumer -sufficient in number that the entry or exit of a single participant will not affect the market.  Moreover, in answer to your question, Rolls Royce and Fiat are not in the same market.  Rolls Royce is in the luxury car market and Fiat is in the utility car market.

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Stephen van Jaarsveldt
Sent: 20 June 2025 15:27
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: The Prime Rule

 

Why does there have to be a single winner ? Why can't Tesla and Toyota and Rolls Royce and BMW and Ferrari and Fiat all exist at the same time ?

 

S.

 

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7pA39TxwGbRYgY15CcS6wFfE7YwpQKGXfBkqbOK63rMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

No, that's not true. The free market assumes nothing. Leon Walras' theoretical model of price determination later expanded by Alfred Marshall into equilibrium theory assumes FOR THE PURPOSES OF ILLUSTRATION that there are a large number of suppliers and consumers and that the products are uniform and all that ceterus paribus nonsense. It is a model to illustrate price determination, not a definition of the market. Some textbooks use the words "perfect market" or "perfectly competitive" market, but "perfect" in this sense simply means not cluttered or complicated by other things for the purposes of the model, it does not imply a desirable or ideal state in the real world. A free market is one where there are no externally imposed restrictions. Whether there is one supplier or millions, is not relevant to the definition of a free market. It is entirely possible (though unlikely) for a monopoly to exist in a perfectly free market.

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000001dbe1f3%2497999950%24c6cccbf0%24%40btinternet.com.

[Andre M. Maree]

Gents,

My 1st post to this forum. Have been trying to follow this discussion from the start, based on the original post by Trevor from Max.

However, I fail to see how the current conversation, as interesting as it is theoretically, fits in with the message and question posed.

What am I missing?

Andre

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S5mBEBhw7ErYcX3UnFb46Fz_tCDM7ndeyyiX9iz%2B4JcQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I asked folks for their wish for the world / their vision for the future. I was hoping to get from that something that could be converted to a mission statement or a long term goal or something, which could be used to guide an organization. Something simple, like "less government"... which is something that anyone on the spectrum from anarchist to minarchist could support and get behind. I don't think we got side-tracked... I'm still waiting for more suggestions. The request is only a few hours old and some responses have sparked discussion, which is fun, but I'm sure we'll get a few more and then maybe one of us will find that inspirational enough to build an association or foundation or cult or company around.

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/fPFuRYLgZYDG7kJ4uG5HvZIbWBdoqol1e0Qz8nq_pWRurdGw88jwanQf5P3H_CNC_Jknn2qUHoMixV-X446njCZgZ3vPMi7HtrIlNwl6WlI%3D%40maree.us.

[Sid Nothard]

Mainstream  economists use models such as a perfect market which has no foundation in reality.

There is no such thing as a perfect market or perfect competition. In a free market the dominant

force is relentless completion. A player must either be better than the competition or lose out.

A true monopoly cannot exist in a free market without being propped up by government force.

 

It does not matter if one player has a monopoly on a product, so long as he does not charge monopoly prices.

If he does, he is simply inviting the completion or alternative products in.

 

Sid Nothard cSASI

 

Virus-free.www.avg.com

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S5mBEBhw7ErYcX3UnFb46Fz_tCDM7ndeyyiX9iz%2B4JcQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

@Max Borders We would love to hear from you on our thread, if only to prove you are real

regards

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

[Max Borders]

Happy to make an appearance. I am honored you would have me as a lurker or contributor.

You might find it interesting to suggest a three-part change hypothesis: Assumptions, Objectives, and Actions.

Assumptions

• We generally share the same values, such as peaceful freedom, civilization, and decentralization of authority.
• We each bring talents we can bring to bear towards some common objective.
• We recognize that the powerful are not likely to let go of their authority due to moral suasion.
• Digital, global collaboration is now possible (and necessary) given our various circumstances.
• We can't make the perfect the enemy of the good, or let ideological purity tests hamstring our efforts. Our ideals must be our North Star, balanced against pragmatism.
• We must focus on entrepreneurship and innovation (bottom-up), instead of politics and policy (top-down).
• The following Objectives are also assumptions.

