Make your own voluntary systems to overcome the single worldwide system of slavery

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022

Book short title : Achieving a more voluntary society

Book long title : Make your own voluntary systems to overcome the single worldwide system of slavery

Chapter Title : Introduction

Short summary of the entire book and terms for duplication

In this book I will explain the importance of voluntary local communities each having different policies as the best alternative to a involuntary single worldwide system of control.  I will also explain how the worldwide system of control is maintained.  I will explain the four minimum requirements that are necessary for humanity to break free from the system.   Freedom can not occur unless all four requirements are met. 

The first requirement is a large enough percent of the population receiving education about how cult like "mind control" works.  They must understand that cult like mind control is not limited to religious cults but can occur in a group of people including but not limited to governments and corporations.  If the first requirement is not met than the second requirement can not be met because cult like mind control will censor the information required to meet the second requirement.

The second requirement is a large enough percent of the population must understand what the physical consequences of their choices are.  They must understand the physical consequences of the choice to do or not do violence.  They must also understand the physical consequences of the choice to use or not use defensive force against violence.  If the second requirement is not met than the third requirement can not be met because people will not know how to achieve the third requirement without the knowledge from the second requirement.

The third requirement is a large enough percent of the population must create well trained and sufficiently armed alternative security infrastructures that uses defensive force to protect people from violence but does not initiate violence in a non defensive manner.  Such an alternative infrastructure does not need to be made from scratch but can be accomplished by persuading police, military and security agents who are already armed and trained to become a part of the infrastructure only using force defensively and forsaking using violence in a non defensive manner.  

The fourth requirement is a alternative economic infrastructures must be designed so that people can get the  material items and services they need to survive without the aggressive initiation of violence.  Such items include food, clean water and shelter.  To get an idea of what kinds of items and services these might be someone could study the "physiological" needs section on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Such economic infrastructures must be built with the understanding that humans live in an environment and that doing certain things to that environment has certain physical consequences to the humans who live in the environment.  Humans must understand what environmentally effecting actions are and are not violent against other humans.  There is an educational component to the fourth requirement in that people must learn how to build such alternative economic infrastructure systems.

The third and fourth requirement can only be achieved together.  Unethical governments and unethical corporations can starve out well armed freedom seekers if the third requirement is met but the fourth requirement is not met.  Well armed and trained people may also be tempted to use violence to get resources if the third requirement is met but the fourth requirement is not met.   If the fourth requirement is met but the third requirement is not met then unethical people will take or destroy all the resources collected.  These unethical people might also enslave people so that they are forced continue produce resources but continue to have those resources taken away if the third requirement is met but the fourth requirement is not met.

This book primarily focuses on the first two requirements.  That is by mass printing copies of this book and physically handing them out for people to read or by duplicating copies electronically and having people read electronic duplicates people will be better educated toward understanding the material involved in the first two requirements.  Please remove the original author's name before printing out any physical duplicates of the book if it has not already been removed.  Such electronic duplicates could include audiobooks with the original author's name excluded or copying the text of the book unto another website but removing the original author's name.  Permission is granted to duplicate copies of this book with the author's name removed.  

This book is copyrighted but only with the intent to prevent someone else from claiming they wrote it then copyrighting it and preventing duplication and distribution of the book.  The author prefers their name not to be included on duplicate copies because by omitting the name the author believes it will delay but not necessarily prevent completely any retaliation they have for writing what they have written.  

This book maybe edited before duplication but only on the condition that the author's name is not included in edited editions and that such edited editions are not copyrighted by the editor and on the condition that the editor says they are not the original author of the material but have edited it.  Sections of this book maybe copied by a third party and quoted without including the original author's name but the third party must state that they were not the original author of the section they have copied.

This books deals with some aspects of the last two requirements but is a extremely insufficient guide to them.  In order to understand the last two requirement education must be achieved from other sources than this book.  The public school system has failed to teach children the most basic skills they need to survive, how to grow food and get clean water and I can not compensate for approximately 14 years from 4 years old to 18 years old of deprived knowledge in a short book.  I would not even begin to know how to write about such things since I myself have been deprived of such knowledge having attended public school instead of learning proper skills as a child.  As an adult I can not even own land to grow food without being taxed on it at a greater rate than I could profit from selling such food to pay for the property taxes without proper training in agricultural business practices.  As such there is a property tax barrier to prevent me from learning such agricultural skills easily and then writing about them in a book.

Greater Detail Introduction to and background for the material that will be covered in later chapters of the book

The whole known world is in a single system of slavery which is overt or obvious to some and covert or hidden to others

There are not many diverse countries each with fundamentally different human made laws but one worldwide system imposed in a one size fits all manner to all countries in the world.  If each country had fundamentally different laws then if there was some particular way of managing things someone wanted to avoid being imposed on their life they could simply travel to another nation.  It was made perfectly obvious to anyone paying attention to reality after the onset of the information censorship pandemic disguised as a disease pandemic in 2020 that the same policies can be simultaneously enforced in every country in the world at the same time.  

Who is and is not to blame for the worldwide system of slavery

What group has the ability to cause the same policies to be simultaneously enforced in different countries?

Some people blame governments or corporations for slavery

Some people think that this is because of a United Nations in which representatives from all the countries meet up to have discussions and the problem is big government where as other people think that the problem is big businesses.  A single corporation like microsoft does business in every country where microsoft windows or computers with the microsoft windows operation system installed in them are sold.  Thus a single corporation can effect every country in the world that uses microsoft windows at the same time.  There are many such large corporations like this all partly managed by corporations that own pieces of other corporations like black rock.  Potentially at the very top all the large corporations could be managed by a small group of people working together on the same team to manage humanity.  

Some people blame demographic groups for slavery instead of governments or corporations

Other people blame religious groups, genders, races, ethnicities, or biological species or even non biological entities.  Such groups that are blamed include but are not limited to the Jews, straight cis gender christian white men, satanists, the free masons or the Jesuit order of the ultramontane Roman Catholic Church, the patriarchy, the matriarchy, the transgender industrial complex, rich homosexuals who have lots of money because they have no biological children or even other species than humanity like lizard people, inter dimensional aliens, aliens from outer space, demons or fallen angels, or even non biological entities like artificial intelligence, computers or robots.

Even if all the slavemasters were only from one single demographic group.  Everyone in the entire demographic group they are a part of would not be to blame because they would have enslaved most of the people from their own demographic group.

Blaming every person in any one of the gender, sexual orientation, religious, ethnic, or racial group's of people I listed is factually wrong.  As there are some humans who support and some humans who oppose some parts of the slavery system from every one of those types of groups I listed in the previous paragraph.  Most humans from every one of those groups I listed are enslaved by the present system.  Even if it was found out that 100% of the slavemasters who rule the rest of humanity were from only a single one of those groups I listed and none of them were from any of the other groups then the majority of people from whichever group that happened to be would still be enslaved by the members of their own group that enslaved the world.

The real slavemasters of the world are "story tellers" and we do not know their demographic identity 

But in reality we do not need to know the ethnicity, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation of people who have enslaved the world and in reality the root problem is not big government or big business.  The root problem is sentient beings who tell fiction stories that they claim are non fiction.  If you enslaved the world and could control every major news outlet in the world and did not want to get caught doing what you are doing then you would not provide information in the news outlets about your real identity.  

The real slavemasters of the world control the world through large news outlets and not through governments or corporations.  In our present world the governments and corporations are subject to the news outlets and not the other way around whether or not it was always that way in the past.  If any news outlets are censored by governments and corporations that is because they are small news outlets who the large news outlets persuaded the governments and corporations to censor and not because the governments and corporations have any real power to control large news outlets.

The news outlets the story tellers use for domination is not limited to publishing companies, online platforms, newspapers and news channels but also includes public and private schools, universities and religious organizations.  Any book that is published by a large company is subject to the influence of the story tellers including so called "neutral" academic books, peer reviewed journals and library books.  They do not necessarily own all publishing companies and media platforms but own outlets that include more than 50% of the material the population reads, hears and sees at any moment in time.  Let's say there is a hoax the story tellers want people to believe was a true historical event.  In more than 50% of the sources the general population read, watch or listen they will claim the hoax was a real historical event and in less than 50% of the sources the general population reads, watches or listens they will claim the event was a hoax.  So more than half of the general population will believe the hoax was a real event and not a hoax because the majority of the population read, watched and heard more sources claiming it was a real event than sources claiming it was a hoax.  I will explain how getting the majority of the population to believe hoaxes are real events is the mechanism of control used to enslave the world in the chapter entitled "the story telling pyramid of domination."

Some people believe the published quantities from the largest news outlets appear to show a greater percent of Jewish people in positions of power than the percent of the world population that is Jewish but it is wrong to blame 100% of all Jews for the enslavement of the world

You can "know" the percent of people in the world who self identify as Jewish either by religion or ancestry according to demographic, survey or census information provided by news outlets.  You can also look at lists of people in management positions like a list of the United States Senators or a list of Chair members of the board of governors of the federal reserve banking system for the United States, the highest ranking news anchors in the world or the top X richest individuals from a list of top X richest individuals or top X richest CEO's as published by large news outlets.  Some people claim to have found that the percent of such individuals who identify as Jewish by religion or ancestry on such lists involving, political, economic or informational media control power is greater than the percent of people who identify as Jewish by religion or ancestry in the world population.  I will not tell you whether or not you would find such results because this is something you can test for yourself.  Even if such a claim was found to be true based on "trustworthy" news outlets it would still not be right to blame 100% of all Jewish people, because large news outlets are not trustworthy, because not all Jews are in those positions of power and because some Jews oppose some aspects of the world slavery system.

