They'll come for you, too
Interesting to note that the bank in question didn't loan out its money but instead made its profits on transaction fees. Also to note, the bank's primarily conservative investors are out their $65 million. Can we say legalized THEFT?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 10.
"1. The American Revolution (1775-1783): The 13 American colonies, with their decentralized system of government and militia, overthrew the centralized British monarchy. This led to the formation of the United States of America.
2. The French Revolution (1789-1799): The decentralized and radical groups of the French people, such as the Jacobins and the sans-culottes, overthrew the centralized and oppressive monarchy of King Louis XVI. This led to the establishment of the First French Republic.
3. The Russian Revolution (1917): The decentralized and organized Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the centralized and unstable Russian Provisional Government. This led to the establishment of the Soviet Union.
4. The Cuban Revolution (1953-1959): The decentralized and guerrilla tactics of Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement overthrew the centralized and corrupt government of Fulgencio Batista. This led to the establishment of a socialist government in Cuba.
5. The Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989): The decentralized and widespread protests across Eastern Europe, coupled with the weakening of the centralized Soviet Union, led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the eventual collapse of the centralized Communist governments in the region."
I don't know of these work though... maybe?
Examples of decentralized systems are everywhere.
The Internet is an example of a decentralized communication network. Initially, there were some centralized variants but they died out.
Internet censorship doesn't work because of the way Internet works. I would say that is a win for decentralized systems.
BitTorrent completely overpowered all copyright infringement enforcement.
One thing I will add is that centralization is supported by the predatory entities because it is easier to take over a single point than a million. So, I suspect they promote centralization, then take it over and begin their predation.
Bitcoin is somewhat workable as it is. I pay people with it. It works as a medium of exchange, based on my personal experience. However, it lacks some of the properties that money should have. I see that as something to improve on, not an indictment of the whole idea.
One issue is that it is used in a predatory way (ponzi scheming / pump and dump / etc).
The limited number of coins thing is also an issue. Coins/tokens need to be tied to physical property that actually exists. Minting new coins should only be done when such property is created. Destruction of the property needs to lead to removal of coins from circulation. USD was supposed to be tied to quantity of gold, according to US constitution. That fits better with my preference, however, I would still prefer that it would not be limited to just gold. Any property should do, provided that it doesn't depreciate too quickly or measures are taken to remove tokens from circulation as the property depreciates.
I have a whole unique theory of money. If you guys are interested I can talk about it.
How does 'single algorithm' or 'constrained/limited number of "coins" validated against a fixed infrastructure' points cause Bitcoin to be centralized? I am not seeing it.
Also, what do you mean by 'validated against a fixed infrastructure' exactly?
When I say something is decentralized, what I mean is that it has no entity that has arbitrary control over it. An algorithm is not an entity. Limited number of coins doesn't seem to have anything to do with control.
Blocks are added by an unpredictable entity based on rules that everyone agrees to follow. Failure to follow the rules leads to rejection of the block and waste of your effort. Developers of the software can't do stuff that the community rejects, this will lead to forks as was demonstrated before. I am sure things can be improved, but I would say Bitcoin is pretty decentralized.
My secondary goal is try to convince you guys of my hypothesis. If I am successful in that, it would allow me to gain additional confidence in the truthfulness of my theories. I may then attempt to do it on a bigger scale, which would be required if I am to help us out of our current predicament (being a slave to the state).
The point I was trying to make was that you guys haven't presented any "logical challenges" to my "anti-state ideology" that I wasn't able to counter successfully, at least in my opinion.
"They are a bunch of children, trying to survive, desperately, and very badly."
Unfortunately many of them will never reach cognitive maturity.
The current emphasis on "feelings" especially in the education community, is not helping. Some few people seem to be able to think logically on their own. Others need to be taught. The schools, in many cases are teaching the opposite.
I think it no small observation to also note that a productive society is also a happy society and moral society because people are principled: hard-working, self-controlling, etc. and therefore have little need for extensive formal government. On the contrary, if society has a large number of free-loaders, formal government grows in order to be able to confiscate (tax) from the producers in order to administer (bureaucracy) and distribute to the looters.