Objectives

1. We want to move towards a consent-based order, everywhere. 
2. We want to move away from a compulsion-based order, everywhere.
3. We want to apply our efforts to something promising that we can start small, test, and scale (or fail).
4. That something should inspire those among the liberal remnant in the world.

Actions

1. Develop a process for discovering that something together.
2. Establish a simple, low-cost process for collaborating asynchronously.
3. Build a parallel system that people can freely opt into en masse, which offers leverage.
4. Any such system should respect a threefold mandate:
   - Reduce transaction and collaboration costs.
   - Raise the costs of predation and parasitism.
   - Lower switching costs and/or the costs to exit a system.

I hope you'll forgive my bullet points today. I'm trying rather clumsily to capture the foundations of a global collaboration effort that is neither activism (picketing and politicking) nor internecine ideological debates that go nowhere. 

Thanks again, Trevor. I look forward to reading all your thoughts.

[Trevor Watkins]

Historically, who has been most successful  at spreading their ideas?

Who	Status	Why	How	When
Muslims	2 billion, 26% of world,, growing at 21%, significant resistance	Unifying text, harsh discipline, challenging concepts	Conquest, reproduction, order, assimilation, terrorism	700 ad to present
Christians	2.4 billion, 33% of world, declining at 16%	Unique message of salvation and love,  ability to adapt, support from Roman empire, trade	initially, small dedicated groups. Later, fear, force and assimilation.	0 ad to present
Mongols	Non-existent currently. Largest empire in history,	military prowess, ferocity, merciless, trade	Conquest, assimilation, speed, discipline, and effectiveness	1200 ad 1368 ad
British	Now in steep decline. Was richest empire ever.	Trade. Naval superiority. Good governance	Conquest, assimilation, trade, efficiency	1500 - 2000 ad
Communist Chinese	2nd largest economy. 1.4 billion	economic reforms, work ethic, dictatorial governance	trade, order, fear, reproduction, discipline	1949 to present
Greek empire	Non-existent currently. Was a collection of independent city-states	Ideas, art, relative peace, culture, science	Conquest (Alexander the Great). Trade, influence	1200 bc to 150 ad
Capitalism/Free Markets	Nearly all countries in the world today practice some form of capitalism, i.e.market-based principles, private property, and profit-seeking	Its ability to foster innovation, drive economic growth, and promote efficiency through competition. It also provides individuals with the most freedom	Mostly through demonstration and imitation. Basis of almost all trade. Does not promote violence or conquest	1600 ad to present

I learnt several new and surprising things while preparing this table. I think the world and our ideas are in better shape than we give them credit for.

Also in red below

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 15:08, Max Borders <m...@social-evolution.com> wrote:

Happy to make an appearance. I am honored you would have me as a lurker or contributor.

You might find it interesting to suggest a three-part change hypothesis: Assumptions, Objectives, and Actions.

Assumptions

• We generally share the same values, such as peaceful freedom, civilization, and decentralization of authority.
• We each bring talents we can bring to bear towards some common objective.
• We recognize that the powerful are not likely to let go of their authority due to moral suasion.
• Digital, global collaboration is now possible (and necessary) given our various circumstances.

• We can't make the perfect the enemy of the good, or let ideological purity tests hamstring our efforts. Our ideals must be our North Star, balanced against pragmatism. However, having stated our our non-negotiable principles, we must not compromise them.

• We must focus on entrepreneurship and innovation (bottom-up), instead of politics and policy (top-down).
• The following Objectives are also assumptions.

Objectives

1. We want to move towards a consent-based order, everywhere. 
2. We want to move away from a compulsion-based order, everywhere.
3. We want to apply our efforts to something promising that we can start small, test, and scale (or fail).
4. That something should inspire those among the liberal remnant in the world.