Any list of positions of power are not going to contain the true identities of the individuals in the highest position of power.  So it is wrong to blame 100% of all Jews based on names on a list of top positions of power because we know that such lists can not be trusted.

These publications will not tell you the truth about who the richest person in the world really is, because the richest person in the world will pay not to be listed as the richest person in the world or maybe they will not even need to pay to avoid being on such a list of some other rich people were competing to have the highest rank on the list and they never volunteered to give their information in such a list ranking competition.  Whoever owns the news media outlets in truth are not going to publish their own real name in the news media outlets but assign one of their highest ranking underlings, or perhaps hire a actor to pretend to be the real owner and make up a false name for the owner of the outlet which they assign to that actor or team of actors playing that character.  

Any list of positions of power does not include 100% of all the Jews in the world so some of the Jews are not to blame

There are only so many positions in the United States Senate that means that most Jews are not United States Senators even if a higher percent of United States Senators are Jewish than the percent of the United States population that is Jewish.  Jews who are not in the United States Senate should not be blamed for what policies a Jew who is in the United States Senate votes for.  There are only 500 corporations on the fortune 500.  If each corporation had only one CEO than their can only be 500 CEOs of fortune 500 companies.  I am not saying 100% of fortune 500 company CEOs are Jewish but even if 100% of the CEOs of the fortune 500 corporation were Jewish then still most Jews would not be in charge of fortune 500 corporations.  Jews who are not in charge of a fortune 500 corporation should not be blamed for the actions of Jews who are in charge of fortune 500 corporations.

Most Jews are enslaved by the world system just like most non Jews are

Even if such lists of were trustworthy it would still be wrong to blame all Jews because of Jew on Jew exploitation.  Even if a group that mostly really was Jewish enslaved the world then most Jews would still be enslaved by this small group of other Jews.  Even if the richest people in the world were Jewish bankers who exploited people through a monetary scam as some have claimed there would still be many Jews who are victims of the monetary scam themselves who are poor and enslaved by these other Jews.

Some Jews have opposed some aspects of the world slavery system

The word Anarchy means without slave masters.  Some very famous Jewish anarchists tried to support a world without slave masters although they might disagree on what a world without slave masters.  What aspects of the slavery system each of these Jewish anarchists opposed would depend on what school of anarchist thought they endorsed and what specific actions they took in their personal life to try to end or reduce slavery.  

Murray Rothbard was credited for creating the term Anarcho-Capitalism as he was opposed to govermnent tyranny in the form of taxes and many other impositions on trade of material goods and services.  Noam Chomsky who was labeled as a Anarcho-syndicalist spoke out against corporate tyranny.  Although the two individuals certainly disagree on certain things economically it is possible to oppose both government and corporate tyranny at the same time and so I would suggest looking at both of these Jewish Anarchists viewpoints.  David Friedman might be a Jewish Anarchist.  David Friedman promoted Rights Enforcement Agencies in a anarchist society as discussed in a bitbutter video mentioned in the Chapter on "International Anarchy."  Other worthwhile Jewish Anarchists who you may find on the internet include professor Walter Block and Keith Knight.  Need to double check if Keith Knight is Jewish I believe he said it would be difficult to explain his Jewish family why he would be going to porc ( porcupine ) fest because it sounds like pork ( pig ) fest but my memory could be wrong.  Although only a small percent of the Jewish population self identify as anarchists, only a small percent of the non Jewish population also self identifies as anarchists as of the time of me writing this book.  There are also many Jewish and non Jewish people who do not call themselves anarchists who oppose certain aspects of the world slavery system.

Wikipedia provides a list of Jewish Anarchists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_anarchists

According to anarcho-capitalists, various theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. However, Rothbard was the first person to use the term

https://web.archive.org/web/20221128043922/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Anarcho-capitalism

Education

Rothbard's parents were David and Rae Rothbard, Jewish immigrants to the United States

https://web.archive.org/web/20221128043922/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Life_and_work

Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an intellectual, political activist, and critic of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Noam Chomsky describes himself as an anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist, and is considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of politics of the United States.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221129195641/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky

Chomsky was born to Jewish parents

https://web.archive.org/web/20220630222800/https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/noam-chomsky

Noam's Chomsk's Views on Anti-Semitism

Views on antisemitism

Q: Let's return to anti-Semitism for a moment. You've written that you don't perceive anti-Semitism as a problem anymore, at least in this country, since its institutional applications and casual manifestations have basically disappeared. Do you still believe that?

https://web.archive.org/web/20221129195641/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_antisemitism

anti-Semitism is there, but very marginal.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221129195641/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_antisemitism

https://www.youtube.com/@KeithKnightDontTreadonAnyone/about

https://libertarianinstitute.org/dont-tread-on-anyone/

What is the mechanism by which the worldwide slavery system operates

Although the worldwide slavery system works overtly by violence and the threat of violence against those who do not comply ultimately the police, military and security people who do violence or threaten violence would not choose to do so if they were not deceived by the covert lies of The Story Tellers.  We should not be angry at all police, military and security people because many of them have the good intention of using physical force and the threat of physical force to keep people safe.  We should be grateful and thankful when police put genuinely guilty murderers in jail.  Instead of hating all police, military and security people we should try to befriend them and explain to them how The Story Tellers are trying to deceive them along with the rest of the population.

To understand how the Story Tellers influence the behavior of the police, security officers, the military and the rest of the world population you have to understand how cults influence the behavior of people.  By cults I do not only mean religious cults, but any group that uses unethical means to influence people's behavior through certain communication methods especially involving encouraging people to have fear of information and to censor certain material.  I will explain this in another chapter in this book.

Ethics and morality are both relative and absolute, both subjective and objective.  If a moral viewpoint is chosen as a frame of reference or reference point to view things in then an action can be absolutely and objectively described as morally right, morally wrong, or other such as "morally gray" or unknown based on that moral viewpoint.

Regardless of what moral viewpoint someone has the physical consequences of their actions are always the same.

Objective moral codes can be created based on a value system involving what physical consequences one wishes to experience or avoid experiencing.

What moral viewpoint will be used in this book

Each person might live according to a different moral viewpoint.  But in this book a specific moral viewpoint will be used to evaluate what is ethical and unethical or moral and immoral based on the physical consequences of actions.  

Priorities one through three involve protecting, improving or increasing the health, autonomy and knowledge of yourself.  Priorities four through six involve protecting, improving or increasing the health, autonomy and knowledge of other people as long as those other people do not use fraud, violence or the threat of violence in a non defensive manner to reduce or harm one's own or other people's health, autonomy or knowledge.  

It is physically impossible to uphold non violation of the moral standard of priorities one through three to maximum extent possible without upholding non violation of the the moral standard of priorities four through six to the maximum extent possible without violating priorities one through three.  Any individual who does not uphold non violation of the moral standards in priorities one through three to the maximum extend possible regarding their own self will be physically unable to uphold non violation of the moral standards of priorities four through six regarding other individuals as a collective group in the aggregate in the largest scale possible.  

These priorities are ranked in order of importance the first priority is more important to uphold then the second priority and the second priority is more important than the third priority.  Priorities one through three are more important for an individual to try to uphold non violation of regarding themself than priorities four through six.  Priority four is more important to uphold non violation of than priority five and priority five is more important to obtain non violation of the priority six.  

For an example, there is a right to privacy to some degree because gaining knowledge about someone else's credit card numbers without their permission might violate their autonomy and autonomy is a greater priority than knowledge.  

Suicide is the ultimate moral wrong from this viewpoint because someone who has died can not make choices about what to do with their body regarding in the inability to help uphold non violation of all of priorities two through six.  There is such a thing as changing the manner of your death which is different than suicide.  In some situations someone will die no matter what actions they take, but some actions might help other people who are still alive after that individual dies no matter how they die.  If someone only has a limited amount of time left to live and they choose to take actions that would shorten that amount of time in order to help other people and if they would have died anyway if they did not take those actions then that is not suicide but changing the manner of their death.

From this viewpoint property ownership convention systems are desirable if they increase the autonomy or prevent the loss of autonomy for oneself or other people.  Stealing or a violation of property ownership convention systems is morally wrong because it decreases the autonomy of oneself or of other people from this viewpoint.  The loss of autonomy from stealing maybe considered even morally worse from this viewpoint if it results in death or damage to health of oneself or others.  If a specific action of stealing would prevent a greater violation of these moral principles than all other alternative actions in which no stealing occurs than that specific action of stealing is considered less morally wrong than not stealing or is considered not be morally wrong in that very narrow special specific case. 

The first priority

Any action that has the physical consequences of preventing improvement in one's own health or harm one's own health is immoral or unethical unless unless it is done to gain autonomy or prevent harm, death or loss of autonomy of yourself or someone else.  Any action that has the physical consequence of causing one's own death is unethical or immoral.

The second priority

Any action that has the physical consequences of reducing one's own autonomy is immoral or unethical unless it is done to improve one's health or prevent harm, death or loss of autonomy to one's self or someone else.

The third priority

Knowledge is important because if one does not have knowledge of the physical consequences of their decisions although someone can make decisions they do not have autonomy if they do not know what the consequences of decisions they would make are.  Any action that prevents increasing one's knowledge or reduce one's knowledge are immoral or unethical unless they are done to prevent harm, death or loss of autonomy for yourself or someone else or loss of knowledge for someone else.

