By the way, how do you have private possession of public resources? Who decided they are public or private, and why are they conflicting with each other?
Thank you for asking directly the problem posed by my allegorical autark encounter. The assumption I'd used being the local folks make this determination. "house rules" "local custom" That's where ye olde lex mercatoria comes in to play, to resolve the differences in house rules between the different houses. When you contemplate the meeting of two communities and how they might interact, it raises these interesting questions. But... this looks a bit more like minarchy than anarchy. Even for the autarks. Another question is why ought we assume that what was before (priests and warriors) is what will be after? Why is it the one and only possible outcome that we become pre-neolithic? Lots of things have changed since then. |
|
|
|
I was under the impression inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply (Quantitative easing for example) and as the creation of money is controlled at a sustained rate by the Bitcoin network and has a set upper limit - there should be no inflation?
This doesn't seem to follow: "bitcoin/fiat has (controlled) inflation => there should be no inflation" Maybe if you discern "money supply inflation" and "price inflation" you'll get a clearer picture. If bitcoin was the only money used in a certain growing economy (at a higher than the current bitcoin money supply inflation rate) prices would generally fall. Yes. Money supply and inflation are linked but it is not a perfect link, there are other factors, namely demand (for both the money and for the goods). If there is a scarcity in a particular good, its price will rise against the currency. For example in a disaster, there may be a great deal of things which are scarce and so there can be external reasons for inflation, not just the rate of money creation. You've heard the saying "save for a rainy day"? Its never quoted corollary is "spend on rainy days". |
|
|
|
If you have a deflationary currency I am at a loss to why you would need to pay interest on a loan?
A rational market wouldn't. This changes in times of inflation (economic activity starts to shrink low supply and high demand) then the rational market would be willing to pay interest and borrow with interest. Until then, save your cryptos, Default risk provides a reason for interest on a loan even in a preemptively deflationary currency. |
|
|
|
Sale at the silver counter.
I don't believe the bottom is in. Don't see signs of physical shortages either... I'll wait. I concur! There seems to be no hurry to buy in judging by market conditions. I've also read some analysis saying as low as $10 before the turnaround happens, and it's not the argument between smoothie and s3052  My original target was ~$19, but now that it's here, I'm not too confident this is the bottom and am reanalyzing the situation. You are wise to do your own analysis. The "Analysts" were predicting AAPL to go to 1000 when it was topping. My experience of being "in the industry" is that sales are rising and lead times for sourcing are lengthening. |
|
|
|
Amirite?
Not yet you aren't. But I imagine you will keep at it. I have lots of things I don't need. One of these is a state to protect my property. It is a poor trade in terms of cost/benefit for that purpose. Maybe one of its other uses is a good deal, but not this one. At risk of repeating myself, what else have you got? Having something is not the same as wanting it. Like that stuff left over after everyone else has had their fill that you scrape into the dog's bowl. What do they call it again? Crumbs? |
|
|
|
Arbitration is the anarchical origin of authority.
It is also the modern form of "lex mercatoria". Known today as mediation and binding arbitration. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Binding+arbitrationFolks in dispute first agree on who will settle it, then present their cases to them for decision. If you are in an autark community of matrilineal consanguineous folks, in the US (or any other place that uses non-violent non government dispute resolution), you can contractually agree on using the wise woman in big hat for resolving issues, and the government courts have to butt out. Further if some capitalist walks into your paradise and wants to trade, this stipulation can be a part of any dealings they make in your community. Three choices: they can agree, disagree and have the dispute resolved by hat woman, or leave. Further, so long as they aren't engaging in capitalist behavior, (things like trading, exchanging, hiring, etc) there's not much use for contracting and no need to appeal to any authority. We have Amish communities, why not these autark matrilineal consanguines? Why wait? |
|
|
|
WOW, have you seen how old that article is and how it practically hasn't been seen by anyone at all?? It doesn't suprise me one bit that they're doing that; it's just the social media version of PRISM. -But for no one to have seen that 2011 article is worrysome, especially after PRISM's leak. This kind of tech literally makes it so 99% of the country could all strongly feel that Snowden deserves the Peace Prize, but they all think that they are in the 1%. This is how elections are rigged, IMHO. This + media propaganda. It was pretty big news at the time. http://blogs.computerworld.com/17852/army_of_fake_social_media_friends_to_promote_propagandahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networksIt wasn't the last one either: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6ef12558b44258382452fcf02942396a&tab=core&_cview=0The USAF has lots of guidance for its folks: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120327-048.pdfAnd this: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=223d75584bd260d9922acf328f2c0064&tab=core&_cview=0Of primary interest are those programs which seek to develop capabilities which are intended to directly influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision making information/abilities of adversaries, or those intended to protect our own. Likewise, programs which aim to improve/automate the planning and integration of such capabilities into military plans are relevant. Programs designed to determine, track, or assess characteristics of the information environment (such as population attitude/sentiment trends, social media data mining, political or cultural upheaval prediction, etc.) are also relevant to this data call. The legacy definition of Information Operations described the core capabilities of Electronic Warfare, Psychological Operations, or PSYOP, (now called Military Information Support Operations, or MISO), Military Deception (MILDEC), Operations Security (OPSEC), and Computer Network Operations (CNO), and the supporting capabilities, including Combat Camera, Information Assurance, and Counterintelligence. R&D programs in these fields are of peripheral interest to this data call, and will be accepted. This stuff is the public bits, the tip of the iceberg. They even use the term "sock puppet" in the RFP. |