Actions

1. Develop a process for discovering that something together. And identifying who WE are.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Trevor's statement: "However, having stated our our non-negotiable principles, we must not compromise them." appears at first glance to be dangerously close to the parameters needed for the creation of a cult. This is the kind of thing that makes the CIA set your compound on fire. That said, I think it is important to make a distinction between organizational goals and philosophical principles. Organizations should have specific goals and should only compromise on those goals by having the organizations leadership adjust them formally in response to market pressures (i.e. very little compromise). Philosophical principles on the other hand, should be very elastic, because we do not and cannot know the full Truth, so we need to debate, test, re-evaluate and constantly tweak our philosophical principles all the time (i.e. lots of compromise). Sticking to your organizational goals is great, doggedly sticking to your philosophical dogma is not.

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkWiHfojZsg_zzA-w2ts5RNk2ZQnOAkaVbiNkiQobK67w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

P.S. And I think this has been the great challenge for libertarian-leaning / individualist organizations over the past few decades - a confusion between the philosophical debates and the organizational goals. We should be open to debate and persuasion and consensus and choice in our philosophical ideas - it has to be flexible - but the organization cannot be that flexible and needs a set of rather rigid guidelines. Only once we separate the two, will we be able to move forward. This is why many of us get frustrated with the existing organizations like the FMF or Cato or Heritage - they are successful because of they stick to their organizational goals, but do not seem pliable enough to cover our myriad of individual desires and ideas. And that is as it should be.

S.

[vlie...@btinternet.com]

I looked at the table and have a number of questions relating to the data that was presented:

• Was the Mongols Empire the largest empire ever?  In terms of aera, it is pipped by the Russian empire. The Wikipedia article on the Mongol Empire gives its maximum area as 23.5 million square kilometres.  The combined areas of Canada, Australia and post-independence India gives 20.9 million square kilometres. Add on the areas of the British possessions in Africa and the figure of 20.9 is easily pushed to over 23.9.
• I don’t know where the compiler of the table got 150 AD as being the end of the Greek Empire. According to Wikipedia, the Classical Greek Empire ended in about 600 AD and it was followed by the Byzantine Empire which lasted until 1453 (Fall of Constantinople).
• The author of the table forgot about the Roman Empire. One of the greatest gifts of the Roman Empire to the world was Roman Law, influences of which are found in most countries including South Africa where Roman-Dutch Law is observed. One of the principal features of Roman Law is that it is codified, a concept that Napoleon borrowed. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)).
• Finally, the author of the table states that Free Trade/Capitalism dates from 1600. How does he justify that date?

Martin Vlietstra

 

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Trevor Watkins
Sent: 27 June 2025 10:14
To: Max Borders <m...@social-evolution.com>
Cc: indivi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: IM: The Prime Rule

 

Historically, who has been most successful  at spreading their ideas?

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkWiHfojZsg_zzA-w2ts5RNk2ZQnOAkaVbiNkiQobK67w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

If we're going to nit-pick Trevor's intentionally incomplete and illustrative table, then let me add a few:

• Aztec and Persian empires ? How about the Apple, Microsoft and Amazon empires ?
• On religions, what about cannibalism, Moonies and Voodoo as a religious "empires" ?
• Are some people technically still living in the Bronze Age ? I have a cousin who lives in a cave.

;-)

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000001dbe788%24e9691c70%24bc3b5550%24%40btinternet.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

In red below

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 at 19:28, vlietstra via Individualist Movement <indivi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I looked at the table and have a number of questions relating to the data that was presented:

• Was the Mongols Empire the largest empire ever?  In terms of aera, it is pipped by the Russian empire. The Wikipedia article on the Mongol Empire gives its maximum area as 23.5 million square kilometres.  The combined areas of Canada, Australia and post-independence India gives 20.9 million square kilometres. Add on the areas of the British possessions in Africa and the figure of 20.9 is easily pushed to over 23.9. The question is not which empire was the biggest, but which was most successful at spreading their ideas. The Mongol idea of winning territory by rapid conquest was very successful.
• I don’t know where the compiler of the table got 150 AD as being the end of the Greek Empire. According to Wikipedia, the Classical Greek Empire ended in about 600 AD and it was followed by the Byzantine Empire which lasted until 1453 (Fall of Constantinople). All my info came from Google via Gemini. I do not believe the Greek "empire" outlasted the Roman empire in any meaningful sense.
• The author of the table forgot about the Roman Empire. One of the greatest gifts of the Roman Empire to the world was Roman Law, influences of which are found in most countries including South Africa where Roman-Dutch Law is observed. One of the principal features of Roman Law is that it is codified, a concept that Napoleon borrowed. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)). I excluded the Roman empire because most of their philosophy was derived from the Greeks, where it existed at all. How influential has just Roman law been? I could be persuaded to add them.
• Finally, the author of the table states that Free Trade/Capitalism dates from 1600. How does he justify that date? I didn't have Adam Smith's precise birthdate to hand. I distinguish capitalism from mercantilism.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000001dbe788%24e9691c70%24bc3b5550%24%40btinternet.com.

