One Law

Re-thinking governance. We only need one law - the Non-Aggression Principle - the foundation of libertarianism - to maximize justice, peace, and prosperity.

  • Home
  • About
  • Resources
  • Pages & Categories
  • Contact

April 25, 2024 by SC Striebeck

The Internet, AI, You and a Lot More Lawyers

The Internet, AI, You and a Lot More Lawyers

As the Internet has grown and now with the advent of AI, the line between true and false, fact and fiction, real and deepfake, will likely become even hazier.

We already knew the truth was in the eye the beholder, but the choices and possibilities for believing and justifying whatever one desires could approach infinity. I hope this is not the beginning of Kurzweil’s Singularity!

What will this mean for how we each think, decide, and act?

How will we know what is actually right or wrong?

How will we know if our personal and professional relationships are sound?

How will this added uncertainty change us?

How will we know ourselves?

Maybe chop wood, carry water?

I don’t have the answers to any of these questions, but I’m fairly certain that we are going to spend more time determining the legitimacy of many things that we previously took for granted. It would seem that making important decisions may slow in an ever-increasing avalanche of data. I hope I’m wrong.

Endless research and squabbling about who has the better facts would not seem to be the answer, but that is all we hear: data, data, data.

As my statistics professor once said, give me the right data and I can make the numbers support anything you like. Will that data be yours, someone else’s, or AI’s?

His takeaway? The statistical conclusions should always resonate with your gut. If they don’t, take a another pass. Maybe more importantly, it brings us full circle. Listen and trust yourself.

Then, will burning a lot of time determining the legitimacy of information create an environment or an incentive for people to return to using principles to help gauge the accuracy and nature of a situation, and how to predict or anticipate the future?

Again, I don’t have the answers, but from a libertarian’s perspective, it is tantalizing to think of the possibilities because this pending cosmic confusion could drown an otherwise effective and efficient means of communicating, interacting, and transacting via the Internet.

What would these principles be?

How would they be used, enforced?

Once again, I don’t have the answers, but I’m fairly certain there would be a competition of ideas and the better principles will rest on consistency and transparency in supporting social and economic activity.

That would suggest that the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) would be a leading contender in creating an open broad-based expansion of justice for promoting long-term peace and prosperity – what comes from cooperative human activity.

Murray Rothbard stated the nonaggression principle (NAP) in this way: No one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor.[1]

Interestingly, libertarianism is the only “ism” that is based upon a single principle that can effectively fairly resolve any disagreement at any level in society. It would alleviate the need for millions of pages of contradicting and unenforceable positive law enacted, the associated special interests, graft, waste, not to mention the entire edifice of governance based on taxation.

Wow! …but there are no free lunches. We will need millions of more lawyers to facilitate and create voluntary contracts, mediate, arbitrate and litigate disputes, and otherwise prevent and more justly and locally resolve a wide variety of social and economic disputes that can all be solved by applying this one true rule of law.

Lawyers would be common craftsmen in this realm, helping people realize their social and economic potential in a world legally based on the NAP. Lawyers would be practicing at the highest moral and legal level of the law, clearly proving Shakespeare got it wrong.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.

Source: SC Striebeck for One Law

Video/Image Source:  Custom Direct Inc.


[1] https://mises.org/mises-wire/what-aggression#:~:text=Murray%20Rothbard%20stated%20the%20nonaggression,the%20aggressive%20violence%20of%20another.

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: Accountability, Anarcho-capitalism, Artificial Intelligence, Internet, Justice, Law, Murray N. Rothbard, Non-Aggression Principle, Peace, Politics, Principle, Prosperity, Taxation, Waste

December 15, 2022 by SC Striebeck

So What if TikTok is a National Security Risk

So What if TikTok is a National Security Risk

************

The following article, “Is TikTok a National Security Risk?”, was originally published by the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 2022 as answers from adult students to the question posed in the article’s title. See here. The author’s commentary on various excerpts is in blue or otherwise in the larger font.

************

Despite the hysteria about China and the CCP infiltrating the world and in particular the U.S.A., there is a far greater contagion infecting the hearts and minds of western culture — a disconnection between how many would like the world to be and reasonable means to achieve it, not to mention whether these goals are even possible or worthy.

