译文/Translated：
最近我重读了哈利·布朗的《在禁锢的世界，如何找到自由》，这本书指导我们如何为自己的自由负责，如何避免各种心理陷阱，毕竟相比政府，这些陷阱让我们失去了更多自由。
文中有一个观点很突出：我们不应该大规模地组织活动。他的观点是任何一个围绕着自由的漏洞最终都会引起政府的注意，最终毁了这个漏洞。此外，组织这样活动最终都导致选出的领导人被罢免、集权的要点出问题、激励方有出毛病。
我们每个人都面临这样的选择：要么只关注我们自己的利益，要么就要花时间和精力去保证他人的利益,但自己往往要承担巨大的损失。过去的英雄牺牲自己让他人可能获得些许自由（至少故事这么说的）。有人可能会说，对于革命领导人，冒险/报酬只不过是简单的商业决策，他们会说为自由而战这样的义举不过是一种商业策略，目的只是吸引人们为此耗时、花钱、卖命。
这就是经典的囚徒困境。我们每个人都通过背叛同伴、通过让他们受罪而获益。哈利的建议是，除非我们能从为一个陌生人牺牲，甚至死亡，中获得幸福，否则，我们就应该背叛他人，考虑自己的利益就好了。这也是博弈论建议。
我们现在的问题是我们没办法让我们的同伴因为背叛负责。毕竟，如果每个反对糟糕的政府决策的个体都能拒绝执行该决策，它自然就会停止。如果他们能够主动冒着失去时间和金钱的风险捍卫他人，这种抗议就更有用了。
遗憾的是，除非你一无所有，否则并没有什么激励机制能让你为他人冒生命危险。
还有些系统让人们能够利用一种不公正的保险形式组织起来捍卫彼此。如果个人被政府攻击的可能性足够低，那么他们参加这样的保险项目就能抵消这种危险。操作这样的系统要求自己内在的管理，但这种管理是可能出问题的。除此之外，登记的数据库就记录了以群反抗运动的成员，而他们可能只是因为参与了活动就可能受到系统性的惩罚。
比特币创造了一个独特的机会增加货币自由，它把各种刺激有机结合，让用户感受到隐私、拥有获益的机会、有意愿传播这种好事。所有这些刺激都被结合在一起，鼓励用户为了自己的利益参与进来。
政府花了十年的时间才意识到这个威胁，但是现在所有人都盯着加密货币，规则自然就随之变化。中心化的系统本来的目的是方面联系代币买卖双方，但系统不是匿名的，运营商被迫识别用户身份。最近，它们还被迫执行政府对某些用户的制裁而不能上诉。
最糟糕的事情是，区块链依靠具有公共端点的公共网络运行，个人如果提供设施便利价值转移，他们就会被这些端点识别。哪怕是想保证交易隐私的区块链也不能确保接受和分配交易的节点的隐私，更不能保证促成钱包软件分配的网站的隐私。
公共区块链网络的存活只能寄希望于某些国家能够从物理上捍卫节点操作者。哪怕这些节点在某些法律中能够安全地运行，这也不代表用户和节点间的网络服务提供者可以把流量路由到节点。
诚然，总有办法绕过互联网审查，但同样正确的是，对于大众来说，这些障碍可以做得非常高。这就让公共区块链落入灰色市场的管辖范围，参与带来的回报足以抵消风险。但也可能，公共区块链最终成为透明的基础设施，最终也要执行所有的政府决策。
比特币这类的加密货币还是可能继续存在，但是用户会发现他们在比特币上能获得的自由可能和他们在现存的银行系统上的相差不多。如果银行因为讨厌你的生意不给你开户，哪怕这些生意完全合法，那么交易所很可能也不给你开户，你的比特币地址就进了黑名单了。还有可能矿工会被迫审查你的交易，或则他们就要面临失去他们购买这个硬件投入了巨额资金。
请注意，在社会动荡时期，这些绝望的政府做的第一件事就是封锁互联网。除非你能够控制网络设施和硬件平台，否则你的有效通信就会被切断。如果你依靠IOS应用，下次你联网的时候，所有的应用都可能被远程删除，或者苹果可能简单地在你的二进制文件上抹去签名，这也是最近它对脸书和Google干的事。
自由的成本高
如果你希望能够不受干扰地自由追寻自己的兴趣，你就得尽量不依靠全球市场。如果你（或者你所处的小社区）不能保证自己的食品供给，那你就不能自由。如果你依靠网络获得收入，那你就不自由。能否获得这份收入依靠的是外在环境是否允许你的事业。
最大的自由来自自给自足。但是，这种自由的代价就是极低的生活标准。如果地球上没有其他人类威胁你，那这就是你能获得的生活标准。