The fourth priority

Any non defensive actions that physically harm someone else or cause their death are immoral or unethical

The firth priority 

any non defensive actions that prevent someone else from gaining autonomy or cause them to lose autonomy are immoral or unethical

The sixth priority 

any non defensive actions that prevent someone else from gaining autonomy or cause them to lose autonomy are immoral or unethical

Defensive actions

A defensive action is a action that is done to prevent the loss of autonomy, health or life of an individual.  That individual could be yourself or someone else

Insanity

A non defensive action that causes yourself or someone else to become mentally ill is a violation of at least one of these six priorities unless done to prevent loss of your own life, health or autonomy.

Three definitions of unethical influence used in this book

1 Unethical influence can be defined as using unethical behavior to persuade someone else to engage in unethical behavior

2 Unethical influence can be defined as persuading someone to engage in unethical behavior

3 Unethical influence can be defined as using unethical behavior to persuade someone into taking a action they would not consent to take if you did not use the unethical behavior to persuade them

Strengths and weaknesses of each definition

Definitions 1 and 2 might sound circular but are not circular

These definition sound a little circular but are not because the term "unethical behavior" is used to define unethical influence and not the term "unethical influence"

Definition 1 is stricter than definition 2

Someone could take action that is not considered unethical influence by definition 1 but is considered unethical influence by definition 2.  This would occur if they influenced someone to do unethical behavior by doing a type of behavior that is not on the list of unethical behaviors

Definition 3 might sound like a paradox

Is it unethical to use unethical behavior to persuade someone not to do unethical behavior?  What if the action they would not consent to doing is the action of avoiding unethical behavior?  That is what if they intended to do something unethical so you used unethical behavior to persuade them not to do something unethical.  There is potentially a paradox involved in the third definition.  However I think this is not really a paradox because any behavior to persuade someone not to do something unethical would be classified as a defensive action and not as unethical behavior.

Definition of unethical behavior in this book

Unethical behavior includes violence, the threat of violence, unethical communication and stealing

Definition of violence in this book

Violence is the non defensive use of physical force against someone without their consent which will be described in more detail in another chapter of this book

Vague definition of stealing in this book

Too many people ask without government who will build the roads?  Too few people ask without government how will you know who will own the roads?

I am not going to go into too much emphasis on stealing in this book as I believe protecting life, health and autonomy of individuals is a higher priority than stealing.  I believe the purpose of property conventions should be to protect the life, health and autonomy of individuals and that putting property conventions at a higher value than life, health and autonomy of individuals goes against my value system.  If you value property conventions more than life, health and autonomy then feel free to write your own book all about how keeping property conventions is more important than allowing people to have life, health and autonomy.

I am not against property conventions as in a world without property conventions it would be very difficult to achieve anything.  Without property conventions every piece of artwork, tool or invention you build and any crops you plant could be destroyed by any one at any moment.  Property conventions protect autonomy by enabling people to choose the types of tools, inventions and artwork they build without such tools being vandalized.  Property conventions protect autonomy because they enable people to choose what type of food they have available to eat.   Without property conventions their would be no basic medical tools to preserve life and health and no tools to help grow food necessary for life and health.  Property conventions protect life and health because without the ability to grow food and know the food will be eaten instead of destroyed everyone would starve to death. 

Imagine you are painting a painting but someone else decides they want to use the same piece of paper you are painting on to paint a painting and paints right over the painting you painted.  You could then find a different piece of paper they are painting on and paint over that but then neither of you would be able to paint the kind of painting you want and only be able to prevent the other person from painting the kind of painting they want.  Without property conventions you can not make the kind of art you want.

People who do not like art much might think it is not that bad if society loses artwork because a lack of property conventions but imagine if you are trying to build a tool that can directly save people's lives instead of artwork but every time you try to build the tool with the materials you have someone takes your incomplete tool before you are finished and decides to use it to build a different type of tool they want to design.  You could of course take whatever tools they are trying to build and use them as material components to build your own tools.  But then neither you of you would be able to build the kind of tools you want and only be able to prevent the other person from building the kind of tools they want.  I suppose you could just pick up rocks and sticks and things found in nature and use them as tools but what is to stop someone from taking the rocks and sticks you collected and throwing them off a cliff or into a river.  You certainly would not be able to produce advanced medical equipment that relies on electricity nor any measuring devices to consistently measure ingredients in a drug to be mixed in specific measurable quantities in such a society without property conventions.

Imagine you plant potatoes in a field and someone else decides they absolutely hate potatoes and really like tomatoes and instead of planting tomatoes in another field or planting tomatoes in addition to your potatoes in that field they remove all your potatoes and throw them off the highest mountain cliff they can find and then plant tomatoes in that field.  Next someone else who likes eating zucchini and also gets some feeling of satisfaction from breaking tomatoes with a baseball bat then proceeds to smash all the tomatoes growing in that field before anyone else can eat them and then plants zucchini in the same field.  If this pattern continues then no one will get to eat anything.  For such obvious reasons property conventions can be helpful to protect life, health and autonomy.  

But there are many different property conventions that can enable people to have life, health and autonomy so I will be intentionally vague about stealing.

Stealing would be violating an agreed upon voluntary property convention.  Such as for example if Person A and Person B both agree that Person B owns a object and agree that Person A does not own that object.  If Person A took the object from Person B without their consent and without defensive reasons that would be stealing.  Person A destroying or damaging the property of Person B without their consent and without defensive reasons might also be considered stealing.  Although destroying someone's property without their permission might be considered a separate category of unethical behavior than stealing listing it as a subcategory of stealing will make writing and reading the introduction to this book shorter.

Defensive reasons to take an object without someone's consent might be if taking that object is the only available way to prevent someone's death, such as Person B taking a life preserver from person A's boat to save Person C from drowning without asking person A because if they waited to ask Person A then Person C would drown.  Taking an object without someone's consent to save a life might be classified as either not stealing or as stealing that is morally justified in order to prevent a greater problem.

If Joe owns enough bread to feed himself for five years and owns a entire bread making factory and an entire wheat farm and Joe steals bread from Bob to feed Susan instead of giving Susan Joe's own bread that is not a defensive reason to take Bob's bread and is a unethical form of stealing.  In some cases taxation can be a unethical form of stealing even if it is done with the excuse of saving someone's life if other means to save someone's life are available.

Legitimate property conventions can occur on a small scale between small groups of two or more people.  Having legitimate property conventions on a large scale require a closed border community that prevents someone from entering the community if they do not agree to the property convention.  I am aware of the paradox that someone might say the border of the community itself is a property convention someone might not agree to but such a paradox is beyond the scope of this book.

The property conventions set up by any government currently recognized by the United Nations are not legitimate, but in my opinion should be obeyed as best as possible in order to avoid going to jail or other consequences and in order to try to have a respectable image in the eyes of people who do not know better.  When I say to obey government property conventions I mean to obey property laws from the standard of the viewpoint of police and judges.  It is not actually possible to obey those governments property laws because they are contradictory but it is possible to try to obey what a judge or police officer claims to believe to be the "correct interpretation" of the law.

Difference between unethical communication and unethical influence in this book

All unethical communication is unethical influence but not all unethical influence is unethical communication.  Unethical influence includes violence and the threat of violence where as unethical communication does not unless some sort of false information is also presented in terms of the specific definition used in this book.  Unethical communication might or might not use violence or the threat of violence in addition to the ingredient of presenting false information which it always contains.

The threat of violence is communication and the threat of violence is unethical if it is not used defensively but I needed to create a very specific term that did not previously exist for certain reasons.  Unethical communication is kind of like fraud but I felt fraud was not specific enough because I only want to refer to fraud that is not used defensively as unethical communication and fraud might also have some specific legal meaning that I am unaware of which I do not intend to convey. 

It is of crucial importance to understand the difference between unethical influence and unethical communication because if someone is using unethical communication but they are not threatening you with violence then you can safely ignore what they command you to do and disobey them.  But if someone is threatening you with violence and you ignore what they command you to do and disobey them then they might murder you.

A crucial step to freedom is simply ignoring what lying people command you to do and not obeying them but disobedience can not safely be done if people are threatening you with violence in addition to lying to you.  In some cases if you are threatened with violence you should obey what lying people command you to do so that they do not murder you or do other horrible things to you.

The "story tellers" who control the world currently do not primarily use violence to enslave people but primarily use unethical communication to trick other people into enslaving people through violence and the the threat of violence.

Three Definition of unethical communication in this book

1 I will define unethical communication as presenting false information in a non defensive manner in order to get someone to do a behavior they would not normally do because they would view such a behavior as unethical based on it's physical consequences if they were not presented with that false information

2 Unethical communication could also be defined as presenting false information in a non defensive manner to persuade someone to do unethical behavior

3 A third definition of unethical communication might be presenting false information in a non defensive manner to get someone to do what they would not consent to do if that false information was not presented to them

Strengths and Weaknesses of the three definitions

First definition

The weakness of the first definition is that it involves their moral viewpoint

Second definition

The weakness of the second definition is that it does not consider presenting false information to get someone to change their behavior unethical unless they would change their behavior in such a way as to do unethical behavior.  Thus with the second definition you could present false information to get someone to do something they would not otherwise consent to do as long as that behavior is not unethical without it being classified as unethical communication.

Is the second definition circular or self referencing?

