Bitcoin Forum

Is this all down to the populations of sovereign nation states having control of their countries means of production ?

Or is it down to a global and deregulated free market facilitating gross monopolistic accumulation ?



It would take the worlds richest man, Carlos Slim, 220 years to spend his fortune - and that, at a rate of $1,000,000 per day - according to the latest report on wealth inequality from Oxfam (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/oct/29/oxfam-report-220-years-richest-man-spend-wealth).


This is all down to socialism.

Isn't it ?

Yes, the richest men historically have snuggled up next to the evil socialist leaderss to steal from the people.

That is state socialism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state%20socialism). There is also anarchist communism (http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction).

I just can't stop imagining how you can spend 1,000,000 in one day? Everyday. In your whole life!

Really 220 Years
Slim may as well just invest in space development and build a personal gundam fleet with some Space Ready Ships
(They can build the lightdrive and put it in later) Find other uses for them in the short term.
Then to top it all of create the worlds first mass driver for sending objects to outer space
Begin the space colonizing age slowly and start with the moon and acquire any resources they need there to make Plants (Giant space colonies ^_^)

Put it on one of the Lagrangian points, to allow human habitation in space. The interior of each space colony usually replicates the surface of the Earth and the colony simulates gravity by rotating.

Enter CE Era (Cosmic)

Better yet, he could pay down the debt that's propping up his "wealth." ;)

It is socialism.

All the forms of socialism except one place the power of the many into the hands of the few. The few are those in governments who direct the "property" of the everybody to be distributed evenly across society. What really happens is that the property of the many is distributed into the hands of those who are in government. Why? Because government people act in trust. But they can't resist the wealth. So they break their trust, and steal the wealth of the people. It always happens this way in the long run, and most of the time in the short run.

The people of common law countries - United States, Canada, the UK, India, Australia - don't realize what they have in the common law. The common law operates the ONLY kind of socialism that works - voluntary socialism. What is voluntary socialism? This is where the people own the property, individually, and they voluntarily, as each sees fit, donate the property to the poor.

Socialism is gradually taking over the common law in common law countries. How is it being done? The people are being trained out of their knowledge of common law in the public schools.

It's about time that the free people in ALL the common law countries, start to wake up to the fact of what they are losing, and start to re-learn common law, and then to use it to maintain ALL their property and ALL THEIR RIGHTS!

One of the best places to look on the Net for what common law is all about is http://1215.org/, and particularly http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/introduction/index.html. One of the best teachers about how to practically use common law can be found here http://www.broadmind.org/, here http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/, and here http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html.

Let's wake up before we lose the world to the socialistic schemers who want to control everything, the superrich and the governments of the world.

:)

(Who's the propagandist?)

(Emphasis mine.)

(Perhaps it is he that would promote the sustenance of State?)

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/photo/s1919a1.gif

The primary philosophical advocate of capitalism, Ayn Rand, was completely opposed to the accumulation of wealth by snuggling up to socialist leaders.

I guess she was more a anarchist capitalist than a crony capitalist...

Thats got to be photoshopped  ::).

When would Trotsky ever be seen dead with Freddie Mercury or Axel Rose ?

GTFO

You can not blame socialism for creating income inequality. Even in times when socialism was a shadow of what it is today 1870-1900. You had the robber barons and massive income inequality.

What socialism does is protect such entities from competition that might otherwise destroy them. Socialism allows such monopolistic growths to cease innovating and and simply survive as parasites on the population.  

Our problem is not socialism but our underlying fractional reserve based economic system. Socialism might work just fine in an economy with honest money, were fractional reserve lending was outlawed, and where government was required keep a balanced budget and barred from issuing debt.

The problem with any such dream system is its tendency to naturally decay into what we have today. In today's world socialism is simply the tool finance will use to steal the wealth of the upper 51-98% of the population. The bottom 1-50% has already been mostly wiped out by fractional reserve, debt, and usury.  
  

Yep, blame the system, not the people.
What kind of a replacement to FRB would you suggest btw?