[Stephen vJ]

On the last bullet, Adam Smith was influenced by the early French economists like Turgot, Say and Quesnay, most of whom, like Smith, were born in the early 1700's or late 1600's... so I would put the start of those ideas around 1750... but since most ideas are built on preceding ideas it is possible to trace some of it as far back as Aristotle about 400 BC. Markets exist regardless, so it could be said to predate man, but the point here is a widespread idea put in action, so one could argue that free markets as a policy rather than just a theory or accident started in the 1980s.

Stephen.

On Jun 28, 2025, at 02:06, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkCjwUy9WXiyn-tFvSrrDZ4BrEaLPuJ4dirVu8gxVPkGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

I look forward to a time when it is inconceivable that there is such a thing as a democratically elected president with extraordinary powers. Here's my new slogan - Neither king nor congress, just consent.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7Wu_cbiS3X_UUanQVB50XMWnzWSi%2BardhPib9d1hhZQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

I like that slogan. One could say, but who would enforce it ? To which I say, we, the people. But isn't that mob justice ? To which I say, well isn't democracy just mob justice codified ? Are not all the options mob justice in one form or another ? I guess dictatorships are not mob justice, so that's a ligit alternative.

Stephen.

On Jun 28, 2025, at 02:35, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3DVF45ByH3gZdRJfuw15rpsD8hQkD4rxNzCKt_vudVXeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sid Nothard]

A free market is not a policy, and neither is it a theory. It is something that develops when people are free to deal with each other in the absence of coercion.

 

Sid Nothard cSASI

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/A2C3DF10-369E-4C82-A430-E17C517AD70F%40gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

Exactly and Smith made some rather interventionist suggestions in Wealth of Nations, so his observations of it were not perfect... the idea of letting the market be, as a policy (as opposed to doing everything and anything to circumvent and restrict it) was only realized very recently. Even though that policy recommendations can be traced back to Vincent de Gourney's statement "laissez faire, laissez passer" in 1750, it could be argued that letting it be only became a real thing in the latter half of the 1900's... and even now, very few people (and hardly anyone in government) understands or supports that policy.

Stephen.

On Jun 28, 2025, at 11:14, Sid Nothard <sg...@mweb.co.za> wrote:



To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/002201dbe84f%248fdac060%24af904120%24%40mweb.co.za.

[vlie...@btinternet.com]

Yesterday I went to the funeral of a 98 year-old widow. She was an only child and had no children. When her husband died 26 years ago, she revise her will and left everything to a cousin. That cousin cannot be traced. She owned the house in which she lived.  If I wish to occupy her property (and pay the appropriate market rate for the property) from whom do I seek consent?

 

In this particular case, she had been in contact with a firm of solicitors (lawyers) shortly before her death. It took three months before her funeral took place as the solicitors had to follow English Law before they could act as executors of her estate (I am not sure who she named as executors). In the event, the solicitors will sell her property, goods and assets on the open market and put the money that they receive into a trust account for the heirs. As executors, they have  duty towards the heirs to maximise the value of the estate. One of the things that they did was to have as simple a funeral as possible, but still to keep things dignified. From my perspective as secretary of the Local History Group to which she also belonged and as somebody who lived about 350 metres from her, I could not fault the actions of the solicitors. (I have been de-facto executor for four different estates and I have also passed a UNISA exam in Commercial Law).

 

Who makes these rules?  In practice, the “King or congress” (to quote Trevor’s assertion). Life is full of situations like the above where a central authority must make rules to dictate how people should live. Sometimes these rules might be arbitrary and in other parts of the world they might be different – for example, in the United Kingdom, we drive on the left, but in France they drive on the right. The choice is fairly arbitrary, but it is necessary that everybody within that society does the same thing.