Unethical communication is classified as a type of unethical behavior.  But the second definition of unethical communication includes the term unethical behavior in it.  This looks circular of self referencing because someone could tell someone a false statement in order to persuade them to tell other people false statements.  If you only look at the other two ingredients of unethical behavior which are the non defensive use of violence or the threat of violence then it is not self referencing or circular if you then substitute the phrase "using violence or the threat of violence in a non defensive manner" with the term "unethical behavior"

Third definition

Is it unethical to use unethical communication to persuade someone not to do unethical behavior?  What if the action they would not consent to doing is the action of avoiding unethical behavior?  That is what if they intended to do something unethical so you used unethical behavior to persuade them not to do something unethical.  There is potentially a paradox involved in the third definition.  However I think this is not really a paradox because any behavior to persuade someone not to do something unethical would be classified as a defensive action and not as unethical behavior.

Example of presenting false information in a defensive manner

Presenting false information in a defensive manner might include telling someone who wants to murder a specific innocent person the wrong location of where that specific innocent person ran away to.  I am not talking about hiding the location of a wanted felon found guilty of murder who really did murder someone but about hiding the location of a innocent person.

A special case where presenting false information might be morally acceptable

The type of exception where lying might not be classified as a defensive use of force but might still be morally justifiable is when you have to lie to someone in order for them to listen to you to hear truthful information so that they can realize other people have lied to them.  Once they realize that you can later tell them the truth.  It is a paradox in which the only way to prevent a person from being deceived in the long term is sometimes to deceive them in the short term.

In cult mind control situations people are trained to not listen to information.  Let's say Bob tells Andy that Bob is the Prophet of the One True God TM and the Pope of the One True Brand of the One True Religion TM and you should not listen to anything anyone who does not acknowledge that Bob is Prophet and Pope.  Bob tells Andy that if you listen to anyone who does not say that I am the Prophet and the Pope that you will start to believe the wrong things.  And if you believe the wrong things then bad things will happen to you.  Bob might tell Andy that merely having those wrong beliefs in your head even if you do not physically act on them will result in the Karmic Laws set up by the One True God punishing you for your bad thoughts because the One True God is so holy and just that he will judge people not just for their actions but their innermost thoughts.  Bob also tells Andy that even contemplating the possibility that the wrong beliefs might actually be true and not false for even a moment could potentially cause Bob to take actions that would physically harm other people.

Let's say that Steve wants to explain to Andy why Bob is not the Prophet and not the legitimate Pope but in reality Bob is a compulsive liar.

Let's say it is not enough for Steve to simply not say that he believes Bob is not the legitimate Pope and not the Prophet.  

Let's say Andy tells Steve, "I want to know right now!  Do you believe Bob is the Prophet of the One True God and the Pope of the one true religion?  Stop dancing around the question by not answering me!  Unless you tell me right now that Bob is the Prophet of the One True God and the Pope of the one true religion then I am not going to talk to you anymore!"

Andy will not listen to Steve unless Steve starts out by lying to Andy and telling him that he believes Bob is the Prophet and the Pope. 

Steve can then explain a situation about how he was afraid of water.  Steve can then explain the steps to overcome that fear.  He can explain that he realized he should be afraid because he does not know how to swim.  He then decided that he should get swimming lessons and avoid water except under supervised situations with a swimming instructor until he learns how to swim better.  He can explain that even though he knew it was safe with the instructor there while in the shallow end of the pool he still had anxious thoughts and physically uncomfortable sensations and or psychosomatic reactions out of fear.  He can then explain whatever type of mental exercises or mental preparation he used to handle the fear and reduce any anxious thoughts, uncomfortable sensations or psychosomatic reactions.  After 

After that he can explain how he ran into Susan who used to be a member of the Jehovah's witnesses.  He can explain to Andy how the Jehovah witnesses are wrong and do not know The Truth like Andy's group does.  Steve could then explain that Susan explained to him that the Jehovah witness organization official spokespeople repeatedly said the world would end at specific dates, but when the world did not end at that date they just started saying a different date that the world would end at in the future instead of admitting they were factually wrong and were not truthfully representing Jehovah.  Susan could explain that this would have been easy to verify except she never knew because she was told she would be disfellowshipped and annilated from existence by Jehovah on the judgment day if she talked to Ex members of the Jehovah Witness who were not disfellowshipped.  Susan might only explain that she found out after talking to Nancy who was never a Jehovah Witness but she tried to convert to being a Jehovah Witness. Nancy showed her old published material from the Jehovah Witness organization and told Susan that she would like to become a Jehovah Witness but she found old material saying the world was going to end and wanted to know if this was a hoax created by apostates to prevent people from joining or really was material printed by the organization.  After looking at old Jehovah Witness material collections Susan concluded that the material really was genuinely created by the organization.  In the past Susan could never realize the spokespeople for the Jehovah Witness organization were lying to her because primarily only disfellowshiped people had access to the proof and she would never talk to ex members of the Jehovah Witnesses who were disfellowshiped because she was afraid if she did she would be annihilated at armegeddeon.  Susan then told her how she could have died because Jehovah Witnesses do not allow blood transfusions.  And how she found out about the Australian Royal Commission investigation on the Jehovah Witnesses trying to prevent access to information about child abuse by members of the organization.

Steve can then say I am so glad that we are not deceived by groups like the Jehovah Witnesses but have the guidance of Bob.  I want to be absolutely sure I understand the guidance of Bob correctly and do not remember anything wrong.  I would like to ask you some questions to make sure I remember the teachings of Bob correctly.  Steve can then ask if Bob really taught a list of things that contradict each other.  Steve would not say that any of the teachings contradict each other but simply ask if Bob really taught those teachings and pair each teaching he mentioned next to another teaching that contradicts it.  Steve would also mention a list of teachings that Bob taught that would make people afraid to listen to information, each time saying I just am asking because I want to make sure my memory was correct that Bob really taught that.  

Maybe only at this point which might have taken many conversations and only after Steve is certain Andy understands how the Jehovah witnesses use fear of information to prevent them from understanding the official representatives of their group are compulsive liars and that Andy understands how someone might use mental preparation or mental rehearsal exercises, breathing exercises and other techniques to overcome fear, the physical sensations of fear and the psychosomatic effects of fear would Steve bring up three types of challenging questions to Andy.  Steve should get Andy to confirm that the type of teaching related to each type of question he will use later in the question is really taught by the group before asking the questions.  Question type 1 should be asked before Question type 2 and Question type 2 should be asked before question type 3

Question type 1

If other groups teach people to be afraid of information in order to hide the fact that their official representatives are compulsive liars and your group teaches that people should be afraid of information then how do we know that your group is not hiding information that proves the official representatives of your group are compulsive liars?

Question type 2

What about all these things official representatives of your group taught that contradict each other?

Question type 3

What about these policies your group taught that might have harmful physical consequences if obeyed?

Now justifying lying to start this type of conversation is rarely necessary.  Usually you just have to present yourself as skeptical but interested in the group and not cross any certain lines which will get the person to stop talking to you.  But in some situations it is necessary to pose as a member of a group in order to rescue someone from a group.  In some cases people had to create entire fake identities to find members of cults for a friend or family member who lost track of their friend or relative who was being held captive by mind control in a group in a hidden location while also sometimes being held captive by armed guards who were under the influence of mind control.

Unethical influence can be done intentionally or accidentally

If Person A knowingly persuades Person B that factually wrong information is factually correct with no defensive reason to have done so and Person B tells person C that such information is factually correct then Person A would have intentionally committed unethical influence, where as Person B would have accidentally committed unethical influence.

Intention is important because someone with good intentions will try to avoid unethical behavior.  Although someone's intentions are important, having good or bad intentions does not change the physical consequences of a action.  Someone who has good intentions but is subject to unethical influence might do morally wrong actions they would not otherwise have done.  But someone who has bad intentions will do morally wrong actions even if they are not subject to unethical influence at least if they think they will not get caught.

The Big Picture

In the big picture this books argues that in order to end the worldwide system of slavery we live in we need to understand what unethical influence is and what organizations and institutions are using unethical influence.  Many people have complained about the unethical influence governments recognized by the United Nations exert in the forms of stealing, violence and the threats of violence but have failed to sufficiently acknowledge how unethical communication is used to trick police, military and security persons into committing acts of violence, threats of violence and stealing.  Many people who have made such complaints have also failed to consistently apply such a ethical standard to people, organizations and institutions that are not officially part of the government but none the less support the worldwide system of slavery.

The Solution to Unethical Communication

The solution to unethical communication is to be informed and not believe false information.  The problem of unethical communication can not be solved by censorship because censorship has been used as a tool to make unethical influence easier by censoring information that reveals that the false information presented by a unethical communicator is truly false.  I am not saying all censorship is bad I certainly would want my personal information such as my phone number, birthday, address, social security numbers and credit card numbers to be censored from the public instead of put in the front headline articles of the newspapers as long as we are living in the current world slavery system.  I am simply saying that censorship is not being done by pro government corporate and religious media outlets to prevent unethical influence, but to make unethical influence easier for certain people to do.

Large religious organizations or institutions used as news outlets for unethical communicators

Only religious organizations and institutions that share the lies fabricated by "The Story Tellers" are allowed to exist on a large scale by governments without being persecuted.  I will have a chapter on aspects of religions that promote freedom and how those aspects have been removed in large religious groups and replaced with variations of the religions that promote domination.  This chapter might or might also address issues involving psychological operations that target other people groups such as races, biological genders or gender identities or those might be separate chapters.