It is all the same.

"Leaders" taking power from people to build up their own power so that they have more power to take more power from the people. That is what it all boils down to...over and over throughout history.

What excuses are your leaders giving to gain more power?

An honest and ethical banking system would operate without any fractional reserve money creation.

Banks should have two kinds of deposits.

1) Deposits that are not lent out but kept for immediate withdraw. Banks should be required to keep 100% of these on hand and would charge the depositor a fee for this service.

2) Deposits that are lent out as loans. This money once lent would not be available for withdraw and the interest paid on the loan would go directly to the depositor. The bank would take a fee to administer the loan and identify appropriate borrowers.

Combine this with an honest currency. This could be gold or better yet cryptocurrency something that is non fiat with an inflation rate of population growth rate + 1-2% a year.

Common law socialism is a term I coined. It may be that others have coined it as well.

Common law socialism is different than any other form of socialism. It is socialism only in the sense that the people have complete freedom to "socialize" or not, and when and when not to do it.

Common law socialism is not capitalism. Capitalism, at its core, suggests a movement towards fascism. How? Those who are smart will gradually own more and more property. They will use the wealth of their property to gradually control everything and everybody so that they gain more wealth. Common law allows people who feel oppressed by capitalism to be able to step out of it without any detrimental action being done towards them or their property for doing so. Advanced capitalism would stop such stepping out.

Ayn Rand was right in her ideas of freedom, but wrong in her lack of common law.

:)

Would a rich person be able to pay them not to step out of it?

Yes, but he wouldn't be able to force them to take the pay and step out.

The United States is set up under common law. But with the IRS tax, and the Obama welfare, the people are almost forced to accept the pay.

The thing about the U.S. is that the common law is built into it in such a way that people can stop paying the income tax, and there is nothing that the government can do about it. The hinge point that gives the government the power is, the people don't know how to stop the government, although it is right in the basic law, the Constitution and the Preamble.

To start learning - it's going to take more than ten minutes - see http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/introduction/index.html. Once you start getting it, see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw for the practical application.

DON'T JUMP INTO ANYTHING THAT YOU SEE IN THESE SITES, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

:)

They say that they want to force you to pay for the sick (moral attack if you don't want), but to face the truth, all is about creating big pool of money for those unable to provide values to others to leech. Why should I be forced to pay money to the health issues of my amish gay smoking pot&drinking booze while playing poker in a dry town friend? Do you want me to restack him even? I don't get it... And how do you think it sustainable? Shall my friend be forced (reconditioned) to not drink, smoke and gamble? would be better for him anyway  ::).

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying. And perhaps I don't understand what you mean.

Nobody is forced to pay the IRS. All people who remain ignorant might be forced to pay the IRS. Remaining in ignorance is not a requirement. That's what the links I referenced are about - and other things, like freedom to smoke or not to smoke.

The common law of the United States offers, maybe, a hundred times the freedom that the people are exercising. The people would like to have the freedoms. But they simply don't know how to do it. Start by reviewing the links I entered.

:)

I will, thx a lot    :D

The fact that the current law has been superseded by the concept of precedent has erased just about anything in the Constitution.  If someone were to put the pieces together that (for example) found that the third Amendment actually disallows eminent domain for building military bases, the fact that it has been done for hundreds of years would mean that a precedent has been set and that it is now legal. Even if it is un-Constitutional.

And the fact that the law has been superseded by the concept of precedent comes down to the fact that the people with the power and the guns have deemed it so. No amount of pointing at the Constitution can change that.

The Constitution was created to justify giving power to a new group of people...or more accurately, minimizing the resistance due to the thought that the new people in charge will be more fair in their use of that power than their predecessors.

Only the civil section of law has been influenced in a strong way by precedent. The fact that new precedent can be set that overturns old precedent shows that precedent isn't as important as one might think.

The old is just as strong as it ever was. All government officials are required to take the Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution has two parts: 1) the civil part; 2) the common law part, which supersedes the civil part.