但显而易见的是，哪怕我们有能力，大多数人也不会想过这样的生活。我们都希望能够在自愿的基础上和他人合作。合作能带来专业化分工，增加效率，但代价是可能产生的相互依赖性。只要我们赖以生存的商品和服务的供应商不断以及/或者我们能够自己生产这些商品，那么我们就可以保持自己的独立性。
市场效率最大化会消除重复和效率低下的产品生产，但是它增大了相互依赖性和脆弱性。我们要自由，就要承担过剩的商品和服务带来的成本增加以及/或者效率低下的生产方式。
进口关税
进口关税的作用使当地效率低下的生产方式相比外国商品更有成本效益。国家可能选择购买外国食品却失去了自己经济独立性，进口关税就用来解决这种囚徒困境。毕竟，失去了经济独立性的国家就把自己的主权拱手让人了。
假设荒岛上有两个人。刚开始两个人都培育食物，但是其中一个生产效率不断提高，那么这两个人就可以以物易物，把其它商品和服务拿来交换食物。最终，其中一个人就会失去培养食品的能力，并且/或者依靠的食物量是他们自己无法培育出来的。如果有剩余食品可以用来交易，食品生产者也有其它物品和服务的需求，那这个安排可以和平地延续下去。
最后，在价格谈判时，食品生产商就获得了极大的杠杆。
对进口商品征收高额关税的国家非常重视自己经济的独立性。这样的国家对于全球经济情况都不太敏感，其民众和邻国一般也能够相对和平地相处下去，前提是它的邻居不是依靠出口产品存在。从这个角度来说，在另一个国家依靠你的服务之前，如果能够征收出口税，那它就鼓励你邻居的独立性、阻止战争。
本地卖给本地的生产商都喜欢进口税，因为他们都想赚钱。当时本地的顾客就讨厌进口税，因为这个税收要求他们为社区的独立性买单，继而增加了他们的生活成本。
现在的问题就在于如何分配进出口税的收益？政府希望所有的收益都能被官员和政治家管理，这样才能实现自己的社会政策。但我的建议是等式中就不应该出现任何政治游戏，这些收益也应该从流通中去掉，或者应该以长期债券的形式支付它们。这就会鼓励资产投资的增加，而增产自才能增加当地生产、降低价格。
大量小社区的价值
依赖的市场越小，你拥有的自由就越多。一个证据是现在可供选择的小市场数量比大市场多。如果你依赖手机技术，最终你都依靠两大服务商，谷歌和苹果，这两个服务商反过来又主要依赖几大主要的硬件生产公司。
想取得具有成本效益的出售价格和出售量，iPhone就需要全球市场，这样它投资在工厂的资本才有价值。这就意味着生产者的数量有限，如果你靠这些技术赚钱，那你就失去了自由。你再也不能自由地选择你的生意要怎么运作，因为如果苹果或者谷歌讨厌你的商品和服务，它们就可以孤立你。又因为谷歌和苹果受到世界各大政府的限制，你就只能指望这些政府有好心肠了。
社交媒体上也是一样的。如果你依靠脸书或者推特和朋友家人联系，那如果哪天它们因为讨厌你的政治观点想终止你的服务，你就只能指望它们能发发慈悲。
可能最糟糕的就是你的邮箱了。这是你网络身份的核心，也是无数网络企业和你联系的方式。如果你依赖第三方管理邮件（比如谷歌、苹果、微软、或者你的ISP）来维护这个重要的联系渠道，那你就失去了自由。
只要看看中国的社会信用体系，你就知道依靠这些能够被法令切断的商品和服务带来的危险。你就只能沦为任何政府瞎想的奴隶。
如果某些产品和服务只有一个来源，减少对它的依赖
所谓自由，就是你有能力独立行动，或者有说“不”或“我退出”的权力。如果你关心这样的自由，那你就应该试着保证你的食物、住所、衣物、社交网络能够弹性应对外在依赖。有手机没问题，只要没有手机你也能过得开心就行。用外地生产的耐用品也没毛病，只要它们真的耐用，买不到的时候你也有时间适应其它替代品就行。
或许你应该偶尔自己演习，看看没有某个商品或者服务你能或多久。如果你没有定期不用某些科技，你都不会意识到你的生活有多依赖这个技术。
我们给自己创造了一个基于即时库存管理，流媒体、即时通讯的文化。如果我们的自由要依靠它们持续运作，那上述种种就减少了我们的自由。我们越依赖这些服务，我们在市场上和与政府的谈判能力就越低