Atheists are not immune to fiction from news outlets

Remember religious organizations are not the only news outlets "The Story Tellers" have access to but so are schools, universities, peer reviewed journals and textbooks including but not limited to "hard" science, "soft" statistical "sciences" and history textbooks.

Many atheists say they do not believe fiction religious books are non fiction like they claim religious people do believe.  Many atheists claim non fiction science has disproven a lot of things religious people read in the religious books that many atheists call fiction.  However, I would like to point out that a large number of atheists are willing to believe something they have no proof for based on their personal observations if it is found in a published book, video, website, et cetera labeled as non fiction and labeled as science as long as it is not published by a religious organization representing a religion other than Atheism such as a Christian Organization like Answers in Genesis, or a Buddhist, New Ager, Hinduist et cetera Organization.

Something a atheist believes which is labeled as science could be true even though they have absolutely no proof for it they can personally verify.  There are many so called scientific discoveries that are found out using equipment only certain people have access to or that were based on observations only certain people witnessed during a specific historical event.  

Some Atheists believe in scientific theories they have not confirmed based on their personal observations based on faith in eye witness honesty

This book will include a chapter on science claims that might potentially be true but people should not believe are definitely true because they personally can not confirm them.  This is important because the story tellers have the power to fabricate fictitious history that is labeled as non fiction and to use that fictitious history to persuade people to believe claims labeled as science that are not true.  This quickness to believe things one can not personally observe do not apply to atheists only but can effect people who label themselves as being in any religion, however this problem seems to be a more common problem with people who label themselves as atheists in my opinion.  There is an exception in that if an Atheists believes in a higher power than mortal humans but does not believe in God then they are less likely to believe in things they can not personally observe based on the scientific consensus of a group of mortal humans.

If an atheist believes witnesses who claim to have made a observation which supposedly confirms a scientific theory and the atheist did not personally make such a observation then their belief in such a scientific theory is not based on personal observation but on faith in the eye witnesses honesty.  Some Atheists believe observations can be repeatedly found using certain equipment or certain rare things ( such as rare materials, rare living things, or rarely accessible locations like difficult or illegal to travel to places ) but do not personally have access to such equipment or things and have faith in the observations of others who claim to have used such equipment and who claim that such equipment even exists.  Some Atheists have faith in eye witness claims about historical events they can not personally confirm happened through their life experience to support belief in certain theories they think are scientifically confirmed.  Albert Einstein supposedly became a celebrity because a solar eclipse witnessed in 1919 confirmed one of his theories, but no one born after 1919 can personally confirm this was not a historical fabrication, so if a Atheist believes in that theory allegedly originating from Einstein based on the 1919 event that again would be a matter of faith in the honesty of witnesses.  I say allegedly originating from Einsterin because there are accusations that Einstein committed plagiarism not to mention the assumption that Einstein was a real person not a fictional character and or a character played by one or more actors.

In February 1919 two teams of astronomers from the Greenwich and Cambridge observatories set out for Sobral, Brazil, and Príncipe (an island off the coast of Africa), respectively, with sophisticated equipment that would allow them to photograph a solar eclipse as it cut across South America, the Atlantic Ocean, and Africa on May 29. The purpose of the expeditions, arranged by Frank Dyson of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and Arthur Eddington of Cambridge University, was to test Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which had been published in 1915 and was still regarded with skepticism by many scientists.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220831154158/https://www.britannica.com/story/the-solar-eclipse-that-made-albert-einstein-a-science-celebrity

Atheism and belief in a higher power

An atheist who believes the laws of physics are a higher power than mortal humans would believe that the laws of physics are not subject to scientific consensus nor legislation without believing that any deity, deities, god, or gods exist

Buddhists usually are not called Atheists but some Buddhists can believe in a higher power than mortal humans but no God or gods and be Atheists.  Other Buddhists might believe in one or more gods.  This can also be true about other religions that are not commonly labeled as Atheism.

Some people might believe Karma is a higher power than mortal humans.  That is that mortal humans can not escape the consequences of Karma by legislation.  Other people might believe that mortal humans are a higher power than Karma because mortal humans can change what is moral and immoral through legislation and thus can change what sort of actions result in good or bad Karma.

Some atheists might believe in some other type of power than the laws of physics that is a higher power than mortal humans but I will primarily discuss belief in whether or not the laws of physics are a higher power than mortal humans.

Many people who label themselves as atheists do not believe the laws of physics are a higher power than mortal humans.  

It is common for atheists who  believe mortal humans are a higher power than the laws of physics to believe government legislation can change what is moral and immoral and the scientific consensus established by a group of mortal humans is reality.

People can create a map of reality in which they guess and approximate what the laws of physics that reality is subject to are.  You can use a map of reality to guess the physical result of a action you take but sometimes you can make a wrong prediction using the map of reality.

Those who believe that mortal humans are a higher power than the laws of physics believe that the map of reality created by the scientific consensus of mortal humans can not make wrong predictions.  If someone claims to get a result contrary to the result predicted by the scientific consensus then that means that there is something wrong, possibly morally wrong with the person making such a claim.

Belief in the laws of physics as a higher power then mortal humans includes the belief that legislation made by mortal humans can not change the physical consequences of actions.  Although if people change their behavior by making decisions based on changes in legislation then how their behavior changes may change what physical consequences happen.

Those who believe mortal humans are a higher power than the laws of physics believe that legislation created by mortal humans can change what is moral and immoral and in doing so can change the physical consequences of actions.

Some Theists believe that God or the gods is or are a higher power than mortal humans but that mortal humans through the process of legislation can change morality and in doing so can change the laws of physics because God will change the laws of physics to reward obedience and punish disobedience to the legislation created by mortal humans.  Such theists believe that God or the gods are a higher power than humanity but humanity is a higher power than the laws of physics.  This type of problem is not limited to atheists alone

Definitions of Government

Governmental Policy would literally mean Mind Control policy when you break Governmental into Govern and Mental.

Some people insist Government has one and only one meaning which is "mind control" based on it's etymology or the historical origin of the word and also based on practice 

In practice 100% of all governments recognized as legitimate by the United Nations control the behavior of their citizens through mind control

100% of the time without a single exception when the name of a specific government which the United Nations recognizes as legitimate is mentioned that specific government is a organization that uses mind control on it's own citizens.  So based on contextual usage 100% of the time when people are talking about specific "governments" by name they are talking about specific organizations that practice mind control.

Based on the way English is used in practice the definition of government then could be a "organization that practices mind control" which is a different definition than "mind control" because it refers to the group of people who are doing mind control rather than the action of doing mind control.

The definition "organization that practices mind control" is not specific enough because there are plenty of people who use mind control on other people that are not called governments such as groups that are sometimes called religious cults.

Although "mind control" or "a organization that practices mind control" or "a group of people who do mind control" or "a group of individuals who do mind control" are all very good definitions of Government they will not be the only definitions I will use

I will use a wide variety of definitions of the word Government based on many different ways people use the term Government in modern English in this book.  That does not mean that I disagree with the claim that Government can be properly defined as mind control in some context. 

To govern something means to control it

In this book I will use the word Government to mean a group of people that control something when that group would also be called a Government by common English use

In this book I will use the word Government to mean a control system when that control system would also be called a Government in common English use

Some people might argue that I only should use one definition of Government and only use Government to mean "mind control"

I would like to point out that if someone said a "employee of the Government attacked someone" it would make no sense to substitute the word Government with mind control and say an "employee of mind control attacked someone" but it would make sense to say an "employee under the influence of mind control" attacked someone

I will not call corporations, religious institutions, or other organizations that control people's behavior governments because they are not called governments in common English use 

Many corporations and religious institutions control people by "mind control" and so could be called Governmental organizations based on the definition above but corporations and religious institutions are not called Governments in common English

Those who advocate only using the Mind Control definition of Government would have to start calling lots of Corporations and Religious Instituitions Governments which might lead to a lot of people not understanding what they are saying.  I would not object to people calling those specific Corporations and Religious institutions that use Mind Control Governments but in this book I will use Government in the manner meant in common English instead.

Six different viewpoints on Government which I may or may not agree with depending on how you define government

1 Viewpoint denying the existence of government

Based on some definitions of government, government can not actually exist but is a logically disprovable fictitious thing.  This viewpoint is called anarchism, voluntarism or voluntaryism.

2 Viewpoint Denying the legitimacy of the existence of some governments

Based on other philosophical viewpoints certain specific governments like the United States can not legitimately exist.  This viewpoint might also be called anarchism, voluntarism or voluntaryism.

3 Viewpoint that governments are always unethical

From some viewpoints governments by definition can exist but are always unethical.  These viewpoint are also called anarchism, voluntarism or voluntaryism.  

4 Viewpoint that governments should be restricted

Other viewpoints are that government exist but should be in some way restricted.  This might be described as a minarchist viewpoint, a libertarian viewpoint or classical liberal viewpoint.  This viewpoint was expressed to some degree in the bill of rights of the United States of America's Constitution by listing certain things the United States government should not do.  