The only effective precedent against common law is the precedent of ignorance among the people. This ignorance precedent has been propagated and promoted by certain puppet government people, and by their string pullers. Yet, the original common law is there for anyone to use. That's why the jury nullification issue is receiving a lot of attention these days.

To see the school training in civics that we are missing (because government is trying to push us entirely into civil law), don't just peruse, but rather absorb everything at http://1215.org/. And when you have understood a reasonable amount of it, go here http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw and here http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da for some of the best practical application of it - common law.

:)

EDIT: Don't misunderstand about common law. There is a common law in the civil part of government. This is what precedent is. There is also, original common law. This is the common law of the people. It is NOT precedent law, even though the results of using it can change over time.

The people's common law makes us all kings and queens with regard to our property. Fourteenth Amendment people are subject to civil law, and are subject to the knowledgeable common law wielder. Which one do you want to be?

(Emphasis mine.)

Often, what is being referred to as “socialism” above is actually state socialism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state%20socialism).

(Emphasis mine.)

And, there are incompatible, anarchist alternatives.

A lot of countries today could be structured better (https://rgeo5wj7gneidzh3.onion.lt/government#content).

If you are living alone, without anyone else influencing your life at all, not even to the extent of ever seeing anyone else, do you have a State? Isn't your State your informal state of mind?

If you are living with other people in "a horizontal network of voluntary associations," don't you personally have two States? One is the State of your voluntary association. The other is the network of associations.

Isn't a State really a written down, or otherwise recorded, set of rules - even laws - regarding associations, especially when those rules include things and operations that are not natural?

For example, the border between two adjacent counties (States) is often an immaterial one. There is no visible natural landmark that would tell you that a border is there. The border is determined by surveys. The surveys are written down so that we can keep accurate records of the things that we would forget otherwise. This makes the State artificial. It is a State of Mind when someone reads the record.

:)

(Underling mine.)

Within anarchism, a “State” is a non-optional hierarchy.

Any time you have an association of people, you have a State. Even if you live alone, and there are no other people that you EVER come into contact with, you are a State. The only time the State dies is when all people die.

:)

Trying to claim sovereignty by using the system is futile and can only buy you time. Power is the only thing that can make kings and queens.

However, as is the case with groups of friends, one does not, necessarily, have a “non-optional hierarchy” (that is, a hierarchy wherein one “must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke . . . imposed from above” [Marxism…]). A yoke imposed upon oneself by oneself does not hail “from above” (Marxism…), whether it is imposed for the sake of a “common good” or one's “own good.”

I would agree.

In the United States, either you are one of the people - those who are above the government - or you are a citizen - a 14th Amendment citizen, under the government as a slave with certain strongly enforced privileges, but essentially no rights.

Personally, I would rather be a "people" (which word is singular as well as plural) than a citizen. As a people, I am subject to harm and damage laws rather than all the stupid, picky, little laws that the nation and the States want to impose - like driving laws and taxes, etc.

:)

socialism is understood that considers all of the ownership of this world is shared ownership, no private rights exist in socialism, private ownership is taboo in socialism, so it will be very difficult to understand socialism to have privacy.

This understanding is very difficult to be applied to the idea of democracy, the idea of democracy is still recognizes that there is privacy on the individual person, but between democracy and socialism have in common one considers that the voice of the people is the voice of god ...  ::)

If we use the Constitution and the courts the right way, we have the power of kings and queens.

Did you know that the courts are open 24/7? Did you know that you can sue the off-hours magistrate if he doesn't come to your aid at your request any time of day or night?

Knowledge is power. Find out how to use the court as your court. If you are wronged, make a claim against the wrong-doer in court. If you are being sued, but you know that you are innocent, convert the suit into a counterclaim for wrongful claim against you.

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's Talkshoe.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.

http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.


Other Info

http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.

http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness."

:)

By the way, "Power is the only thing that can make kings and queens" belongs to Elwar. But I agree.

I have no idea what are you reading but individual ownership is consistent with socialism since Marx wrote that post-capitalist society would entail the rebuilding of associated social individual ownership.

