I mean by this is; in chess an opening move defines a lot.
Though, I do not play chess well. I just learned the moves and
some basic strategies.
There are some 'game theories', that are used in military tactics,
in economic tactics and competition, and politics.
Some people developed game theories, and they got a Noble price for it.
It is about mathematic modeling of an outcome. It uses probability on
What are the possible outcome? What is the probability of those outcomes?
It is a mathematical probability based on practical experience.
And there is a preferred outcome.
Doing the same thing, expecting a different result, is the definition of
insanity by some people.
The art of war, and the art of martial competition seems to be a fact of life.
In judo; when the referee stops the game and I see the ceiling; means
I probably will not get a winning point.
The whole game cannot be fully anticipated from the beginning, but there
are optimum moves. That means if the opponent is pinned to the floor,
and the opponent is having a difficult time to breath because my bodyweight, it is not the time for me to panic. Same way in chess, if I
take the queen of the opponent with my pawn, that is not a time for me to panic.
There are probably optimum moves in seasteading too.
The way, I see it, is for me, it is not good to go into dependent relationship
to start with. I would lock myself into a dependent interaction if that
interaction is not on the base of equality. So, I do not want to be a king,
nor a denizen.
The libertarian idea of, the one who commits violence first is in fault, seems
to be an important one. The violence can be in the form of deception also.
I stopped going to judo competitions, because I do not want to win or
dominate over another human being, and I do not want to be dominated either.
Though on higher levels, even in judo the purpose is defined as:
mutual benefit with minimum effort at maximum efficiency.
And Games People Play for domination, and that means some dominate,
and others are dominated.
I see libertarian ideas as anarchist ideas, as humans are equal beings,
and the one who dominates is in fault, specially when the one dominates
with violence. I see deception as a way to violence.
I see deception as an everyday thing. I see it as an addiction.
In an addiction, the person who is addicted is always the last person to
know his own state of mind. It is called: denial. (I am not! in denial!)
But, please read the small print. Why is it small? The small print is small,
so at the end of deception, it can be said, see it was disclosed.
And it was made small with the intention to make it more obscure.
(an opening move)
And again, I am not in the Nile, the Nile is a river in France.
And the libertarian ideas for me is, human interaction on agreements,
with no deception, for mutual benefit. (disturbing thought: sometimes it sounds like sex, I do not want to be an arbiter for others in that).
Anarchy, for me, means that no central authority of one man over another.
(women too). Anarchy for me, is about natural order, and natural laws.
Anarchy for me is not equal to chaos. Rather, I think that, human domination leads to chaos.
I hate philosophy, and I do not like religion either. Politics is just something I simply do not understand.
And I had enough of writing this.