钱或许是我们依赖的最重要的东西。几乎每个交易都有一大半有关钱。只要可以我们应该想办法发行自己的货币，或者用当地货币，或者用金银交换。我们只要是用非当地货币进行交易，我们就把自己的自由转移给非本地的金融系统。如果这个非本地的金融系统决定终止我们的服务，那我们就失去了和邻居贸易的方法。
这个问题上没有完美的解决方法，但只要可以，我们应该支持当地企业，它们也支持着其它当地企业。通过利用本地货币在本地交易，我们就增加了本地的独立性。
建立一些分散的网络社区似乎是一个很好的方法组织世界各地想法相似的人；不幸的是，我们这个世界中，大科技公司都被迫要打击通讯自由，这种世界中，这样的社区和其中的个体都无法生存。
你会为了舒适放弃自由吗？
有这么一个故事：有个人想打些野鸭养家。他会带着枪跑到当地的池塘打鸭子。如果运气好，鸭子还没飞走他就抓到了鸭子。但是如果他运气不好，鸭子听到了声音，那还没等他开枪，鸭子都跑了。
后来，他发现这样一只只抓鸭子太累了，他就带了些面包开始喂鸭子。鸭子们后来就相信这个人，也就忘了怎么自己觅食。慢慢地，这个人可以随意接近鸭子、抓住它、带回家吃。
只要我们选择免费的面包而不是自己去觅食，我们就可能沦为这样鸭子。我们越是依赖，就越是肥胖，于是当政府来收割我们的时候，我们就飞不走了。
所以每天只要可以，我们就应该自己（或和一小群人）觅食，这样才能增加长期的自由，如果只是接受这些免费的午餐，我们也就只能增加短期的舒适。对于某些人来说，每天吃得到面包吃一年，死亡不过短短一瞬，这样的生活比一辈子都在寻找自由好得多。有人选择吸毒获一时爽快，哪怕一辈子毁了也无怨无悔。
没有谁是一座孤岛，我们今天享受的富足是社会其他人相互依存的结果。其关键是，我们要保证对于我们所依赖的任何产品，我们都能够拥有无数相似的产品和服务的来源。如果我们只依赖于少数几个来源，那我们就要被奴役了。
这就是谷歌、脸书这样的公司和政府学到的事情。如果政府在食品、水源、住房、交通、电力、通讯、医疗上实现垄断，那么他们可以为所欲为，要求几乎所有人都言听计从。跳船、然后放弃生活依赖的服务其成本太高。此外，你，和消费者，不再支配获得的服务。想要健康的食品？太糟糕了，你只能获得无菌消毒过看上去像食物的玩意。想要轻便的柴油车？太糟了，只能买到昂贵的电动车。想要废除互联网审查？不好意思。想要线上购物不留痕？你没这运气。
这不单单是免受腐败的自由，这还和弹性应对自然和市场环境有关。太阳耀斑可能干扰全球电力系统，可能导致大规模饥荒。地震要是发生的地方不对可能会摧毁重要的工厂。新出现的真菌可能杀死大片的单一庄稼。如果所有的人类都依靠某个单一地区生产的商品和服务，那么如果这个地区出现问题，所有的人类也要跟着遭殃。
生活中你到底需要什么
马斯洛的需求层次论认为我们需要基本的食物/住所/衣物，然后是安全/保障，其次是爱/归属，最后是自信和自我实现。对我来，现代很多科技反而分散我们的注意力，不让我们取得自我实现的目标。似乎我们的生活是建立在低质量的食品之上，然后我们的健康也受到问题，似乎我们的友谊变得数字化，人和人之间的关系不再紧密。
任何有趣的生活的第一个条件是你的健康。这来自优质、干净、营养丰富的食物、一个干净、温暖的住所和健康的社区。对于大多数来说，高质量的地方社交网络、当地生产的食物、住所和衣物都能提供一个更加的开心的生活，这不是依靠数字社交网政府发放的食品券、建立的公房能够比拟的。
自由的代价很高，但是由此实现的生活质量却是无价的。
真正的去中心化需要的当地的解决方法，而不是全球的网络。
原文/Original：
I recently re-read “How I found Freedom in an Unfree World” by Harry Browne. This book provides a wonderful guide on how to take responsibility for your own freedom and avoid various mental-traps that deny us far more freedom than governments do.