 

Martin

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3DVF45ByH3gZdRJfuw15rpsD8hQkD4rxNzCKt_vudVXeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[vlietstra@btinternet.com vlietstra@btinternet.com]

In theory very good, but in practise what happens if consent cannot be reached? In real life I came across problems of things not behaving properly all the time. One of the things that I learned as a certified IT engineer was that one of the first things that one should consider when designing a computer system is how to handle error conditions. Translated into life outside the realms of IT, this means that we need some sort of authority to resolve disputes.

Sent via BT Email App



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmLKZgRx5P0BN%2BGRrQTgHVS%2BhY3nugQD7c9q8ywiUgykw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/E6589183-4B67-48F3-8F36-0838C198548A%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000e01dbe1ba%24b9f0bc10%242dd23430%24%40mweb.co.za.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7Wu_cbiS3X_UUanQVB50XMWnzWSi%2BardhPib9d1hhZQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3DVF45ByH3gZdRJfuw15rpsD8hQkD4rxNzCKt_vudVXeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Max Borders]

A few responses....

First, great table. The question of what comes after Capitalism/Free Markets + monopoly states is Capitalism/Free Markets + markets in governance systems. Now, in terms of what counts as "non-negotiable" principles is often enough to keep liberals divided, uncompromising, and alone. For example, some libertarians think open borders mean freedom, while others think porous borders are important for keeping out those who don't share liberal values. Finally, we have to make room for a healthy degree of pluralism within a consent-based order. For example, if a few wanted to develop a voluntary commune within the wider superstructure of freedom, hard to see how that's a problem, so long as it's a private association people can freely join or leave, or is otherwise part of a multilateral agreement.

What I find interesting about your table, by the way, is the strength and numbers of people still under the spell of religion. One of my side projects is to start and slowly grow a fraternal society -- sort of like the Freemasons of Freedom -- to expand the reach of our virtues and values beyond the merely political.

Warmly, Max

[Trevor Watkins]

Hi Martin

I know you are a thoughtful, smart person. Suggest a system to solve the problems you have raised.

regards

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000201dbe834%24936f2600%24ba4d7200%24%40btinternet.com.

[vlietstra@btinternet.com vlietstra@btinternet.com]

The solution is quite simple - the law has laid down procedures and you follow those. In this instance there is a procedure for the nomination of an executor - firstly the person named in the will, if this does not work, the heir(s) or close relatives can apply to the courts to be executor and failing that a reputable third party. In the case in question, the estate is being handled by a reputable third party who are legally obliged to dispose of the body, settle all debts, liquidate the estate and hand the proceeds to the heirs or if the heirs cannot be found, deposit the proceeds from the estate with the relevant government office where an heir can claim their inheritance. If I wish to occupy the property, I can buy it from the executor on the open market. The important thing to note is that government has dictated who can sell the property to me.

Sent via BT Email App



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmLKZgRx5P0BN%2BGRrQTgHVS%2BhY3nugQD7c9q8ywiUgykw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/E6589183-4B67-48F3-8F36-0838C198548A%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000e01dbe1ba%24b9f0bc10%242dd23430%24%40mweb.co.za.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7Wu_cbiS3X_UUanQVB50XMWnzWSi%2BardhPib9d1hhZQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3DVF45ByH3gZdRJfuw15rpsD8hQkD4rxNzCKt_vudVXeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000201dbe834%24936f2600%24ba4d7200%24%40btinternet.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">individualist+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2L%3DYg-iFoJf444WmYdgFhbdLbEb3Lp40Jt67K195mZL0Xg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

I don't see why the rest of us need to have our property forcibly confiscated (tax is theft) in order to sustain a dangerous behemoth just so you don't need to put a little bit of effort into dealing with the occasional piece of abandoned property.

I don't see why this cannot be solved equally well or better by a council of village elders, a charitable organization, the local church or a private company - why invoke the gods of bureaucracy ? Please don't drag us all into it without our consent.

Stephen.