Both socialism and liberalism are democratic philosophies.

A lot of confusion there. As the previous user said, you can have personal property in socialism and you can most certainly have privacy. What you can't have is private ownership of the means of production. Workers would own and manage their work places. And production would be directed for consumption, and not for gaining profit. In this sense, socialism isn't incompatible with democracy but simply a different way to run a society, while trying to minimize inequality.

I agree with your assessment, but I think the reason you don't see strong state socialism in a strong democracy is that the state is too corrupted in such a situation. Those with power are seldom (if ever) in the same boat with the people they make the rules for, but with state socialism this disparity is even less tolerable since the the point of the system is to share the means of production much more equitably than ever happens.

I sort of agree. If you look at the Soviet Union for example, it was pretty far from what a socialist society is supposed to be. Workers had no control over means of production, or much of anything else really. It was more of a totalitarian state. But you have to remember there are several ways to achieve socialism, not just through state socialism. Libertarian socialism for example, specifically rejects the idea of using existing state structures to achieve socialism, tries to avoid large concentrations of power, and instead focuses on more direct forms of democracy.

Democracy IS a large concentration of power. Democracy is where the 51% or more rule over the 49% or less. At least they think that they do. What happens is that there is a small group that promotes a so-called democracy vote in such a way that benefits the small group over everyone else.

Formal - big "L" - Libertarianism might promote anything. But TRUE libertarianism - small "l" - promotes the simple common law of the people. This common law is, "Complete freedom as long as you harm no-one or damage his property." The only exception is that there may be completely voluntary associations formed, and inside those associations there may be some form of " association government" that is not entirely libertarian, but it is always voluntary.

:)

Romanticism about "harm" and "property" will not surmount those ills most often attributed thereto: there is no harm without tyranny, and only a despot may retain property.

Try socialist soda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2F9SckkeM4

It seems that most people have a difficult time in finding the basic, bottom-line ideas surrounding much of anything. The libertarian idea which is, bottom-line, the golden rule, is only the basis. It is the goal that should be looked at in all kinds of operations, personal or governmental. In complex situations, there will be complex governmental operations. The libertarian goal should remain the thing strived for.

:)

For these, then, your “golden rule” is my “tyranny,” and your “libertarian” is my “despot.”

Small "l" libertarianism, the REAL libertarianism, simply stated is similar to the Golden Rule. At its core, libertarianism is, "harm nobody, don't damage his property, and fulfill all your agreements." In all else there is freedom.

God made the world as big as it is so that people can be free without encroaching on someone else. Get out of the big cities.

:)

Then by that token, small "S" socialism is the recognition that through cooperation in building and maintaining social structures a better quality of life in society can be achieved relative to a more free-for-all commonly associated with libertarianism.  That was the sole basis upon which I was once willing to call myself a 'socialist'.  Yes, it does indicate some level of transfer of wealth, and yes I was (and still am) a proponent of that for technical reasons I won't get into right now.

What happened is that we got Socialism in almost all societies, and most assuredly here in the 'Land of the Free.'  Big time.  It grew under a framework of corruption because the corrupt siphon off value flows.  That is the engine which drives it, and I'm wondering (with horror) if it is the ONLY engine which can.

My big problem is that there is no end-game but totalitarianism with the Socialism we've cultivated in the West (and, frankely, everywhere else in the world through the ages.)  Here there is no other end-game that I can realistically see.  Much safer and to just have Anarchy and build upward into a better state than to try to ratchet downward from modern Socialism into one which is a dubious proposition at best.  I believe that this would likely happen fairly quickly because Anarchy (or even genuine Libertarianism) would be so awful for so many people.

[/quote]


Being an atheist I don't buy that suggestion in it's presented form.  Being science minded (and logical) I see mathematical flaws here.  Being observant, I agree with you.  We are not at the point where carrying capacity for humans is threatened and we are not in immediate danger of that...that suggestion is a scare tactic used by the 'sustainable' crowd and often enough under the direction of those who have subverted Socialism for personal gain...see above.