"Eventually, some great culling event will take place, such as a civil war or something else."
Agreed. The producers can only support a looting society for so long before its own weight causes its dissolution.
"Your story about patriarchy is nice and peaceful, however..."
It's not necessarily nice or peaceful, but it is accurate. Peace happens when the producers are in charge of society. War happens when the looters are in charge. To me, its that simple.
It's you who has to convince us, not you convincing yourself...
"There are decentralized systems..."
Bitcoin is still centralized in that it has a single algorithm and a constrained/limited number of "coins" validated against a fixed infrastructure. There is also the little problem in that it isn't really recognized as legal tender... You'd have a better argument if you could show an example from history where a de-centralized system overthrew a centralized one. I can't come up with a single example...
...there is no valid government. Your theory only works in a universe consisting of one and only one sentient being.
"My view is that no rational person would support [government]."
Government immediately comes into existence with the introduction of a second sentience into the universe. Government is nothing more than that agreement between two or more sentient beings regarding their interactions, i.e. what is acceptable and what is not. There are certainly multiple forms of government, but you take the (frankly) perverse and ridiculous stand that all government is immoral - this despite the fact that you support the Golden Rule (which is nothing more than a societal governing statement).
I suggest that the reason you can not "understand" is because your argument is an inherent contradiction and can't be understood, and these as a direct result of your definitions. You will only find understanding when you adjust your definitions to match reality.
I have thought about this for a long time. I came to the conclusion that most people are crazy. My observations are of a completely delusional society. There is not much logic to people's behavior. I feel very lonely in the world full of crazy people. Maybe I'm crazy myself.
I haven't received a single argument from you guys that I can say with confidence destroys my position. By the way, I wouldn't say I am 'anti-state', more like 'anti-predation, with the opinion that the state is the most powerful predator'.
"You can't fight organized crime with disorganization."
There are decentralized systems that can exist that can take on the centralized ones. Bitcoin seems like one example. I have some proposals that I may put forward if you are interested.
I think your take is very naive.
Those 'envious and power-hungry' are actually what I would categorize as predatory. They don't hate free people, they see them as prey.
I would agree with most of what you said, however, I think you are missing the 'predation' part of the story. In fact, the understanding seems to be missing in most people.
Let's think through this logically.
You can make a living by producing what you use, or you can make a living by taking it from someone else who produced it. Prey exist by producing. Predators exist by taking. This can be easily observed in nature. Would you not agree this dynamic can exist in human communities?
My hypothesis is that the predator/pray dynamic exists front and center in societies. Some societies may have a small amount of it, which is when they undergo a civilizational boom. Eventually, predators increase in number and lead to downfall. War is what usually happens in the end (either a civil war or an invasion). War is attractive to predators because it is their business to rape and pillage. The interesting thing is that most predators get killed in a war, so, the society returns to a more sustainable level of predation and is able to recover for a time.
Think about this. When society produces more than it consumes, the amount of wealth grows. Then, it becomes more cost effective to steal, so, people start stealing and stop producing. Then, wealth decreases, eventually leading to widespread poverty. Eventually, mostly everything is gone. There is nothing for the predators to do but to either kill each other over scraps or switch to being productive again. Where am I going wrong with this logic?
My view on US is that some productive people left Europe and settled in North America. Their low predation levels allowed them to 'rise into the greatest nation the world has ever known'. However, US seems to have peaked around 100 years ago and it seems to be on the decline ever since. All of what you see around you is are symptoms of increasing predation. Eventually, some great culling event will take place, such as a civil war or something else. Most predators will either die (due to the lack of prey) or switch back to being productive. The only way to avoid it is to understand the source of the problem and resolve it.
Your story about patriarchy is nice and peaceful, however, nature is brutal. My view of it is that government is mafia and war is the business of the predators. Maybe in the beginning you might have a non-predatory government. However, eventually it will get taken over by predatory elements. You can put a lipstick on a pig all you want, but you will end up getting screwed anyway.
I wouldn't define a statist that way.