On Jul 1, 2025, at 04:37, 'vlie...@btinternet.com vlie...@btinternet.com' via Individualist Movement <indivi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/65ed6bdf.5164c.197c58fc06c.Webtop.184%40btinternet.com.

[Stephen vJ]

There have been many good alternatives to dispute resolution via government given on this forum... private arbitration, the church, your employer's HR department, etc... some of which already exists today, so these are not hair-brain schemes or outlandish dreams, but observations of the real world finding more efficient and effective alternatives.

 I would like to add to those that the danger posed and damage done by governments is so huge and yet so under-rated, that a quick cost-benefit analysis is very likely to show even complete anarchy and mob justice might be preferable to having a government.

There are few mobs that can consistently pillage 14% of every transaction in the economy. There are no gangs who can recruit or conscript every 18-year old male. There are very few fundamentalist groups who can make 90% of the population carry a pass.

If you think your government is better than a group of thugs, then you have been thoroughly brainwashed by the worst type thug.

Stephen.

On Jul 1, 2025, at 03:27, 'vlie...@btinternet.com vlie...@btinternet.com' via Individualist Movement <indivi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/102513a.487c5.197b61555c6.Webtop.102%40btinternet.com.

[vlie...@btinternet.com]

@Stephen - I think that you are confusing "Government" and "Law". "Law" is divided into several sections - Criminal Law, Civil Law and Family Law being the main sections. One of the principals of Roman-Dutch and English law is the principal of precedence - if a set of circumstances were resolved in a particular way in the past, then the same set of circumstances should have the same solution in the future unless there is some change in circumstance. Normally government makes the laws in advance of any situation arising and the courts interpret those laws and if necessary, add to them if there are holes to be filled. What I was describing was an overlap of civil law (the law of ownership of property) and family law (in particular the law of inheritance).

 

You suggested a village council or some other body to resolve the issues that I described. If we follow the rules of precedence, then such issues are resolved by law - all that is needed is for some authority to give the executor the right (and duty) to access the deceased's assets. It is not necessary to have a village council to do this - it can be handled by the probate court who verify the facts (the deceased is actually dead and that the person applying for probate has a rightful authority to do so) before granting probate to the executor. This is routine operation and does not require any input from the village council. The situation that I described is the fallback situation to preserve the principal of precedence, namely that if I wish to buy the property, I deal with the executor regardless of how he obtained his authority to sell the property to me.

 

BTW, all the legal costs are paid for from the deceased's estate, not from tax. The only exception is if the deceased has insufficient assets to pay for the disposal of his remains when the shortfall is carried by the taxpayer.

 

Martin

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/0A7EA64B-D133-4102-B9EC-BA6363A98C01%40gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

No, I'm not the one confusing law and government here... you said: "... the law has laid down procedures... [bla, bla]... law... [bla, bla]... law... deposit the proceeds from the estate with the relevant government office...". You're the one saying law and government are intertwined and I'm pointing out that they need not be. There are far more costs involved than just "legal costs" and those are paid from taxes.

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000201dbeaa9%24abf89810%2403e9c830%24%40btinternet.com.

[vlie...@btinternet.com]

@Stephen – the statement “... deposit the proceeds from the estate with the relevant government office” only refers to the case where the heir cannot be found once the estate has been fully liquidated.  In such cases, the proceeds must be stored somewhere which is safe and to which the heir, once he discovers that he is an heir can apply. This can be the village council or it can be central government. Regardless of where it is, there will be costs, but the funds will also earn interest, so the actual costs are minimal.

 

The other costs to which you refer are the costs of setting up the procedures where the costs are minimal.  I don’t know what the costs are in SA, but the cost of burial/cremation and applying for probate in the UK are both self-financing. What other costs do you have in mind (other than the time spent by Parliament is writing the laws)?

 

Martin

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S7gCj0j8%3DcmUyKAcf5OYQ1kd0%2Bu5u6q21Aq66q%3DsLnhmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

There are these great places where money can be stored called banks. The other expenses I can think of, off the top of my head without being privy to their actual accounting is the building & maintenance of court houses, the storage of documents, the salaries of judges, the management cost for decisions like where to host and maintain the structures, the accountants to keep book of it all, electricity bills, etc. relating to infrastructure underneath the whole thing... all of which could be done in Trevor's living room for free.