The dogma that underlies many of the answers endangers the “can-do” American culture that has significantly contributed to, if not propelled and perpetuated, the arc of modern history in the Americas and in other parts of the world. Although many Americans are proud of this legacy, it is not wholly ours.

Centuries before the creation of the U.S. government, what was to become the Americas became a refuge. Immigrants came here for many reasons, but a change from their particular status quo was the common denominator. Many risked everything to gain the freedom to take greater responsibility for their futures. Regardless of their origin, they were the seeds if not the standard bearers of “rugged individualism” and “American exceptionalism” — before these notions were co-opted by those in the American government and used as an excuse for a litany of hegemonic efforts — they were simply entrepreneurs.

Both conservatives and progressives are trading the very essence, the fundamental principles, of what was good about the evolution of these identities for the illusion of protection by the government, in this case from technological innovation that we are only just beginning to understand — think Sam Bankman-Fried. Oh yes, many are calling for more regulation, but there will always be fraudsters, and the government will always be one step behind. Just like Enron, Madoff, and now SBF.

Once this charade, this sophisticated Wizard of Oz-like dynamic, is recognized and appreciated for its impossibilities by a critical mass of persons, then culturally we can move forward with addressing any threat in a far more responsive, adaptable, and cost-effective manner through the unbridled principles of entrepreneurialism bounded only by the non-aggression principle.

So in a free society, if the government cannot protect us from ourselves, from what we view and what we allow our children to view, whether it’s TikTok as a trojan horse, Twitter censorship, Google data theft — the Enrons-of-today — then who will?

The short answer is each of us. It starts with the individual. Sovereignty is in the individual, not some arbitrary nation-state. If we cannot manage or we lack individually, then through delegation to entrepreneurs seeking to serve that demand. Only then, can we grow individually and by sum as a society.

Each of us always has a choice. In every moment, we can consciously witness all the choices before us. We can consider how making each possible choice affects ourselves, those, and the environment around us. Then pause. Which ones resonate in logic? In intuition? Most importantly, which one resonates in the heart? If not, back up and re-examine the options. The alignment of logic, intuition, and the heart is about as good as it gets.

What does this process, this extra effort in critical thinking and greater self-awareness give us? Wisdom. It is earned, never granted, and never easy. It is an investment in the self. We grow in unforeseen ways. We advance best practices for any solution whether we solve them directly or indirectly by casting our votes with entrepreneurs who have skin in the game.

As we grow individually, we create market forces that inspire and ignite curiosity and creativity in others to specialize and solve any problem far more effectively than any government official or bureaucrat could possibly dream — not due to lesser intelligence, but a better alignment of incentives and greater appreciation for risks; both of which, fail to exist within the political class and its immediate environment — not just with the U.S. government, but all governments.

And most ironically, the yielding of choice or power to our government plays perfectly for the CCP in that our government becomes a little more like it — I cannot think of a better example of a race to the bottom.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.

Source: SC Striebeck for Wisdom of Anarchy, borrowing heavily from assorted writings by Murray N. Rothbard and Deepak Chopra summarizing Vedic philosophy in the Seven Spiritual Laws of Sucess in commenting on “Is TikTok a National Security Risk?”, as originally published by the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13, 2022 5:59 pm ET

Video/Image Source: Martin Bureau/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: Accountability, Central Planning, Choice, Decentralization, Democracy, Despotism, Free market, Internet, Politics, Self-Ownership

November 21, 2017 by SC Striebeck

FCC Head Ajit Pai: Killing Net Neutrality Will Set the Internet Free

Promises “we’re going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity” like never before.

Source: FCC Head Ajit Pai: Killing Net Neutrality Will Set the Internet Free

Another example that government intervention does far more harm than good.

Note:  The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source: reason.com
Media source: http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast?utm_medium=email

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: Decentralization, Free market, Government, Internet, Regulation

Recent Posts

  • The Internet, AI, You and a Lot More Lawyers
  • Entrepreneurs Can Break The Vicious Cycle in Healthcare
  • Is More Regulation Over Employee Salaries Good for Employees?
  • The Truth About Society & Fueling the Polarization of Culture?
  • So What if TikTok is a National Security Risk
  • Home
  • About
  • Resources
  • Pages & Categories
  • Contact

Copyright © 2025 · Generate Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d