In my use of the term, a statist is one that supports centralized government control over the population. There are a number of attributes of this government, one being a monopoly on force.
So, I would consider most people to be statist, not because they want to be statists but because they have been brainwashed into it. My view is that no rational person would support such a thing. The logic behind my opinion on statism seems pretty straight forward to me, which is why I am frustrated when you guys don't seem to understand it. I might be wrong, but I just don't see where.
It doesn't matter much how the power is seized. You can do it by proclaiming to be a dictator or you can do it by proclaiming representative democracy. The end result is the same: you put a gun to people's heads if they don't agree with you.
"You either make the deal or you kill each other."
That is the quintessence of "might makes right..."
You absolutely can and for exactly the same reasons.
Life is all about learning the laws of the universe and gaining the ability to control ourselves, ie to live in harmony with those laws. But we don't start with that understanding and most people live their entire lives without mastering self-control or gaining a perfect understanding of the universe. We are all children in comparison to the total knowledge of the universe.
Can we learn from the mistakes of the past? That's a huge part of what we have in societal law! We know what has and hasn't worked historically! Just as a parent tries to warn his/her children about what works and what doesn't, what causes pain and what doesn't, etc. societal leaders (moral ones anyway) try to pass along those same things to others and frequently codify them as laws. Really, most of what laws are is that attempt to pass on to future generations the learning of those who have already "been there, done that."
"As an adult, I have agency already. I don't need some filthy parasitic state to tell me what to do."
Whether you choose to take advantage of the wisdom of others is completely up to you. You'll experience all the bumps, bruises, and broken bones along the way of refusing, but it will still be completely your choice. You still seem to be unable to differentiate between being able to choose something vs facing a consequence for that action.
Explain to me what you mean by freedom. In particular, explain to me whether or not freedom means being exempted from the natural results of one's choices or being able to determine consequences independent of choices.
Uh... Universal reality of necessity includes the rules of the universe such as the law of gravitational attraction, the speed of light, Euler's constant, etc. If the universe existed and humanity was derived from it, physical reality and universal law are the same thing. You're trying to assert that moral law is different than physical law. They can't be unless there is something which transcends the universe. Even then, you'd have a "god" which somehow created a universe and its laws but somehow violates those laws. That doesn't make any sense either...
"Punishment doesn't make any sense logically..."
Punishment is there to attempt to alter human behavior and for no other reason. (If it isn't to alter behavior, it's just torture.) The goal is to encourage rebels to conform back to societal norms. Without laws (and their enforcement) to discourage misbehavior and punish nonconformity, you don't have society - at all.
"The whole thing can function perfectly fine without "power" to tell other people what to do."
Again, societal contracts specify acceptable conduct and punishment for violations. Without a mechanism for identifying, adjudicating, and punishing violations, there is no real society.
Think about retail theft. If you're the shop owner, you're losing money. If you rely solely on "market forces," you'll be out of business before the day is out.
This isn't about anything other than the agreement to cooperate between entities with agency.
If there is an agreement, it is on equal terms. Nobody gets special privileges. Hence, the golden rule.
There doesn't need to be any commonality, except possession of agency by the entities and the ability to communicate.
I don't see any conundrums. You either make the deal or you kill each other.
A child does not have the ability to make rational decisions. The parent has to make those decisions for the child. Society (for now) has agreed to allow children to be slaves of the parents because that is likely in the interest of the child anyway as they don't have full agency yet. However, that is a temporary situation and would be resolved in a short period of time.
As an adult, I have agency already. I don't need some filthy parasitic state to tell me what to do. Also, when is the time of my graduation? Never? WTF?
That is not what I was trying to say.
My understanding of anarchy is that it is total freedom. It is the lack of being forced by violence to adhere to some arbitrary rules that someone else set.
There is no victimhood mentality with this. I don't understand why you would say that.
I mean, if you force me by using a gun to do something, I would be a victim in that case. But I am going to likely fight back if I think I can win. The trouble is, you statists like to create uber powerful authoritarian organizations, so, it is rather difficult to fight against those. So, I have an ax to grind against not only those authoritarian organizations but also you guys.
Load more comments...