5 Viewpoint that governments are too big in geographic area and that there should not be a single worldwide government

Another viewpoint is that governments are too large or too big.  By too big  I do not mean to powerful but too large of a geographical area.  The size of the government should be reduced so that people can better be able to choose what type of government they live in by moving to locations whose policies they prefer.  This viewpoint is sometimes called nationalism as opposed to what is commonly called globalism or globalization of government.  Globalization can mean the viewpoint that there should be a one world system, in which everyone in the whole world are governed by the same policies although it can also have other meanings.  Globalization can refer to supporting a single organization ruling the world like a United Nations type system effectively acting as a single worldwide government in charge of all the local governments.  Globalization can also refer to multinational corporations enacting corporate policies on every single location in the world.  Globalization could also refer to a team of corporate CEO's and government politicians from every country in the world meeting in a World Economic Forum or similar system to decide what policies to enact in every location of the world, instead of allowing a practically significant amount of individual variation on a nation by nation basis.  Globalization can also occur in religious groups such as priests in other countries than the Vatican being told what to do from a single headquarters in the Vatican or Rabbis living in other countries than Israel being given orders from the highest ranking Rabbis located in the State of Israel.  Another example of globalism in religion is the World Council of Churches.

Some people believe we do not live on the outside of a globe, sphere, ball or oblate spheroid but the land people live on has some other shape.  Nonetheless I am using the phrase globalism to simply explain that people call these worldwide domination systems globalism.  Throughout the rest of the book I will use the term worldwide instead of global.  I will explain why some people have trouble believing the earth is a spinning spheroid without claiming whether or not the earth is a spinning spheroid elsewhere in this book.  But in short it comes down to people not owning and having access to certain equipment and being prohibited from doing certain experiments as well as the limitations of the eye and the human brain or the eye and the rest of the human brain.

A lot of point 6 material will be moved to the section on international anarchy

6 Viewpoint that Governments should be made voluntary and the concept of international anarchy in international waters

6A Another viewpoint is that governments are not currently voluntary but should be made voluntary

I will call this viewpoint, a viewpoint in support of "Voluntary Governments" or "Restricted Scale Anarchist Communities" which should not be confused with voluntarism or voluntaryism. 

In this viewpoint it is ok to tax people in exchange for services but only if people voluntarily agree to receiving those services in exchange for taxes.  Those who do not pay the taxes would not receive the services unless someone else donates to pay for them and the people who are supposed to benefit from the donation actually want to receive the services.  Or at least if they do not object to it and are assumed to want it if they are perhaps in a coma or vegetative state or something like that and can not speak to say they want security or medical services to protect their life and health for instance.

Taxes would not necessarily need to be paid exclusively in money but could potentially be paid in the form of material goods or services.  Services could include some sort of volunteer work.  The requirements for what constitutes payment of such taxes could potentially be different for each voluntary government. 

These voluntary government systems I described might be similar to different economic and security systems proposed in various schools of anarchism except with certain restrictions to make them more voluntary.  Some people who propose certain "Anarchist" Systems believe these systems should be applied to everyone in the world with no choice to opt out of such "Anarchist" Systems.  Some anarcho-*-ists believe anarcho-*-ism is objectively the only morally correct worldview and the entire world should be forced to follow anarcho-*-ism otherwise they will not be free.

Voluntary Governments might also be called Restricted Scale Anarchist Communities, Restricted Scale Voluntary Governments, Voluntary Communities, or Intentional Communities

They would be restricted in the scale of how many people they apply to, to avoid being applied to people who do not want to participate in their system 

The restriction on voluntary governments or anarchist communities to make them more voluntary would either be a restriction on the scale of territory so people can be exempt from such systems by avoiding certain territories or a restriction on the scale of membership so people can be exempt from such systems by not applying for membership

6B Voluntary Governments based on local territories

Look into international land being called international zones and international waters being related to international anarchy

If Governments are made very small so that there is not just international water which is claimed by no specific government as territory but also international land that is claimed by no specific government as territory then people could only participate in a government if they want to and voluntarily sign up for government services that they agree to pay taxes on as part of joining a community located only at a specific territory.   If they do not want any government involved in their life than they would live in the international land or international water, but if they wanted government services they would choose to live in a specific government territory and choose to pay for those services.

Such territories would be closed borders in the sense that visitors to such local territories would have to agree to follow the rules if they enter the territory.  Any visitor who refuses to follow the rules would not be let in.  Such local territories could also make any rules they want to restrict the access of certain groups of people from entering even if they would agree to follow such rules.  Restrictions might include refusing to let people in with a history of certain types of violent behavior or with certain infectious diseases.  Someone might be allowed a court trial to convince representatives of the voluntary government that they did not actually commit such violent behavior in some voluntary governments where as other voluntary governments might simply decide not to let suspects in at all or to let anyone in even suspects so long as they agree to follow the rules once in the voluntary government territory.

Although you can theoretically leave any government you do not like in the current system that is not really true without international land because the moment you leave one government you walk into another.  There is also a problem of forced integration in many governments in which people can not choose to exclude people with a history of violence or people with certain diseases from migrating near where they live.

As for restrictions on diseases some diseases are fake and some diseases are real.  People living in different voluntary government territories might disagree on whether or not COVID 19 or "the cooties" or some other disease is a real disease or a hoax and each voluntary government could have a different entrance testing requirement policy based on whether or not the members think different diseases are real, how dangerous and how infectious they think each disease is or is not and how they think they can know if someone has those diseases.  Some voluntary governments might decide to let anyone in regardless of disease status and some might discriminate based on disease status for the safety of those inside the voluntary government territory.

6C "Voluntary" governments on a worldwide scale

If the size of such a voluntary government is not geographically limited, then the "voluntary" government would essentially work like a company, corporation, collective or commune with voluntary membership on a worldwide scale.  

6D Wandering local voluntary governments

Let us say there is a large group of people that wander in a community such as traveling, circus performers,  merchants, hobos, nomads or gypsies.  They could carry some sort of signs warning people that if they step within a certain distance of their community they will be subject to the local laws of their community.  This would function like a local territorial voluntary government and not like a "voluntary" government on a world wide scale but the location of this voluntary government would change as the community moves.  Such a group of people would have to be respectful not to walk into other local voluntary government territories unless they agree to respect their rules upon visiting.

6E My opinion as to why voluntary governments on a local scale are less tyrannical than "voluntary" governments on a worldwide scale

I personally find the idea of a worldwide voluntary governments to be disturbing and would prefer the idea of voluntary governments to only work in certain local territories.  The reason I find the idea of worldwide voluntary governments disturbing but voluntary governments limited to local territories as acceptable is because someone can choose not to live in such a local territory to be free from a voluntary governments effects but could not choose to be free from a "voluntary" governments effects if such a "voluntary" government provided security requests for people on a worldwide scale to enforce security measures on people who did not sign up for that "voluntary" program in order to "defend" people who did voluntarily sign up for such a program.  In my opinion when such "voluntary" systems are provided on a worldwide scale instead of a local scale you can walk out of they are no longer voluntary.

The problem with not having any system of voluntary or involuntary government on a worldwide scale is there might technically be no laws at all on a worldwide scale including laws against murder but only laws against murder at a bunch of local voluntary or involuntary government territories.  Of course if there is no law against murder except at local voluntary government territories people who murder people outside of such local voluntary government territories might be permanently banned from entering certain local voluntary government territories.  But more importantly with no laws at all outside local voluntary government territories there would be no law to stop vigilantes from killing or imprisoning murderers who are outside all local voluntary government territories.  Although one might think they could get away with murder by avoiding local voluntary government territories they might find no local voluntary governments to protect them from vigilantes if they tried to murder people while outside local voluntary government territories.  How each local voluntary government would respond to vigilantes who dealt with such murderers while outside their voluntary government territory and then tried to enter their territory after committing vigalanteism would be different.  Maybe there would be one voluntary government territory that allows people who committed murder while outside the territory to enter into their territory and tries to protect them from people outside the voluntary government territory.  Such a voluntary government territory would essentially be a prison with a bigger prison yard because the moment such a murderer leaves the territory they could be killed or imprisoned by vigilantes waiting outside.  More over such voluntary government territories that let people in who committed murder would not be popular with people who did not commit murder because they would not want to live in a community full of murderers who are not imprisoned but free to walk around and murder them at any time.  Such a voluntary government territory might be full of murderers who might kill other murderers at any moment.  Such a voluntary government territory might actually serve a purpose to keep those outside such a territory safer by providing a place for murderers to kill other murderers.  I personally oppose involuntary governments applying the death penalty on people who are already captured and can not escape, although I am not opposed to using lethal force for self defense if a non lethal means to self defense is not available.  Nonetheless  I can not force a village of murderers not to kill a murderer who intentionally enters their village to try to escape punishment instead of surrendering to a group of vigilantes or a voluntary or involuntary government with no death penalty that would be willing to imprison them for life in exchange for letting them live instead of being executed for murder.

Such vigilantes would probably not execute people they believe committed murder but imprison them for life when possible.  The reason is if they mistakenly execute someone who is later found out to be not guilty other vigilantes might execute them, for murdering someone and for establishing a precedent of killing people believed to commit murder and then having other people apply their own standard to them.  Where as if a vigilante simply imprisoned someone they believe committed murder and later found out was not guilty then they could simply release them without other vigilantes killing them in retribution.  

Even though vigilantes would try to avoid executing people who they believe have committed murder if the person they believe has committed murder is trying to kill them and they can think of no means to defend themselves with non lethal force then they might use lethal force to defend themselves.

Thus even a "lawless area" like international land would effectively have "unwritten laws" of a sort at least against murder.

If a anarcho communist communal city and a anarcho capitalist city have a land area nearby both of them but outside both their cities although they might not agree about what to do about property in that land area they could both agree to capture murderers who murder people in that land area.  

