I mostly agree with you, but let me say one thing about your idea of pushing away the resources.

I think the most important factor is to have a good education system, which not necessarly has to be government, it could be a privatized wonderful system.
...

And believe it or not, but in my highschool aswell you had to ask for permission to go to the toilet, seriously. A 17-18 year old almost graduate student has to ask for permission from the teacher to go to the toilet at 18  

...

And you see this small thing , the asking of permission to go to the toilet, in adulthood results in things like:
-asking the superior (state) for a driving permit to drive cars
-asking the state for a fishing permit to fish
-asking the state for a bulding permit to build a house
-asking the state for a gun permit to carry a gun
-asking the state for a business permit to let you sell stuff in your business
etc....

I mean statism has almost become a religion, it's the religion of the 21st century. Now i`m an atheist myself, but i have many christian friends, and i also grew up in a christian household, my country is very religious.

And even though religion starts to lose power in the western world, it's influence finally starts to diminish, more and more atheists are coming out, and leaving religions [but running directly to the State or other new delusion].

...

However this is only 1 victory, the 100.000 year old beast (religion) finally is on its deathbead, a new beast has risen up, an even more ferocious beast, which is only 5000-6000 year old and has already caused more harm in these brief 5000 years, than the religion has ever caused in the 100.000 years.

The new beast is called the state, and its almost like a religion, an anachist has called it the religion of the 21st century, whereas many new atheists, despite the fact that they reject an invisible God ruling over them, they easily accept another invisible God ruling over them as the State.

Because the State fits almost every definition of a God:
-omnipotent: definitely, in the sense that it rules over all of our lives and can do whatever they want
-omnipresent: yup, mass surveilance, TV and Media propaganda, it's in your house, you neighborhood, and your mind
-omniscient: yes, it thinks that it knows everything,thus it makes you follow it as it thinks that it knows everything better than you do
-omni-belevolent: definitely not, but funny because even the christian god has comitted genocide and its depicted as belevolent, so the state comitting genocides in the 20st century, yet in every media its depicted as the wonderfuly protector of the nation
-invisible: yes
-requires worship: oh yes, definitely
-rewards the obedient and punishes the wicked? : yes, good statist drones get government aid, bad statist drones go to jail
-requires blood sacrifices: yes from time to time it requires people to sacrifice their lives to it: wars
-requires your money: yes its called taxes
-has earthly representatives: yes its called politicians
-has a place of worship: yes, its called government building or parliament building
-requires people to pray: yes, people protest before a state building to get more welfare
-wants to control our lives: yes, it infiltrates everywhere and wants to control every aspect of your life
-promises you good stuff but never gives you any: yes, before every election you are promised better wages and welfare, but after the election you actually get more regulation and taxes
-does it have inquisitors: yes government agents eliminate the heretics
-does it tolerate heretics: no
-does it like atheists: no, it punishes them with jail in some places
-does it like if you worship another God: no, it considers it treason
-does it commit genocies: yes, throughout the 19 and 20 centuries many examples are well known
-does it like gay people: no, in many european states they ban gay marriage
-does it like abortion: no, in many european states they ban abortion
etc...

So you see, the state is exactly as if it were a God like in the bible, but the big problem is that although the bible god doesnt exist, unfortunately the state God exists. And it's just like a cult, some people would die to protect it, and they are very fanatics.

(apologies continuing the religious topic which was only on topic to the extent that political and religious collectives are argued to be self-serving delusions that can be manipulated by those entrusted with leadership or controlling roles, e.g. the ministers and politicians)

The breaking point for me was recently someone I've known since 2007 telling me that Tribulations will begin Sept 23, 2015 and massive death and suffering globally by 2019, which corresponds to Armstrong's (non-religious) computer model of massive global implosion and global pandemic by 2019. I just can't fathom a God that will save 144,000 (or even 144 million) and send the rest of the humanity into eternal excruciating pain with open sores on their body. It sounds too similar to CNN's Ted Turner's Georgia Guidestones' inscription proclaiming to reduce the population to 500 million totalitarian eugenics. I was forced by that challenge to think clearly and make a decision. No more standing with one leg on each side of the fence.