While I was reading it one thing stood out, the idea that we shouldn’t attempt to organize with others on a large scale. One of his points is that any public organization around a freedom loophole draws government attention to the loophole and eventually ruins it for everyone. Furthermore, all such efforts to organize create leaders who can be taken down, points of centralization that can be corrupted, and a misalignment of incentives.
Each of us is left with a choice to look after our own interests, or expend time and energy, attempting to secure benefits for others at great personal cost. In the past people have given their lives so that others might have some freedom (or at least that is the narrative). Some could argue that revolutions are lead by those for whom the risk / reward is a simple business decision and that justifications such as fighting for freedom are merely marketing tactics to attract donations of time, money, and blood to the cause.
This is the classic prisoners dilemma. Each of us profits by defecting and letting our fellow man suffer. Harry’s advice recommends defecting and looking after our individual interest, unless we derive happiness by sacrificing, even to death, for anonymous strangers. This is the strategy that game theory recommends.
The problem we have is an inability to hold our fellow man responsible for defection. After all, if everyone who was against a corrupt government action refused to participate in its enforcement then it would stop. If they proactively risked their own time and money to defend someone else then it would be even more effective.
Unfortunately there is no incentive to risk your life for your fellow man until you have nothing left to lose.
There are systems by which individuals could organize to defend one another via a kind of injustice insurance. If the probability of any individual getting attacked by government was low enough, then people could offset their risks by participating in the insurance program. Operating such a system requires its own internal and corruptible governance. Furthermore, the enrollment database creates a list of the resistance movement members who can be systematically punished for merely participating.
Bitcoin created a unique opportunity to increase monetary freedom that aligned incentives in such a way that gave users the feeling of privacy, the opportunity to profit, and the incentive to evangelize. All of the incentives were aligned to encourage individuals acting in their own self-interest to participate.
It took governments 10 years to realize the threat, but now that all eyes are on cryptocurrency the rules are changing. The centralized systems that were set up to facilitate connecting buyers and sellers of tokens are not anonymous and their operators are compelled to identify their users. More recently, they have been compelled to enforce government sanctions against users without appeal.
The cold hard truth is that blockchains depend upon a public network with public endpoints which can identify the individuals who provide the infrastructure that facilitates value transfer. Even blockchains that attempt to secure the privacy of transfers are unable to secure the privacy of the nodes which accept and distribute transactions or the websites that facilitate distribution of wallet software.
The only hope for the survival of public blockchain networks is the existence of countries which will physically defend the node operators. Even if the nodes are able to operate safely in some jurisdictions, it doesn’t mean that the internet service providers between the users and the nodes will be allowed to route traffic to the nodes.
While it is certainly true that there are always ways to route around internet censorship, it is equally true that for the masses the barriers can be made far too high. This leaves public blockchains the purview of grey-markets where the reward to participate is sufficient to justify the risks. Alternatively, public blockchains will simply become transparent infrastructure upon which all of the government’s rules will be enforced.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin will likely continue to exist, but users will find that they have no more freedom with Bitcoin than they do with the existing banking system. If banks won’t give you a bank account because they dislike your perfectly legal business then exchanges will likely decline to give you an account and your Bitcoin addresses will be blacklisted. It is likely that miners may even be forced to censor your transaction or risk losing their significant investment in hardware.