There are some groups of people who disagree and think there should be no prisons even for murderers.  I will simply suggest that if people who share such a belief form a community they will not be able to stop rational people from capturing murderers.  If they try to stop rational people from capturing murders by using violence against people using defensive force to stop murderers then the rational people can simply imprison people who try to stop them from imprisoning murderers.  What will they do in retaliation to rational people imprison them?  They can not imprison rational people for imprisoning murderers without violating their belief in not imprisoning people.

A real danger could happen however with people who believe it is unethical to imprison people and who also support the death penalty, however I believe I also answered that objection in relation to why vigilantes probably would usually imprison people instead of executing them.

Almost all voluntary governments nearby a international land zone could probably make a joint agreement to capture people they believed to have committed murder who are nearby their territory.

Violent crimes that do not include murder could also be dealt with by vigilantes but vigilantes but might be dealt with in a less severe manner than for murder.  If someone intentionally stepped on someone else's toes without murdering them and a vigilante executed that person then other vigilantes might punish that vigilante for murder. 

There is also an issue in the current system of involuntary governments of if someone murders someone on international waters.  If someone murders someone on international waters then technically you might think they could get away with it because they are not in the territory of any specific government but in reality, instead of being hunted down by one government they might be hunted down by multiple governments.

Lacking a system on a worldwide scale would also mean no laws against stealing except in local voluntary government territories.  However there would also be no rule to prevent taking something someone else stole from you.

6F "Voluntary" Governments as Corporations or Companies on a worldwide scale.

The viewpoint of voluntary government is not necessarily related to the geographical size of governments for instance people might hire worldwide "voluntary" governments to provide security for them anywhere they live in the world and not only in a specific geographic location or territory.  People who do not hire a worldwide "voluntary" government would not have to pay money to that government but would not get the security service from that government.  Many Anarcho-Capitalists endorse such a system on a worldwide scale instead of a local scale but instead of calling the institutions people would hire governments they call them agencies, corporations or companies.  I might be misrepresenting their viewpoint because I am trying to fit this into a short paragraph and if you want to understand their viewpoint better please read, listen or watch material produced by Anarcho Capitalists about dispute resolution organizations or rights enforcement agencies and look into Anarcho Capitalist views on arbitration.  There is a book called The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman and a illustrated summary video called "The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary" about a section of this book by a youtube channel called "bitbutter" that discusses rights enforcement agencies as long as that youtube channel still continues to exist without being banned like so many other youtube channels.  I would like to point out that Lord T Hawkeye of youtube channel Terra Draca mentioned that even poor people could afford services from such a agency because if they could not afford to pay for such a agency they could join such a agency as a career which would give them enough money to pay for such a agency if my memory of his videos are correct.  Now let us say someone is not only poor but extremely disabled and to disabled to work for such a agency.  Some people who do not like other people beating disabled people without a valid reason would probably either volunteer to protect such a person or would donate money to such a agency to protect poor disabled people who can not pay for such a agencies protection.  As long as enough people in a society disapprove of beating up poor disabled people without a valid reason things will work out fine for a disabled poor person in such a society.  A common question would be what would happen if two people hiring two different agencies or two people hiring the same agency come into conflict.  The answer is that this type of problem has already been dealt with by automobile insurance agencies.  Automobile insurance agencies already have a system for resolving disputes when two people from two different agencies get in a car crash or two people from the same agency get into a car crash.  The automobile insurance agencies already have a process of arbitration for resolving the conflicting interests of both customers who both hired an insurance company and both want the other party to be found more at fault than themselves.  If agency A has customer A who is accused of trying to murder customer B who had a knife stabbed into his body but survived and customer B hires agency B one might think agency A will try to let customer A go unpunished and agency B will try to punish customer B and then the two agencies will go to war and end up killing a bunch of people.  But such an event probably would not happen because people in agency A would not want to be killed and people in Agency B also would not be killed so both agencies will try to figure out if customer A is innocent or guilty and if they agree they will punish him if he is guilty or let him go unpunished if he is not guilty and possibly also punish customer B if they believe customer B tried to frame customer A.  But if Agency A and Agency B do not agree on the guilt or innocence of customer A they could hire a third party who they both consider to be neutral to decide the outcome for them because hiring a third party to decide the outcome is better than a war.  If you think this is wrong or to simple other people have gone into this viewpoint in more detail than is provided in this book and you should look into more sources of information on this process.  I am not claiming this is the best or only way to resolve conflict but simply that you should look into more info about it from better sources if my explanation is not sufficient before concluding that it could never work.

https://www.youtube.com/user/lordthawkeye/about

https://www.youtube.com/@bitbutter/about

6G "Voluntary" Governments as collectives or communes on a worldwide scale

Such a agency could also work even in a voluntary communist community instead of a capitalist community in which each able bodied member of a commune is required to participate in commune security in exchange for commune services such as food and security.  Such less demanding security services such as look out duty can also be done by less physically able people in such a commune.  I am opposed to violently enforcing communism on people without their consent on a worldwide scale but do not object to people making their own voluntary local communist communities or communes.  Such a voluntary communist community could also be done on a worldwide scale instead of a local scale if people get to decide whether or not they are members of the commune and voluntarily participants are required to work to put food into the communally shared storage and to provide security for other members of the commune in exchange for getting food and security from the commune.  I endorse neither capitalism nor communism but prefer letting people decide the type of economic system they want to participate in.

6H Voluntary Governments and other services not related to security

Such services someone could choose to pay or not pay a government I have mentioned so for have been limited to security but also could include water, electricity and other things that people claim a government provides however I put the most emphasis on security because that is the primary thing people believe they can only receive from a government and not from any other organizations or institutions.  Construction companies build roads, and water and electric companies provide water and electricity and there are companies that own grocery stores which provide food, plus people can grow their own food, and hospitals can be owned by companies making none of these things require a government to function but people are not used to the thought of getting security from a institution other than the government.   Of course security companies exist but those are thought of as only providing security for corporations not individual people in our current society except perhaps extremely rich people.

6 I Nationalism of multiple involuntary governments is better than a single worldwide involuntary government

7 Optimal Government Violence Theory

Viewpoint of optimal level of government violence and the need to reduce government violence but not reduce it completely

Sum of the violence from a Government plus violence from non government sources is claimed to be minimized when governments have more than zero violence but less than some amount of violence that is considered too much too be optimal.  But in our current system in order for the current violence from any government source plus the violence from non government sources to be reduced the amount of violence the government does needs to be reduced by reducing the number and amount of things the government does. 

The argument is that violence and the threat of violence should be used to extract money to pay taxes for police, courts and the military and possibly certain other things like fire fighters but nothing more.  The claim is that without police and military the increase in violence from non police and military sources would be greater than the decrease in violence from not using violence to collect taxes to pay for police and military.  

An argument is also made that courts funded from a source other than taxes such as if people hired dispute resolution organizations or rights enforcement agencies instead of paying mandatory taxes to support a court system that there would be disagreements about court verdicts resulting in wars between dispute resolution organization or right enforcement agency security teams.  More about dispute resolution organizations or rights enforcement agencies will be discussed in the chapter on "International Anarchy"

Sure someone could just let people who refuse to pay for fire fighters to not get service of fire fighting but someone might argue that such a fire would spread to people who did pay for fire fighters if fire fighting was a optional fee and not a mandatory tax

The idea that there is a optional amount of violence greater than zero from a government in order to make the total amount of violence from government and non government sources as low as possible is promoted by Jan Helfeld in support of minarchism in at least one debate he had with someone who identified themselves as a anarchist if my memory is correct.

https://www.youtube.com/@janhelfeld/about

https://web.archive.org/web/20080830040457/http://www.janhelfeld.com/

https://web.archive.org/web/20221203061926/https://deletionpedia.org/en/Jan_Helfeld

Based on my memory of what other people said about Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand was claimed to promote minarchism with the argument that without a certain type of court system war would arise as already has been mentioned.  Jan Helfeld also made the same argument about courts if my memory is correct.

I am open to the possibility of this being true but believe this means we need less government violence not more government violence at least in most of the geographical area of the United States. 

There might be an exception for some areas of the United States where more government violence might be needed if this theory is true.  This exception might be in certain places where very violent foreigners have been deliberately allowed to enter and certain groups have been permitted to commit certain violent crimes and property crimes without prosecution in order to undermine the sections of the Bill of rights that restrict what the United States government as permitted to do to United States citizens.  One might argue that even in such areas more government violence is not needed but people merely need to be allowed to use defensive physical force to defend themselves against initiators of violent crimes and destroyers of property without being prosecuted.

In some places where warlords who are not officially called the government have more power than the government one might argue that these places need to have more government violence in order for the total violence from government plus non government sources to be reduced but again it might be argued that more government violence is not needed but people merely need to be allowed to use defensive physical force to defend themselves against initiators of violent crimes and destroyers of property without being prosecuted.  Having better trained and better armed non violent civilians who use defensive force against violence would be a better alternative in the long run in my opinion than increasing government violence to deal with warlords.

8 Viewpoint that we need more government power  or stricter government control

In order to get more or better quality services or reduce violence done by civilians or reduce problematic behavior from civilians some people advocate we should have more government power or stricter government control not less government or less strict government control.  I disagree with this viewpoint as something that should be imposed on the general public on a large scale.  If people want to have a more power government or very strict government control but only on a small territory that only includes people who agreed to the government having more power or stricter control I do not object to this.  

An example of a type of community in which the government provides more services that some would never want to live in viewing it as a violation of their rights but others might want to live in would be using a surveillance state to defend human rights instead of to violate human rights.  