Stephen.

On Jul 1, 2025, at 11:35, vlietstra via Individualist Movement <indivi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000d01dbeaae%2485339180%248f9ab480%24%40btinternet.com.

[vlie...@btinternet.com]

Lets start at the beginning.

 

What procedure do you recommend should be followed when a person dies?

 

Three things need to be done:

1. The body must be disposed of – for health and hygiene reasons it cannot be left lying around.
2. Debts that are owning to others must be paid (including the costs of disposal of the body), or do you propose that people who are owed money should forfeit their rights?
3. Once all debts have been settled, the deceased’s assets must be distributed. How do you propose that this should happen.

 

The current procedure is that the probate court appoints somebody to perform all three tasks.  Records are kept of who was appointed and the rationale behind their appointment.  These records must be kept for many years as a guard against unforeseen circumstances, dishonesty etc. Do you have a netter proposal?

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/DD03B910-8CE8-413E-BD18-87434D6B746D%40gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

I am not going to be pretentious and make as if I have all the answers to every problem in the world. That is the domain of cult leaders, dictators and politicians, to name the same thing thrice.

What I do know is that no single person has the right answer either - the right answer is best determined by many people having a go at it and the market for that solution then picking the best ones (plural).

The worst outcome is usually when we leave the solution to a single institution (aka a monopoly), especially when that monopoly institution is the same one running state hospitals, Eskom and Centurion Traffic Department. Nee, sies. Yuck.

My proposal is to remove all government involvement and then see what miracles follow. It's usually even better than we expected and done in ways we could never imagine.

Stephen.

On Jul 2, 2025, at 14:27, vlietstra via Individualist Movement <indivi...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000001dbeb8f%24aaef1ed0%2400cd5c70%24%40btinternet.com.

[vlie...@btinternet.com]

I don't know what your background is, but I did an MSc in "The Theory and Practice of Automatic Control". The theoretical part of the course was quite mathematical, but the practical part of the course was engineering-oriented, though some members of staff were looking at applying the theory to other areas - for example game park management (do we introduce predators, do we cull certain herbivores etc). The procedure was the same - draw up a mathematical model of the system that you wish to manage.

 

Since the model includes time-dependant variables [or states], it should consist of differential equations. Check the model out for possible instabilities and see what happens if you apply certain controls (a computer simulation). Sometimes the system that you are examining might already have controls, so you will have to model what happens if you change those controls or turn those controls off. Will the system stabilise or will it go out of control? Once you have modelled what happens, you can apply your changes to the real system. In practice, if your model has multiple stats, there is a ggo possibility that some of the states will interact with each other in an unstable manner

 

In your case, you want to turn all government controls off and see what happens. Unless you draw up a model of what happens in society, and play around with turning controls off on the computer simulation before you actually turn controls off in real life, you are behaving extremely irresponsibly - it is unlikely that miracles will happen - what is more likely is chaos.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/E0F021E9-46DD-4AF8-BE8F-B587A57C4F2A%40gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Well, the suggestion to turn all government controls off and then let the rest of the system run, is not an unknown or a miracle or an act of faith - we know exactly what will happen. To those who don't understand how or why, it is likely to appear like a miracle... but there are some very straight-forward formulae for what happens when you do that. We've seen it happen a million times before and the result is never chaos - on the contrary, the result is great order and predictability. It is replicable and predictable.

I have not run the numbers in a while, but the last time I checked per capita GDP goes up by about US$ 10 000 per year for every point of government reduction on a 10-point scale where 2 is North Korea and 8 is Canada. To be fair, there could be a hockey-stick effect where less government means increased income only up to a point and then further reduction of government means less income... but so far no country has reached that theoretical point, if it even exists. So far the formula holds; the less government, the richer the people.

The same goes for longevity, happiness, infant mortality rates, education levels, etc... the less government, the better those measures get. In other words, we know that reducing government makes people healthier and live longer. Reducing government results in less babies and toddlers dying at or shortly after birth. People in countries with less / smaller government live longer and happier lives. When a country reduces the size and scope of it's government, people quickly get richer, healthier, happier and live longer.

