Maduro arrest helps Venezuela sovereignty

arrest of Maduro is not attack on Venezuela sovereignty but help

he was not legitimate president, he cheated the election

he and his helpers robbed the sovereignty of Venezuela, hence his removal is healing the sovereignty of Venezuela

"State"

The debate (whether to keep some small amount of the state) is void. The difference is not in principle, but only in the interpretation of the word "state".

To avoid debates here about the meanings of the words "anarchist" and "minarchist": i introduce new words for at least the extent of this article:
"normalist" - average people [the "normies"]
"smallist" - wants the state to have a small size, only the basics ["minarchist"];
"0ist" - wants the state to have size 0 [nothing at all] ["anarcho-capitalist"];

Among all the people the usual interpretation of "state" is 'a thing that rules [or "controls" or ...] over a territory with physical force and is supreme ["sovereign"] in that'. Normalists and smallists use this interpretation. 0ists deviate from this interpretation by adding that 'the state necessarily robs, it can not be moral, if it would be then we should not use the word "state" for it'.

My first request to you is to realize that this is a wording difference only. What if we resolve it by introducing for these 2 meanings 2 different words without political meanings? Let them be
"Apple" := state as usually interpreted; this one does not have to rob, it can be totally voluntary.
"Orange" := state, but necessarily robs its people.

Then:
All libertarians hate oranges, smallests too, as oranges infringe the non-aggression principle.
All libertarians love apples. Even 0ists. 0ists too want the surface of Earth to be partitioned and the partitions to be privately owned, such that the owners have right to rule over their sovereign partitions by physical force.

You see? All libertarians agree. They only seemingly disagree, if they use the word "state". And then only because they interpret "state" differently. Smallists and 0ists are not 2 different groups divided by difference in some basic libertarian principle. They are divided only in the interpretation of "state".

- This is most important.

All that 'you are not even a real liberatarian' from the 0ists toward the smallists is not due. All we libertarians are the same basically, as we all believe in the non-aggression principle. The rest is relatively not important, mostly technical differences.

You do not need to frighten away normies by saying that you would totally abolish the state. You would not, if we use "state" with its more common meaning.

Much less important, but still interesting: Which meaning of "state" is the more correct one? I invite you into a thought experiment. Imagine that we manage to partition all the surface of Earth into privately owned sovereign partitions, as a libertarian dream-scenario, all 8 billion people of Earth agreeing. Because it is practical: some of the partitions will be sold. The buyers will often be large corporations that form cities on their all-voluntarily acquired big territories. Such a big corporation would
* Have 'shareholders', who are similar to "citizen"s in the current states.
* Have a 'board of directors', elected by the shareholders. This is similar to the "parliament"s elected by the citizens in the current states.
* Have a 'CEO', similar to "president" or "prime minister" in current states.
* Army, police, ..., infrastructure, ... under the CEO, exactly as in current states.
As you see: this futuristic all-voluntary institution would be very similar to current democratic states. Would you use the word "state" for these institutions? Almost everybody would. Except only perhaps the 0ists. 0ists tell me that such an institution would not be a "state", as the state is something that robs. But why do you 0ists pre-suppose that states must rob? Not even the original meaning of "state" suggests that. The original meaning is from (state [as 'current situation'] of politics). Why would it be necessary that the political situation contains some robbing? I of course know that all the current states are and all the historical states were robbing - but this is only a practical observation so far, however strong it is, not enough to raise it to theoretical level. Example: till 1900 all computers were humans, always, everywhere - is this good enough cause to reject the word "computer" for machines?

The Entrepreneurs who Failed

People tend to conclude that entrepreneurs are rich. You mind how rich the ones are who you see. Do you also mind those ones who you do not see? I mean the ones who invested their savings into their business, their time and failed, had to go back to work as employees again.

https://thecolumnnetwork.com/survivorship-bias/

Bank stability

Why bank runs happen and how it all should be?

Banks mediate capital from their depositors to their debtors. The 2 sides of their balance sheet are - 1: their liabilities to their depositors, 2: their holdings [bonds, mortgage loans, ...]. Sometimes it happens that the balance sheet of a bank turns negative. Such situation may arise if the bank chooses its holdings badly or by a big macro-economical turn. For example: into the 2008 bank crisis the real estate mortgage loans went down, in 2023 the state bonds.