|
|
|
...and I guess I have to make myself clearer. lex mercatoria
I'm all against state and bureaucracy and stealing and enforced taxation, but I'm also tired of this typical US Libertarian rhetoric. Socialism vs Market-radicalism is another of these false dichotomies. Total world-wide equality and solidarity is an illusion, but non-corroding property rights at the individual level are an illusion as well. You need a state to enforce such property rights. If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper. And if he didn't even work hard for it, but inherited it like the friggin Queen of England, and people around that island have no space and starve, you can be sure they'll see it as their necessity and fair right to set a foot on this island. If they are civilized enough to know there's a paper that says someone owns that island at all in the first place, that is. They'll give a shit about any lex mercatoria. From that perspective, property underlies the laws of entropy, just like anything in the universe. Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it. So, again: property is just a piece of paper. Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state. And are these squatters just lazy bums and deserve it? No, maybe they're just from poor families, never could get proper education in Aynrandistan. They weren't lucky enough to be privileged and inherit land just like you. That's how social strains come about in the first place. "Supplied by the state", but these forces can also be supplied by private organizations, you say? But what difference does it make to a state? That it's more "voluntary"? Also today you can vote with your feet. So the question is only about scale here. Or, to put things in another way: If you (really) own some land, then you are the state of that land. And you're a dictator even at that. There's no essential difference between your idea of property and a state. Only about scale. At the end of the day, without a state, you can only call property what you can defend yourself. Just how Max Stirner, an individualist anarchist puts it: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." This is much more logical than the US Libertarian view. And once you understand that, you'll see that a more co-operative and syndicalist way of self-organizing is just more rational and more economical. None of these examples invalidates the principles of voluntary agreement and non-violence, or even lex mercatoria for that matter. You can keep saying I need a state to defend my property, but I am happy without that state doing it. Maybe you aren't, because you keep trying to sell me on the idea of needing it, but I am not buying. I have a property far away, one I don't use much. I have a friend that has done heroic things but is down on his luck. I say to my friend, "friend go and stay at my place on the beach". Take care of it and see what you can make of it. There were some squatters. They were not good custodians and were persuaded to leave without any authoritarianism or threat. If instead they had been good custodians, they easily could have stayed and shared. I have never called the police for anything, and never asked for anything from them. I supply my own security and am happy to remain doing so. The way you sound is that there are all these monsters roaming about looking to destroy and loot and steal so we need to run to our government constantly to protect stuff, but in the real world, if I have a problem with someone, I deal with it directly myself. Personal security is one of the costs of personal property. If you can't afford that part of the cost, then you cant afford to own it in the first place and are better off putting the resources to some charitable purpose. Because property rights do corrode. Time is our ultimate judge, and you can't take it with you. |
|
|
|
specifically when he signed to agree to keep secret info secret. A real "hero" would do the release and then turn himself in recognizing that he too broke the rules.
You do realize they'll just torture him for weeks before they kill him? Why would anyone turn themselves in? would you? LOL right! with all this publicity I am sure they could get away with that! Sorry but back in the real world that just doesn't hold water. With him halving worked for the CIA earlier in his career he would also know that. I myself am ex military and had high level clearance. There are many other ways to have done this. If for some reason he couldn't figure any of those out (would have to be a complete idiot.) and he felt it was really worth it for the good of the country (the people not the corrupt government leaders) He would have both done the release and then took the hit himself. That would be a person I could consider worth respecting. Also please don't confuse my lack of respect for him as a person as agreement with the systems he exposed. Of course you would have made a wiser choice. Mr Snowden seems more bold than wise. Many could have been wiser. |
|
|
|
|
There is also speculative borrowing. Its not all consumption based, but the time element is always there in lending.
If I think that the price of a BTC is going to go down, against some other asset class, I can borrow BTC, convert it to the other asset class, and then reverse it in the future to repay the loan.
Folks that borrowed BTC at 120 and repay now may have done well (depending on the conversion asset).
|
|
|
|
|
Sale at the silver counter.
|
|
|
|
|
Compliance regulation is also a way of creating barriers to entry to a market. If releasing an alt-coin invites a bunch of letters such as this from all over, there might be a few less alt-coins. One of the ways to slow innovation.
|
|
|
|
this is supposed to be a democracy.
Is that supposed to be a good thing somehow? Yes. Just because people have misused and abused a word.. (note: representative democracy is neither) doesn't mean that the thousands of years old concept is unworthy. The concept has even proven its ability to solve the Byzantine General's problem. In fact it may be only now coming of age and actually could be implemented. Am I alone in thinking that raising the Byzantine General problem in this context is ironically hilarious? ( who are the traitor(s) ) |
|
|
|
1.The Cease & Desist
"f found guilty, the conference organiser for Bitcoin, the decentralised digital currency, could face fines of $1,000 - $2,500 (£650 - £1,600) per violation, or per day if violations are less frequent, plus criminal prosecution which could result in five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000."