The only measure where the effect is quite small is income inequality. Less government makes people only a very little bit more equal w.r.t. income - all the other measures have significant positive movements with even small amounts of reduction in government. Even so, more government makes people slightly less equal. It is also worth noting that most existing levels of inequality have it's roots in historical government interventions... stopping those interventions stop inequality from getting worse.

We know all this from many studies and observations from the real world. There is also a long and rich literature on the many reasons why people with less government are healthier, happier, wealthier and so on. We don't just know that it happens, we also have a pretty solid understanding of why it happens. By we, I mean economists, many of whom have won the Bank of Sweden prize for economics in memory of Alfred Nobel (sometimes confused with a Nobel prize - there is no Nobel prize in economics).

P.S. I don't like appeals to authority, which academic qualifications could easily become - I prefer to have the argument stand on it's own merit. However, this is the 3rd or 4th time you've mentioned studies and qualifications, so... I'm not going to list all mine, I'll just mention the one that is most relevant here. I have a masters degree in economic policy.

S.

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000001dbed29%24a60c7d40%24f22577c0%24%40btinternet.com.

[viv...@iafrica.com]

""he right answer is best determined by many people having a go at it and the market for that solution then picking the best ones (plural)."

 

I am not aligned with concepts like the 'best' or that the 'fittest' survives in evolution, but am on board for free markets giving you better chances of some good things happening. Sometimes evolutions results in spandrels, sometimes shit things survive. Consumer driven markets make terrible decisions, and that is okay. They are not the 'best', they are possible. So something happens, the market responds and then other things happen. The same with evolution. A white cat is not a 'better' cat than a black cat, it just happened to survive a specific urban environment where black cats are feared or driven over. I doubt things are ever 'better' or 'worse,' just slightly different or differentially possible.

Viv

083 755 7602

---

From: "vlietstra via Individualist Movement" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
To: "individualist" <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "base37" <bas...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 11:21:47 PM
Subject: RE: IM: The Prime Rule

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/000001dbed29%24a60c7d40%24f22577c0%24%40btinternet.com.

[Stephen vJ]

Yes, exactly. That's a very important thing to keep in mind - a free market will not produce everything exactly like each of us wants, but will produce what most of us are willing to sacrifice other things for.

Sometimes this means that the ugly fish with the glowing protrusions gets to live in the deep ocean or that there is a Starbucks on every second corner even though I never drink their products. To me that's ugly, but apparently that's what people want.

We all have individual tastes and the market will mostly cater for them, but it will not shape the entire world to your specific individual taste - it will shape the world to our collective tastes. It is the most directly democratic system there is. The things you see around you are there because people voted for them using their money as ballots.

That means you'll probably find your favourite old movie on the Internet if you dig around for it, but much of the resources will go towards serving up mountains of porn, because that is what most people want, regardless of what you or I as individuals think of it.

And this is the bit that do-gooders, politicians and despots all get wrong - by imposing their glorious visions of the world through tariffs and regulations and laws, no matter how many people voted for them, they are reducing and impeding the democratic process and altering the world away from what the people would have chosen themselves.

Stephen.

On Jul 5, 2025, at 06:34, viv...@iafrica.com wrote:



To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/62443526.972819.1751718860717.JavaMail.zimbra%40iafrica.com.

[Stephen vJ]

Adam Smith said; "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.".

As individualists we want every person to freely make the choices that are best for each of them, because we know this is also the best for the society. Not by design, but by a process of specialization and trade which we bipedal apes evolved over many millennia. At the scale of society, the best plans are the ones left to nature. Many socialist experiments have proven that no man or group of men can plan as well as when each man plans for himself.

Stephen.

On Jul 5, 2025, at 07:29, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, exactly. That's a very important thing to keep in mind - a free market will not produce everything exactly like each of us wants, but will produce what most of us are willing to sacrifice other things for.

[chri...@theadvocates.org]

Thank you for inviting me to this group. I have never been in a Google group before, so please forgive me for whatever learning curve I may have.