The main cause of the restriction of personal rights in the modern era is compensation for technological advancement...

The main cause of the restriction of personal rights in the modern era is compensation for technological advancement and avaliability of information, more specifically the increased potential influence of the individual. If you lived before telecommunications existed (and especially before the invention of the printing press and the post) you basically had no idea how to do anything (other than the obvious: sowing crops, tending to crops, harvesting crops, etc.) without acquiring an apprenticeship, assuming you weren't a part of the nobility or aristocracy. Information had a much higher price per unit, and because you're a un-specialized feudal serf, you could neither afford it nor care about it, and doubly so you probably wouldn't have the money or access to the proper resources to use it correctly. Cut to today, where you could conceivably design a bomb (thanks to the numerous references avaliable online or at your local library) build it (thanks to the now-relatively wide selections of substances offered by supermarkets and online websites) and mail it to someone discreetly. Let's take this a step further. If you had the money, and there were no laws prohibiting you, how hard would it be to build an atomic bomb in your own house by yourself? I don't think it would be naive to say that you could theoretically complete a design within a few days and have the proper materials within a few weeks. Now, imagine you had to do this a few centuries ago. No matter how much money or immunity you had, you would still have to INVENT the bomb yourself due to lack of information, and then SOURCE things yourself due to lack of suppliers. (who is selling 1.32 moles of isotope-z in 1642?) The minimum cost and effort required would far exceed what is required for an individual today.
For a more mild example, how easy would it be for a single individual to perpetuate "harmful" (society-destabling) information? With our global meme networks (social media) and knowledge of human psychology, a task like this would be considered trivial.
As technology, commerce, and technique grow more powerful, so does the individual - a kind of more lethargic, fatalistic Moore's law. One man can kill hundreds with a small portion of his salary and a squeeze of a trigger. The same man can kill millions with a few dozen salaries and the tap of a button. Imagine what the world will be like when we find the next hydrogen bomb - the next most powerful exothermic reaction. What will the world be like? Perhaps it's time to pay attention.

So basically anarcho capitalism is the only way to not be cucked for being too smart?

Actually, the opposite of that.
He made a case for an Aristocracy and keeping the masses ignorant in a lash.

Not very difficult, its just that you would be stopped before you discovered and had physical proof nuclear bombs are fake.

Your pic is for ants

Hence why I said "to not be cucked"

If you prefer to descend into savagery due to societal collapse, sure.

Why contain it? Let it spill over to the schools and churches. Let the bodies pile up in the streets. In the end, they'll beg us to save them.

Reinstalling fuck you

To create then an Aristocracy with the masses ignorant in a lash?

Yeah, but it's up to you to decide whether you want to do that in your own city state. Some people just want to be nigger cattle, but they shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us.

It's not up to me or you, but to those who have the guns.

Unabomber was an autistic brainlet

Don't worry leftysoy, I might let you live under my protection if you grovel hard enough
Cuckchan begone

It's not a case for anything. It's just explaining a trend.
Although it does pose a strict dicthonomy between anarcho-primitivism and totalitarian-futurism.

Go on with your fantasies then.

But user, I can't do that unless government is abolished and we switch to a purely ancap "society". There's no level playing field when (((they))) decide who can and can't make nukes.

And yet no one is setting off nukes they built in their basement and most shooters fail to kill even a dozen people.

I agree with everything except the first sentence. They restrict personal rights because THEY CAN. They just like controlling people. It's always been like this since civilization existed,

Interesting point. I've often wondered if there is a sequence of data that a person connected to the internet could send which would case the end of the world, or other extreme calamity. I'm inclined to believe it must exist, it's only a question of how complex this information would need to be.

Why am I so sure it exists? The easy case to imagine is that there is some nuclear missile system, or even some subordinate component for which a serious vulnerability exists. Say perhaps you managed to trigger an early warning system which resulted in an automatic retaliation. More complex, would be a virus which infected a telecom system, and subsequently delivered the exact voice signature of a world leader to all the necessary generals required to commence an attack. You can use your imagination for other scenarios, but it's reasonable that such a theoretical data sequence exists.


none of that matters
back in the day you could disseminate terrible information and on the contrary it would fuck up the place and there would nobody there to debunk it
what this is really about is consolidation of sources under somebody who wants to be the arbiter of truth but cant contain whats happening
back in the day that was easier, now they need to micromanage

This would be a valid point EXCEPT for the fact that people back then only responded to authority (the church or the crown) and people didn't have such a fetish for sources and "logic" (IE even if they couldn't debunk you, they would still ignore you) and basically the average serf had no influence on the noosphere. Galileo was "right" but that didn't save the church from whooping his punk ass.

Learn to crop ya goof

Some of that stuff is very believable but it's mostly
If you believe in a single ((("power that is"))) entity there's an amount of attributed power and competency you have to give the conspiracy so it actually makes sense. Just like how it wouldn't follow that retards are pulling the strings behind everything (because otherwise hoe could they be so effective) it wouldn't make sense that superhuman godlike entities are behind everything (because otherwise how could they be so ineffective). If you really think about it, the most realistic thing happening is that "the conspiracy" is probably run by a group of people only a few standard deviations above the normal person in terms of IQ, and the tech they have access to is probably at most half to a full decade in front of the curve. Not too powerful or smart otherwise we wouldn't be seeing the massive disruptions and inconsistencies in "the agenda", but not too dumb or impotent otherwise the general population would have already found out.

smells like FUD

Yeah, mostly. I don't think it's intentional on the part of the capped poster though, likely just the misinterpretation of data.

Nah. The restrictions really only started to crop up post-9/11, and that wasn't caused by technological advancement, that was caused by muslims and the people that let them in.

Evidently untrue. Shooters are good when they get into the double-digits, let alone triple.

Let's say your idea is correct. What's your proposed solution? Become Amish? Go full China?
If there isn't anything you can do against it, what's the point?