I would allow for the possibility that we are not in danger due to the eugenics programs of these folks over the years however...that is a subject I'm exploring at this time...

Also not being a religious person I do not buy the religious suggestion that it is some sort of a spiritual duty to let nature be untouched by man.  As practical and (I believe) ethical person I think we should not totally fuck things up for no reason and show a little bit of thoughtfulness, but we should not flagellate ourselves for some spiritual-esque nonsense about environmentalism either.

Big "S" Socialism happens when small "s" socialists (community minded people) place so much trust in their socialist leaders that they don't even recognize when those socialist leaders become Socialist leaders. Big "S" Socialism isn't really socialism. Neither is big "L" Libertarianism really libertarianism. Both of them are something like dictatorships, fascism, capitalism, or some combination of these, and maybe something else altogether.

The fact that we have and recognize our personal identities, and the fact that we don't know enough to truly prove or disprove God, shows that we are religiously minded. Thus, atheism is simply another religion. It falls into the class of religions that suggest man is god/God, and should really be spelled "Atheism."

:)

My point isn't to be mean to atheists. My point is to only suggest that atheism is possibly the clearest self-nullifying religion of all the self-nullifying religions.

Probably most atheists are rather honest people at heart. Some of them are highly intelligent, good workers, rather right people, just like the people of some other religions. The only difference is that they (atheists) probably haven't thought out the bottom-line basis of their atheism religion completely.

Since God can't really be proven or disproven, atheism takes a position of placing itself in authority. If God exists, taking the authority to firmly say He doesn't exist is taking on authority that is greater than God's... making the atheist to be god over even God.

If God doesn't exist, the above premise still holds true, because to suggest that God doesn't exist, gives credit to at least the suggestion of God... God Who the atheist is taking authority over by saying that He doesn't exist, thereby making himself a god of greater authority than God. If it were proven that God didn't exist, it might be a different story.

:)

I personally fell into this trap in a significant way.  Now I am hoping that it isn't to late.  And spending some effort to try to foster some recovery...as evidenced by my post here.


I'll not argue against your point about Atheism either.  Nor will I change my ways of course other than to become more accepting than I have been at some points.  The fact of the matter is that many of the mildly religious people I know are simply better persons in many ways than are some of non-religious folks.  And 'Green' is a religion in and of itself which brings out some really awful thought pasterns and behaviors against other humans as often as not.

USSR was absolutely a totalitarian state. Socialism can only work when it's voluntary. State socialism is imposed through force, and it can never work because it is stealing by nature of it being non-voluntary. If you had a voluntary society, socialism could work, but I doubt it is ever practical because human beings are hard-wired to be selfish. Voluntary socialism requires unanimity, which seems unlikely except in small groups. I can't see it working voluntarily for a complex society or entire nation. It only takes one person to disagree to make the system not unanimous, and therefore not completely voluntary.

I am from a long line of coal miners. The men in my family were coal miners all the way back to the 1860's- thats as far back as I have been able to trace.
  My great great grandfather broke his back in the pit and my great uncle was killed in a gas explosion. Chances are I would have followed them into the pits were it not for the fact that when I left school in 1984 the miners strike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_%281984%E2%80%9385%29) was on - and coal minings ultimate demise in the UK was only a short distance in time away. Instead, I ended up getting myself educated - an opportunity never available to the generations that went before me.

   I am proud of my forefathers, and their work in the coal mines. Their work fuelled the industrial revolution - and it kept the lights on and heated the homes of families throughout Great Britain and much of Europe.
   And besides all that - its mans work, not work for little girls  ;).


    The reason I mention it, is that it is with this background that my views and understanding of "socialism" have been framed. And with the years whereby a large working class were represented by a "socialist" Labour Party.

     Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution, introduced in 1918, once read :- "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service"     -     and this encapsulated the socialist aspirations of a nation.