The Bible's psychological profile will appeal to people who do not want to think clearly. Typically they have some psychological handicap which causes them to need this delusion. In my case, I think I was drawn to it because of love of and loyalty to those who subscribed to Christianity, the failure of my marriage, death of my relationship with my father, murder of my only full blooded sibling sister, the loss of vision in my right eye, and then being infected with incurable high strain HPV which lead to the decline in my health. I guess I wanted to believe there was still something to feel positive about in spite of all the failures in my life. But falling into that delusion actually made my behavior worse. Rather than dealing with my depression, I covered it up with a nebulous mayonnaise. It is very important to be proactive about depression and attack it by accomplishing happy and positive actions using clear thinking so we don't just haphazardly wander into self destruction.

The temptation to choose sides
 Posted on 2014-12-22 by Eric Raymond

One of the most unfortunate social behaviors of human beings is that in the presence of any dispute, they feel a strong need to choose a side. And then stick with it, even when their chosen side behaves very badly.

...

Self-sacrifice as hacker-culture glue
 Posted on 2014-12-24 by Eric Raymond

...which argues that onerous religious requirements are effective ways of building in-group trust because they are commitment signals that are difficult to fake.

It occurred to me to wonder: do hackers do this? And…I think we do.

One thing we sacrifice as a commitment signal is time. Software engineering and the support tasks around it are notorious time sinks, and working on open-source projects readily expands to fill up every free waking hour you have. The results are visible as code and commit volume.

Admittedly, it’s hard to disentangle the extent to which this is an intended commitment signal from how much we love what we do. But maybe this isn’t such a problem as it appears; religious people claim to love their group observances too, and appear to be truthful in this at least some of the time.

The question, then, is how much of the quasi-obsessive, apparently overcommitted behavior of hackers comes not from the obvious primary rewards of creative work but from a desire to signal in-groupness. I don’t know the answer, but now that I’m considering the question I’m pretty sure it’s not zero.

Note that this is a different mechanism than seeking reputation for the quality of one’s work. That comes from results, whereas the commitment signal comes from investment.

And, er, why play for in-groupness and peer trust? Well, I point out that my blog regulars recently threw nearly three grand in donations at me so I could build the Great Beast of Malvern, on which I am typing now. I think we may reasonably suppose this had something to do with peer trust.

The Great Beast is an extreme example, but there are rewards of peer trust less obvious and more common, such as the ability to recruit help for projects you need done.

Another thing we frequently sacrifice is earning capacity. Yes, there are plenty of people nowadays who have good jobs writing open-source code – but then, there are plenty who don’t, too. At least some are voluntarily forgoing more lucrative employment at closed-source shops. Principle? Possibly. Commitment signaling? Also possibly. As I never tire of pointing out, all interesting behavior is overdetermined.

Because I am an honest rationalist, I am now going to point out a significant problem with this theory. A straight-line analogy with Iannaccone’s type case of mainline protestants vs. evangelicals suggests that the hard-core self-sacrificers and fundamentalists in the hacker community ought to be gaining adherents at the expense of more moderate and inclusive tendencies.

This is not the direction in which the community has been moving since the early 1990s. Yes, yes, I know, as one of the “moderate” thought leaders and a strong advocate of inclusiveness I might not be considered entirely disinterested here…but I always believed I was liberating a pent-up demand rather than bucking a trend in the opposite direction, and history seems to have borne out that belief. Our fundamentalists certainly talk like a beleaguered minority…

There are a couple of possible explanations. One is that Iannacone’s theory is, despite its superficial plausibility, broken – he has somehow mistaken accident for essence. Another is that despite the apparent similarity in behaviors there is some fundamental difference between the psychology of religious believers and hackers that means his insights are true about the former but do not map over to the latter.

The possibility that I think is both most interesting and most likely to be true is that Iannacone’s theory is correct but incomplete: the rigorists only win if in-group signaling is the most important consequence of rigor, and not generally if there are other instrumentally rational and sufficient motives for those behaviors. In the hacker culture, we ship software; we do things that have useful results. And ultimately we judge by those results; “Show me the working code” easily beats “Show me your sacrifice.”

A related point is that fundamentalists are almost by definition worse at building coalitions with people outside their in-group than moderates are. That may be an acceptable handicap for an inward-facing religious group, but to the extent that hackers need to play well with others to get what they want, that requirement gives our moderates an advantage.

Overall, while I think the application of Iannacone’s ideas I’ve sketched is descriptively very plausible, there is one final problem with it. It’s not very generative. I have not yet identified a testable consequence. Perhaps one of my regulars will notice one.