I actually might want to live in a community where the government spies on everyone everywhere all the time to prove they did not commit crimes instead of a government that spies on people to prove they did commit crimes.  If a government surveils people all the time and only uses the information to prove people are guilty but keeps it unavailable to the victim of surveillance when they want to try to prove they are innocent or not guilty of something they are accused of this is very bad in my opinion.  However if everyone who is surveilled gets complete access to all footage of them being surveilled any time they want and are allowed to have their own back up copy they personally own of all such surveillance data this could be a good to protect the wrongfully accused.

I would like to point out that in the current worldwide slavery system all the governments recognized as legitimate by the United Nations would use their surveillance power to promote deeper levels of slavery instead of to protect the wrongfully accused.  I am not endorsing giving any government recognized as legitimate by the United Nations more surveillance power but only theoretically endorsing such a thing as potentially beneficial in a different type of society.

I potentially support the first six points of view depending on which definition of the words Government and Anarchy are used

Replace all six with the first six

In this book I will argue in support of all of the first six points.  Although I understand that some of the points may seem to contradict each other that is not because I believe in impossible contradictions but because there are different definitions of the word government.  Based on some definitions of government I support nationalism with "Voluntary Governments" of limited geographic size.  Based on other definitions of government I do not believe government exists at all.  Based on other definitions certain specific government States, Countries or Nations  do not legitimately exist.  And based on yet other definitions government is always unethical or should be minimized.  Based on certain definitions of anarchy and anarchism, I am an anarchist and based on other definitions I am not an anarchist.

I will try to provide in this book many disproofs of the existence of government based on what many anarchists have proposed.  I will also try to provide an argument for nationalism being preferable to a one world government.

Government or no government is not really the main issue that is important.  The main issue that is important is how people influence each other's behavior and what types of influence are ethical and unethical.  

I do not care if the person or group doing the influence is called a government, religion, corporation, family, friend, acquaintance, organization, institution or any other name.  I only care if the influence is ethical or unethical.

This book will reveal the connection between governments recognized as legitimate by the United Nations and unethical influence.  But will point out that if a true anarchist wants more freedom in the world it is not enough to deal with the issue of governments and unethical influence, one must also deal with the problem of unethical influence from all other institutions and organizations.

By governments recognized by the United Nations, I mean the list of all governments that get to vote or get special status to speak at the United Nations.  I mean governments that are labeled as really existing according to the United Nations as opposed to some government that someone just makes up a name and territory for that the United Nations does not recognize.  All Governments currently recognized as legitimate by the United Nations are fraudulent fabrications.

Preparing individuals and communities for economic autonomy to free them from organizations and institutions that use unethical influence on them but also provide them with material goods and services

There are many economic viewpoints within different schools of anarchism.  I do not believe in a one size fits all economic system but believe people should form local communities based on a shared agreement of what economic system they prefer.  In order to emphasize economic freedom I would more emphasis on making sure you and any friends you have, have the right skills and supplies and less emphasis on what economic system you would like in a theoretical future society.  You can not get the privilege of even choosing a new economic system until you eliminate the involuntary governments and replace them with voluntary governments or voluntary anarchist communities.  And in order to reach the stage of voluntary government or voluntary anarchist communities you have to survive the starve out involuntary governments will try to enforce on anyone trying to change the economic system.  So before you can even get there you will have to learn a means to acquire skills and supplies working within the current system imposed by a involuntary government and not working within your most desired specific type of economic system you hope to one day achieve.

People often think of receiving goods and services from institutions or organizations such as governments and corporations.  They use the material goods and services they receive as excuses to justify the unethical behavior of governments and corporations.  Since unethical governments and unethical corporations can withhold these goods and services at any time possibly resulting in death by starvation, dehydration, heat or cold exposure, lack of medical treatment or other means, in order to break free from economic control it is necessary for both individuals and groups of individuals that form a community to try to have an alternative means to get these goods and services that does not involve receiving them from unethical governments and unethical corporations.  Initially they can acquire skills and supplies from unethical governments and unethical corporations but they then should use those skills and supplies in new ways to get access to even more skills and supplies from other sources than unethical governments and unethical corporations.  For example you could get money to buy guns, ammo, seeds and land but then use that seeds and land to start growing plants and collect new seeds from the plants you grow so you can repeat the process.  Having the seeds and the lands makes someone less controlled by the government and corporations ability to withhold giving food supply to you.  Practically speaking this would not work for one individual to do because the cost of property tax might be more than the value of any food you grow on your property but once enough armed people in the same community grow food on their own property and refuse to pay property tax what are the unethical governments and unethical corporations going to do?  Cut your food welfare money which you don't need?  Attack an entire city of armed people with a greater population than number of police in the entire State the city is in?  Fire you from your job which you no longer need to pay for food because you already can grow your own food?  

You should only refuse to pay property tax if a large enough number of other people living nearby you also are armed, also refuse to pay property tax, also can grow their own food, have stored their own food and water and know how to handle things when the unethical governments and unethical corporations shut off their water, their heat or natural gas and their electricity supply in retaliation.  If you are the only person who refuses in your local neighborhood or you do not know how to handle them shutting off the things I listed, it will not work for you to refuse to pay property tax and will end in your arrest or murder by unethical government officials.  This only works if done with a large enough group that is properly prepared.

People should store items they might need if governments and corporations withhold supply of such items.  People should learn how to make items they might need if governments and corporations withhold supply of such items.  People should learn skills they might need if governments and corporations withhold supply of certain services.

It is not enough to store items you might need or to learn how to make items for yourself or to learn skills used to do certain services by yourself but it is of necessity to encourage other people in your local community to do likewise.  If you are the only person in your community that has food and governments and corporations have shut off the food supply then people will attack you for your food.  But if enough people in a community have each stored food and corporations or governments shut off the food supply then people from your own community will not attack you for your food because everyone has enough food.  In such a case people can also exchange food items if one person has a lot of grain but no beans and another person has a lot of beans but no grain for example.

It is not enough to store food you and a large enough proportion of people in your community must learn how to grow, cook and prepare food.  If you are the only person in your community who can grow food it will lead to violence against you when the food supply runs out if the government or corporations withhold the food supply.

It is not enough to know how to grow food but you and a large enough proportion of people in your community must have access to resources such as land, earth, ground, soil or some other plant growing medium as well as seeds or tubers, a light source and water to grow plants as food.  Tubers might include plants like potatoes that grow more potatoes when put underground.

More importantly than having stored food and growing food is having stored water and knowing how to access and purify water

It is not enough to learn how to defend yourself if no one else in your community knows how to defend themself and the community has stockpiled food because then people from outside the community will attack the community to get at the food supply in a large group and there will be no one in the community to protect you other than yourself.  It is not possible to defend yourself against a large enough sufficiently armed group of people as a single individual no matter how well armed or trained you are.  You have an obligation not only to learn how to defend yourself but to ensure people in your community know how to defend themselves and are sufficiently armed to defend one another.  Being sufficiently armed means people in your community being armed with fire arm weapons if they are likely to be attacked with firearms.  If you do not meet this obligation you will die or be enslaved. 

No amount of training in martial arts involving unarmed fighting or fighting with melee weapons can prepare someone sufficiently to defend themselves against firearms without using firearms, missile weapons or projectile weapons.  Melee weapons are weapons used in close distance fighting that are not missile or projectile launching weapons.  Melee weapons and non lethal weapons like tasers or pepper spray can not defend someone against someone attacking them with a firearm from a distance. 

It is better to persuade police, military or security people with military vehicles to join your side and defend your community then to try to defend yourself against such people who have military vehicles while you do not.  By military vehicles I mean things like military tanks and military jets and military ships or submarines all which tend to have armor and missiles, bombs or projectiles they can launch or shoot.

I will include brief chapters on nutrition and stockpiling food and other items

I will include a chapter on exercise because exercise is important for autonomy, health and the ability to defend oneself.  Which also is necessary for people in a community to know how to do

And a chapter on martial arts or self defense.  Unfortunately being armed with a firearm and knowing how to use a firearm is more important for self defense than learning martial arts so this chapter will not be very useful as it will focus more on aspects of martial arts that do not involve firearms.  

There might be a firearms training program you can participate in for your local city, village, town or suburb.  Some police officers in more conservative states might be willing to help you find such a program.  If you are in a state where police and or military officers are trying to seize all the civilian firearms but are keeping firearms for themselves then I would suggest to try to move to another state because police and military are more willing to violate civilian human rights if they are armed and civilians are not permitted to be armed in their geographic territory.  This does not mean you have to be in the most conservative state there is, just to be in one conservative enough to let civilians with no violent criminal record and no severe mental health problems who can aim properly and practice proper firearm safety to easily own certain types of firearms with little legal restriction.

You do not have to be armed with a firearm to benefit from other people in your community who want to protect you being armed with firearms.  Some people if they are extremely clumsy or have certain mental or physical conditions or certain issues they are dealing with or do not know how to practice proper firearm safety or have some barrier preventing them from practicing firearm safety might be better off without owning firearms but still benefit from other people in their community who want to protect them owning firearms.  Barriers to firearm safety might include not having a good place to safely store a firearm where other people like children or invaders can not access the firearm but you can also access the firearm if you need it.  Someone who does not know how to practice firearm safety should consider taking a firearm safety course.  It does not hurt to learn about firearm safety even if you do not own a firearm.

There are many skills that entire communities of people should know which I unfortunately do not know will enough to provide chapters on.  One should look into Maslow's hierarchy of needs to get an idea of what skills and items have priority for both individuals within a community to have and for communities to have.