     This idea was most notably incarnated in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act of 1946, in the aftermath of the war, and under a great wave of gratitude to the ordinary working men and women who gave so much in that conflict. Prior to the 1946 Act, the nations coal mines had been in private ownership - private owners who had (traditionally) been aristocrat landowners who had had the good fortune to have land with seams of coal beneath their forests and fields.
      Obviously, under the free market and quest for profit, conditions for workers (men, women and children) were not of paramount importance to the private owner (though some, to be fair, were better than others). Indeed, an old saying was that the mine owner was more concerned with the death of a pit pony than of a human being - because they had to pay to replace the pony. Engels described conditions in the 19th century British coal mine well in The Condition of the Working Class in England  (http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/factmine/childmin.htm), by all accounts.




    Anyhow, to get back to the OP, how on Earth can my, albeit old fashioned and probably outdated, conception of socialism possibly be to blame for 85 people owning one half of planet Earth ? It obviously can't.
      Socialism was dead in the UK way before the Labour Party/Tony Blair finally dropped Clause 4 in 1995. Maybe even before the miners were defeated in the 1984 strike - although this was definitely a pivotal point. As was the collapse of the Soviet Union (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/1993-2013-is-twenty-years-long-pas-de.html) in 1991.
     It seems to me that it is since the "defeat" of socialism that the wheels of this gross capitalist accumulation have really started rolling.



     http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg




As a side note, pre this post, I was reading something on the National Union of Mineworkers (http://www.num.org.uk/page/History-NumHistory-Nationalisation) website.
    On it, it states an interesting point on the experience within the industry post nationalisation that I thought might be of some interest to those of you that equate socialism with the state - and would seem to validate your concerns. Bearing in mind this was in the years immediately after WW2 I think its fascinating :-

        "The dawn of nationalisation brought hope to the miners who had lived with the evils of privately owned pits all their lives. One could almost hear the cheers of heroes and heroines from the past as well as the present, celebrating the reality of public ownership.........Soon, however, hopes and dreams began to sour as miners became increasingly aware that private ownership has been replaced by State rather than common ownership. It was now apparent that control and management of the industry had been left in the hands of those who had previously been either managers or actual owners of private mines.

To add injury to this injustice, the fledgling nationalised concern was forced to pay compensation to former owners, including compensation for pits which had already been closed! "


Of course, if this weren't the case there wouldn't have been a need for a trade union at all !!

The question is - is this all down to socialism ?

I think being an atheist is a form of a human ignorance of the creation of man by God, they do not believe in a god who created them, atheism is a form of denial of the blessings given by God to man, whereas the wild spirit they have sworn that their god is God is great ... ::)

Is this in reference to something that was said in this thread? I'm having trouble figuring out the relevance to this discussion.

Don't know for sure what cutesakura was referring to but, tvbcof first mentioned atheism in this thread in his post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=839652.msg9521469#msg9521469 .  And I think that tvbcof was probably responding to my use of the word "God" in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=839652.msg9520639#msg9520639 .

Without really knowing what cutesakura was thinking, the above would be my guess. It wasn't my idea to start a "God" argument.

At times we all speak the things that we live, don't we? It's difficult to express anything in a group that is as big as this forum, without offending someone or giving an inaccurate picture somewhere. This entire forum is full of disagreement about all kinds of things, simply because someone wasn't quite careful enough in the words he/she wrote.

It is interesting, though, to see where some of the topic "forks" lead. Do you think cutesakura's post will create a fork? Or will it simply be dropped? Maybe this is the fork. On the other hand, this whole forum by its nature has something to do with socialism, no matter the topic.

:)

Amen.

And I would like to add bitcoin and the blockchain to that.

In agreement with this, I would suggest that the encryption be doubled or tripled, simply so that there is no chance that someone break the kind of socialism that Bitcoin is. After all, where is there so much freedom in trade while, at the same time, there is such strong socialism?

This is what we need. The simple rules of things like Bitcoin, rather than the complex rules of lying politicians who suggest socialism, and then promote oligarchy, with themselves at the top of the food chain.

:)