The reserves of the banks are usually enough to cover the deficit. But not always. If not than the bank can not pay back its depositors. At least not fully. But instead of decreasing the payments towards all depositors proportionally, the bank tries to fulfill its promise that is the fix interest, till it runs out of capital, at the end of which some depositors get only 0. This situation is a rational reason for a competition among the depositors to take out their capital quickly, to "run the bank".

Thus the instability of the banks roots in the interest being fixed. But that is not theoretically necessary, it is only a stupid habit. Banking can be reformed to get rid of the fixed interest. This requires only that banks take their capital not from their depositors but from their shareholders. They should not have depositors. As shareholders we (deposit | withdraw) capital (into | from) a bank by (buying | selling) the shares of the bank. A shareholder can withdraw only proportionally to his share in the bank. Hence earlier withdrawers do not run down the bank, hence no rational need to run the bank, ever. Thus this form of finance is stable.

But how should we buy and sell shares? This is what broker banks exist for. Broker banks hold deposits but they do not invest it [hence they do not carry investment risk] and they mediate to us the ability to trade on stock exchanges.

An other advantage of this form of finance is that diversification among multiple banks stocks and other type stocks is easy. Diversification greatly increase safety.

Let Putin and Zelensky Debate

If i was an important enough politician then i would invite Putin and Zelensky for a talk. When both of them are connected: i would tell them that the other party is here too, here is your chance to talk it out. Public pressure would be on them to not sign out of the talk.

Google "Threatens"

State: Hey, Google, i see you have much money. I have +1 idea what you should spend it on.
Google: Get off of me, i do not pay more.
State: Then i ban your service.
Google: Then i obey your ban and close my service.
Journalists: Google is threatening the state.

The background is a conflict between Google and the Australian state. The state demands Google to pay for the journals for quoting headlines from them in Google's search results. I am used to the states having such ideas. But i was surprised by the wording of the journals reporting about this story. The journalists flipped the roles in a conflict between threatener and threatened. They did not lie in facts but they do lie in wording. Only in wording but i still think this is significant. Becasue they do not only alter the story but they totally flip it.

Which journals? Many. If only some did it then i would not care. Search on the web for "google threatens Australia".

What is the reason of this phenomena?

One quick answer is that the leaders of the Australian state used the "Google threatens us" phrase too. But the journalists do not quote this, they use it by their own.

Do not be so strict - you could say - they just fall for the demagogue trick of politicians. Journalists do not know that politicians are demagogue lying machines? They do. How can they not spot such a big mistake? I did at first sight, and it even bothered me enough to write an article about it.

Do the journalists lie? In my opinion: not intentionally. Rather: they also believe in the correctness of their wording. How can this be? I see only one good explanation: The journalists are biased. Towards the state. By much, as how they word is the opposite of the reality. Someone does such only if he deeply loves the threatener. What is the entity that is loved deeply by its fans, they overlook its sins, despise who disobeys it? God. Journalists love the state as their god.

You think i overstate, right? Maybe. But lets make a thought experiment. Let us take away from the story the god status of the state. Let the state be only a normal person. Let it be a hotel, which accepts guests on its territory, in exchange for some fee. Some day it increases the fee. A guest responds: "That is too much for me, i rather leave the hotel." Can you imagine this story to be worded by the journalists as "the guest threatened the hotel"? Despite that in this example story the hotel does not even commit aggression and the state does.

Shouting Obvious

There is no point in shouting X to the general public unless the shouter assumes that the majority of the public thinks that X is false.
Hence by shouting "BLM" to the general public one shouts that the majority of the general public is so racist that they do not think black lives matter. But that is obviously false.
Hence shouting BLM is knowingly false-accusing the majority of the people.
This political strategy is very potent. Lots of people can be expected to speak-out against the shouting of X. Then those speak-outers can be portraid as not believing in X. This may have 2 effects on the people speaking-out. Both are good for the shouter. 1 : People are afraid to spake-out. 2 : The speak outs that do happen will be used as "proof" of that really some people do not believe X.