Remember, one of the first things desperate governments do during social unrest is turn off the internet. Unless you control the network infrastructure and the hardware platform your ability to communicate effectively will be cut off. If you depend upon an iOS application, then that application can be removed from your phone remotely the next time it connects to the internet, or perhaps Apple will simply revoke its signature on your binaries like it recently did to Facebook and Google.
The High Cost of Freedom
If you want freedom to pursue your interests without interference, then you need to minimize your dependence upon the global economy. If you (or your small community) don’t control your food supply, then you cannot be free. If you depend upon the internet to generate an income, then you are not free. Your ability to continue generating that income depends upon ongoing government approval of your business.
Maximum freedom comes from being self-sufficient; however, the price of this freedom is a dramatically lower standard of living. This is the standard of living you would have if there were no other human beings on earth to threaten you.
Obviously, most of us wouldn’t want to live that way even if we had the capability. We all prefer to cooperate with others on a voluntary basis. Cooperation allows specialization and increased efficiency at the cost of potential dependence. We can maintain our independence so long as we have multiple suppliers of any good or service we depend upon and/or retain the ability to produce the good ourselves.
Maximum economic efficiency eliminates redundancies and less efficient means of production, but it maximizes dependency and fragility. The price we must pay for freedom is an increased cost of goods and services provided by an array of redundant and/or less efficient means of production.
Import Tariffs
The effect of import tariffs is to make local, less-efficient, means of production more cost-effective than foreign-produced goods. An import tariff attempts to solve the prisoners dilemma where the individual members of a country choose the foreign good at the expense of the economic independence of a country. A country which loses its economic independence loses its sovereignty to other countries.
Imagine two people on an island. Initially they both forage for food, but one of them becomes more efficient at producing food. The two agree to start bartering and exchanging food for other goods and services. Eventually, one loses their ability to forage for food and/or becomes dependent upon more food than they could forage for themselves. This arrangement can exist peacefully so long as there is surplus food available to trade and the other goods and services are in demand by the food producer.
The food producer ends up with extreme leverage over the other party in price negotiations.
A country that places high tariffs on imported goods places a high value on its economic independence. Such a country would be largely immune to global economic conditions and its people could enjoy relative peace with their neighbors so long as the neighbors did not become dependent upon the products it exported. From this perspective, an export tax encourages the independence of your neighbors and discourages war so long as it is imposed *before* another country becomes dependent on your services.
Local producers selling to the local markets like import taxes, because they can make a profit. Local consumers dislike import taxes because it raises the cost of living by forcing them to pay for community independence.
The question becomes how should one distribute the proceeds of import/export taxes? Governments want all the proceeds to be managed by bureaucrats and politicians to pursue their social policies. My recommendation is to remove all political games from the equation and remove the proceeds from circulation or pay them as interest on long-term bonds. This will encourage the accumulation of capital investment necessary to increase local production and bring prices down.
The value of Many Small Communities
The smaller a market that you depend upon, the more freedom you have. This is evident by the fact that there are more small markets to choose from than there are large markets. If you depend upon cell phone technology, then you are ultimately dependent upon two major providers, Google and Apple which in turn are largely dependent upon a couple major hardware manufacturing companies.
It takes a global community to produce iPhones at a cost effective price and volume to justify the capital investment in factories. This means there will be a limited number of producers and if you come to depend upon this technology for your income then you have lost your freedom. You can no longer freely chose how your business will operate because if Apple or Google dislike your product or service then they can cut you off. Since Google and Apple are subject to the various governments of the world, you are now dependent on those same governments good will.
The same rules apply to social media. If you depend upon Facebook and Twitter to keep in contact with your friends and family, then you are at their mercy if they decide to cut off your service because they dislike your political views.
Perhaps even more disturbing is your email address. This is the heart of your online identity and the means by which countless online businesses communicate with you. If you depend upon 3rd-party managed email (like Google, Apple, Microsoft, or your ISP) to maintain critical channels of communication then you have lost freedom.
A look at the Chinese social credit system demonstrates the risk of relying on goods or services that can be cut off with ease by an edict. It makes you a slave to every conceivable government whim.