How do you prove they are a money transmitter?
Hope they don't keep Avalons in their office.
2.The news comes just days after Gox, suspended users from withdrawing their Bitcoins as US dollars for two weeks.
I see a coordinated attack. Though, they seem to have the wrong target in the case of the foundaton.
Note that that is from May 30th so it isn't a coordinated attack, but I wonder why the foundation might not have mentioned it sooner? When I get a baseless horseshit letter like that (and I've had a few over the years) I generally ignore it. I hope they aren't ignoring it. It offers an education opportunity at the least. |
|
|
|
In other words, the modern economic miracle (banks & corporate giants needing bailouts, major US cities going bankrupt & paying their creditors 10c/$) is due to the reawakening lex mercatoria?  Lol! You think bank bailouts and cities have anything to do with international trade  That's so cute! Lol! It's cuter that you don't! Pay attention -- lex mercatoria was brought up in this thread as the ideal, sole body of law, in it's entirety. Not as a handy subset to be followed by merchants in international trade. Now GTF in the van, baby! You are wrong if you are referring to how anyone but you has brought up the notion of lex mercatoria. The idea that it is ideal, or the sole body of law in its entirety is your idea alone, and you offered it in that vein apparently in order to dismiss it as such. It appears that no one disagrees with you on that. Others have suggested that it was an historical example of a method of non-violent, non-governmental dispute resolution. A historical example was used because it can be looked at in static form as it was, rather than something current which is still evolving. There exist other examples by different names throughout history which use the same principles. This was in the context of trying to figure out whether trade requires violence. There may remain some disagreement as to whether trade requires violence. Do you have a position on that, or anything at all useful to comment on? |
|
|
|
If all that everyone did were knowable to everyone...
Would anyone bother with lies, would there be shame?
Anger, violence, theft?
Would we be left
with only honest dealing based on our efforts?
Are we now closer or further from finding out?
Universal security cameras, at least in "public" places. Being Hollywood adjacent, and having produced some film, I've contemplated doing my next one entirely by security camera. My actors and actresses can act out their scenes under the view of security cameras around the city, when cut together, the greater whole emerges. Sure to be a stealth blockbuster. Oscar here I come. |
|
|
|
If there someday occurs these matrilinial autark communities, there may simultaneously exist other communities which are different. When these communities collide, there will possibly be some sort of dispute. Resolving that dispute without violence or worse might be a goal. If the collision happens to be with a community that does engage in trade (even if the autarks dont) understanding the principles of the other may serve them well.
The traders approach and roll out their tinkers wagon to start hawking their wares.
Maybe the autarks say "we have nothing extra, we are autarks".
The traders may say, "well, look at these nifty seeds, and try this tasty drink.
The autarks reply "no, we have what we need and nothing to offer, all is for all"
And the traders say "check out this self maintaining robot that eats garbage, it will save you an hour a day, and by the way I really like that hat over there, can I give you this robot as a gift?"
And the autarks say "the hat is not mine, all is for all"
The trader leaves the robot and takes the hat,
Later some of the autarks find a use for the robot to reduce their toiling and both are pleased with themselves for adhering to their principles and go on their way.
Your example seems very strange. Firstly, to me the "all is for all" attitude seems naive -- something a medieval community might have if they've never been exposed to some of the most basic aspects of human nature at all. They never thought that maybe basic arithmetic and accounting skills are necessary to keep track of (i.e.: to account for) all the effort spent making, doing, and toiling? Even if the communities are somehow restricted in size to about 150 people to keep Dunbar happy, it seems utterly implausible that no-one would ever attempt to take more than their fair share, or that there would be absolutely no laziness and everyone would be equally workaholic. The only way that that seems possible is if a group of like-minded people find each other on the Internet, get together and artificially create that community. Even if it works for them, how can they fail to realise that a large part of it relies on filtering out all the other people?!The autarky/self-sufficiency seems easy enough, but what the heck has: Matrilineality is a system in which descent is traced through the mother and maternal ancestors.
got to do with anything?! Frankly, I'm not sure. It was something that zarathustra was fond of. (Who has not joined this thread yet so it may not provoke any more of an answer than it already has) An exercise in contemplating some mythical future, envisioning that community encountering another. So yes.. it is a simple attempt to reflect back what I read in a different form, in order to better understand what it was all about. I'm one of those weirdly curious folks that when I encounter something different or new, my fist impulse is not always to see if I can break it or poke fun at it. I may not have any use for it, but I surely wouldn't know until I figure it out. |
|
|
|
|
Checks often include significantly more information.
And...Signature
|
|
|
|
|
If all that everyone did were knowable to everyone...
Would anyone bother with lies, would there be shame?
Anger, violence, theft?
Would we be left
with only honest dealing based on our efforts?
Are we now closer or further from finding out?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
