GrumpyRabbit

Voluntaryist; financial trader; computer scientist; linguist.

I'm not here just to "question authority," I'm here to deny the legitimacy of its very existence!

The state is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The bigger, more powerful, and more authoritarian the state, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success.

Minds: https://www.minds.com/strategesis/
Telegram: https://t.me/Grumpy_Rabbit
Twitter: https://x.com/strategesis
Substack: https://substack.com/@grumpyrabbit/notes

Last Notes

2026-09-26 00:57:45 UTC

- reply

re: "Life is about using what you have to get what you need."
Exactly. I don't know of any AnCaps, Voluntaryists or libertarians who won't use state-maintained roads, or courts, or police, or public libraries, or just about any other public service, just because the (very illegitimate!) state operates and/or subsidizes them.
The correct solution to the Trolley Problem depends on what the stakes--and holistically-relevant consequences of the chosen action--happen to be.
To conflate actions that are intended as tactical with ones that are intended as strategic is a category error. It's logically fallacious to wrongfully equate voting for a candidate or policy for the tactical purpose of defending against encroaching tyranny with strategic (deontological) support for the state simply because, in general, support for a democratic republic is ethically equivalent to supporting the validity/rightfulness of having a monopoly provider of justice and security. Those are distinct categories.
The strategic/deontological position is about the intrinsic validity of the institution itself: the claim that a territorial monopoly on the legitimate use of force is not merely a contingent historical accident or a pragmatic necessity, but a rightful, principled feature of social order. Conflating the two collapses the distinction between:
* "I will use this lever despite its flawed design, because the alternative lever is worse in the short run," and
* "This lever's design is the correct one; the monopoly it embodies is ethically proper."
Those two stances belong to entirely different logical types. One is a judgment about outcomes in a non-ideal world; the other is a judgment about the ideal itself. Treating participation in the former as evidence of endorsement of the latter is like saying that a prisoner who files an appeal within the warden's rules thereby affirms the warden's right to imprison him. The categories don't touch.

2026-09-25 18:59:47 UTC

https://fixupx.com/strategesis/status/2103327218260988414
https://social.teci.world/media/8c9a5ae44b056dc929b810dad142f2293ac9e7ad5dce455e6eaf19d4ef702df8.png

2026-09-19 18:27:32 UTC

_Why Industry Giants Fear Dimash Qudaibergen_
The core function of record labels--or more precisely, of the entire system of record labels, producers, agents and distribution channels--is to serve as gatekeepers, high priests of allowable content, and of the artists who are allowed to create it. It's one of the key planks of the system's narrative/opinion control operations.
https://youtu.be/mP3OWjruHC4

2025-07-01 15:43:06 UTC

Anarcho-tyranny refers to a societal condition where the state fails to enforce basic law and order against serious crimes (anarchy) but simultaneously imposes excessive control, regulation, and punishment on ordinary, law-abiding citizens (tyranny).
The goal of anarcho-tyranny is to maintain power and control by targeting the compliant majority while neglecting or enabling more serious, disruptive elements within society. This dynamic serves to suppress dissent and maintain the status quo, often at the expense of individual freedoms and true justice.
The concept of anarcho-tyranny was coined by Samuel T. Francis. His “Leviathan and Its Enemies: Mass Organization and Managerial Power in Twentieth-Century America” offers a profound critique of the socio-political developments in the United States during the 20th century. Francis examines the rise of what he calls the “Managerial State,” a system in which power is increasingly centralized in the hands of a bureaucratic elite that manages both public institutions and large corporations. He argues that traditional structures of power, such as family, religion, and small businesses, have been gradually replaced by massive, impersonal organizations that exert control over society. These organizations, characterized by their focus on efficiency, control, and the management of social behavior, are not directly accountable to the public. This shift, according to Francis, has led to the erosion of individual liberties and the rise of a new ruling class that uses its power to maintain its own interests.
Within this framework, Francis introduces the concept of “anarcho-tyranny” to describe a paradoxical form of governance where the state simultaneously allows widespread disorder (anarchy) while imposing excessive control and regulation on law-abiding citizens (tyranny). In an anarcho-tyrannical system, the government fails to perform its fundamental duties, such as maintaining public order and protecting citizens from crime, while at the same time becoming increasingly oppressive in regulating the lives of those who adhere to the law. Francis views anarcho-tyranny as a mechanism used by the managerial elite to maintain power. By fostering a sense of insecurity and disorder, the state justifies its expansion of control and diminishes resistance from the populace, who are distracted or intimidated by the disorder.
Anarcho-tyranny is a favourite tool of the dystopian, totalitarian powers who are doing their best to use George Orwell's 1984 as a playbook. Orwell’s image of a “boot stamping on a human face—forever” is one of the most powerful and chilling metaphors in this dystopian novel. It vividly encapsulates the concept of unrelenting, oppressive power and the endless subjugation of the individual by a totalitarian regime.
This image is mentioned in 1984 during a conversation between the protagonist, Winston Smith, and O’Brien, an influential member of the Party who oversees Winston’s torture and re-education. When Winston questions the ultimate goal of the Party’s rule, O’Brien reveals that the Party seeks absolute power for its own sake, with no intention of creating a better or more just society. Instead, the Party’s vision of the future is one of perpetual dominance and cruelty, symbolized by the image of a boot crushing a human face, endlessly repeated.
The metaphor serves to illustrate the hopelessness and dehumanization that come with totalitarianism. It reflects the idea that in such a regime, power is not just maintained but is also exerted through the continuous humiliation, control, and destruction of the human spirit. The “boot” represents the oppressive force of the state, while the “face” represents the individual’s dignity, freedom, and humanity—all of which are trampled underfoot.
Orwell’s use of this grim image underscores the brutal reality of a world where the rulers are intent on erasing individuality and maintaining control through fear, violence, and relentless oppression. It’s a stark warning about the dangers of unchecked power and the lengths to which a totalitarian state will go to crush any form of resistance or dissent.
https://x.com/bill_c10/status/1827003445712421270
https://social.teci.world/media/77092a2b9ef3fed1ce6407df04618ac249f1ca6d6b5a6ddb2ead306766b4cfe3.png