Minimize Dependency on Single-Source Products & Services
If you care about your freedom, defined as ability to act independently or simply say “no” or “opt out”, then you should endeavor to ensure that your food, shelter, clothing, and social network are resilient to external dependencies. It is OK to have a cell phone, so long as you retain the ability to live a happy life without it. It is OK to buy durable goods that are not produced locally so long as they are durable and redundant enough to give you time to adapt if the durable good is no longer available.
Perhaps you should attempt a dry-run, see how long you can live without a particular good or service. If you don’t periodically fast from technology then you will not realize how your life has become critically dependent upon its presence.
We have created a culture based upon just-in-time inventory management, streaming entertainment, and instant communication. Each of these optimizations reduces our freedom if our freedom comes to depend upon its ongoing operation. The more dependent we become on these services, the less negotiation power we have in the market and with our governments.
Money is perhaps one of the most fundamental things upon which we depend. It is half of almost every transaction. Wherever possible we should seek to issue our own currency, or use a local currency, or barter with gold and silver. Anytime we use a non-local currency we transfer our freedom to a non-local financial system. If this non-local financial system decides to cut us off, then we have lost our means of trading with our neighbors.
There is no perfect solution, but where-ever possible we should attempt to support local businesses that also support other local businesses. By trading locally using local currencies we increase our local autonomy.
Building distributed online communities seems like an appealing way to organize like-minded people around the world; unfortunately, these communities and the individuals within them are unable to survive in a world where the major technology companies are coerced to crack down on freedom of communication.
Will you Trade Freedom for Comfort?
There is a story of a man who tried to hunt wild ducks to feed his family. He would go to the local pond with his shotgun and attempt to sneak up on the ducks. If he was lucky he would get one shot before the ducks flew away. If he was unlucky the ducks would hear him coming and fly away before he could get a shot off.
After a while he got tired of the amount of work required to catch a single bird so he found some bread and started feeding the birds. The birds gradually came to trust the man and forgot how to forage on their own. In time the man could walk up to any duck, grab it, and take it home for dinner.
Every time we choose the convenience of the free bread over foraging for ourselves we risk becoming sitting ducks. The more dependent we become, the fatter we get, the harder it is for us to fly away when the government comes for its pound of flesh.
So each day we have a choice, forage on our own (or with a small community) and increase our long-term freedom, or accept the free bread and increase our short-term comfort. For some people, a year of daily bread followed by quick death is better than a life time struggle for freedom. Some people choose to do drugs for the quick high, even if it destroys their life.
No man is an island, the abundance we experience today is a result of our co-dependence on the rest of society. The key is to make sure that for any product we come to depend upon that we have effectively limitless competitive sources of similar goods and services. If we allow ourselves to become dependent a small number of sources we become enslaved.
This is what companies like Google, Facebook, and the Government have learned. If they can get a government enforced monopoly on food, water, shelter, transportation, electricity, communication and health care then they can demand anything and get obedience from almost everyone. The cost of rocking the boat and getting cut off from the services your life depends upon is too high. Furthermore, you, the consumer, are no longer in charge of the services offered. Want healthy food? Too bad, you get a steril-food-like-substance. Want a light weight diesel car, too bad, you get an expensive electric car. Want uncensored internet, sorry. Want to shop online without being tracked, you are out of luck.
It isn’t just about freedom from corruption, it is also about resilience against nature and market conditions. A solar flare could disrupt global power systems and lead to mass starvation. A poorly placed earth quake could destroy critical factories. A new fungus could kill the vast mono-crops. If all of humanity comes to depend upon goods and services produced in any single region, then all of humanity becomes vulnerable to a localized disruption.
What do you need in life?
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs says that we require basic food/shelter/clothing followed by safety/security, followed by love/belonging, followed by self-esteem and self-actualization. It seems to me that much of modern technology is a distraction that does not build one up toward self-actualization. It seems that we have been building our lives on top of low-quality food, which leads to poor health, and our friendships have become digital and disconnected.
The number one requirement for an enjoyable life is your health. This comes from having good, clean, nutrient rich food and a clean, warm place to live with a healthy community. For most people, a quality local social network, combined with locally produced food, shelter, and clothing will provide a much happier life than a digital social network living on food stamps and government housing.
The price of freedom is high, but the potential quality of life realized is priceless.
True decentralization requires local solutions, not global networks.
原文链接/Original URL:
