Economic Totalitarianism

[username18333]

Nonsense.

Value is based on relative fitness.

When symbols reference other symbols and nothing else, the above (i.e., "Nonsense" [TPTB_need_war]) results.

[iCEBREAKER]

I have debated Chomsky for example on Hume. I aced the course in Philosophy at the university and even I have corrected an IQ test on a philosophical test question. I can go there, but please not here and not now. Because for one reason is I am a reductionist and will pour energy into sieving the generative essence which consumes much effort, especially when we are referring to the wide open abstractions of philosophy.

Thanks for quoting someone I've ignored.

Chomsky is yet another useless (albeit tla.mit.gov funded) first world anarchist.  I trust him about as far as I can throw him.

No wonder TPTB is so highly impressed with himself for boring the class with his self-indulgent nattering.   

[generalizethis]

What you're missing is that if you are evaluating the non-trivial investment, you can't disengage it from what makes it a non-trivial investment if you want to do a an honest (thorough) evaluation.

The investment is relevant only insofar as it renders an assault on a PoW-coin unprofitable, for the defense from an attack is what keeps the coin from being valued less for its having suffered some manner of compromise therefor.

I'm trying to determine what makes a non-trivial investment, non-trivial. You are arguing why a non-trivial investment holds value for a crypto currency. What it does versus what makes it do. I'm going to write some poems . I could have written a sestina with the time I've wasted on you.

[username18333]

The investment is relevant only insofar as it renders an assault on a PoW-coin unprofitable, for the defense from an attack is what keeps the coin from being valued less for its having suffered some manner of compromise therefor.

I'm trying to determine what makes a non-trivial investment, non-trivial. You are arguing why a non-trivial investment holds value for a crypto currency. What it does versus what makes it do. I'm going to write some poems . I could have written a sestina with the time I've wasted on you.

This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.

A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith.

[username18333]

Thanks for quoting someone I've ignored.

Chomsky is yet another useless (albeit tla.mit.gov funded) first world anarchist.  I trust him about as far as I can throw him.

Some aspects of the brain, of thought etc are hierarchical, some are not.

Heterarchy may be defined as the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways.

My rugged descent has exceeded Chomsky’s World of Forms unto postmodern Epicureanism and the heterarchy hereof.

[generalizethis]

The investment is relevant only insofar as it renders an assault on a PoW-coin unprofitable, for the defense from an attack is what keeps the coin from being valued less for its having suffered some manner of compromise therefor.

I'm trying to determine what makes a non-trivial investment, non-trivial. You are arguing why a non-trivial investment holds value for a crypto currency. What it does versus what makes it do. I'm going to write some poems . I could have written a sestina with the time I've wasted on you.

This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.

A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith.

Lets make this simple. I say: Time + Space = non-trivial investment. And further, I say: non-trivial investment = a value. Do you have a problem with that?

I edited two poems in my time away. I'd say I'm using  my time wisely by spending less of it on you.

[username18333]

Lets make this simple. I say: Time + Space = non-trivial investment. And further, I say: non-trivial investment = a value.

Code:

( Time + Space = Space-Time ) ∧ ( For all A, and for all B, in the universe of discourse, if A is an investment and A is non-trivial then it is not prudent to attempt an assault on PoW-coin B of investment A with A. )

[generalizethis]

Lets make this simple. I say: Time + Space = non-trivial investment. And further, I say: non-trivial investment = a value.

Code:

( Time + Space = Space-Time ) ∧ ( For all A, and for all B, in the universe of discourse, if A is an investment and A is non-trivial then it is not prudent to attempt an assault on PoW-coin B of investment A with A. )

I = space + time.

I = spacetime

I am non-trivial, why are you? 

[TPTB_need_war]

Philosophy is not logic:

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1247/are-different-values-of-nothing-equivalent/25124#25124

Philosophy is argumentation. I'd prefer more precise, actionable discussion, which was the stated intent in opening post of this thread.

[TPTB_need_war]

Philosophy is not logic:

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1247/are-different-values-of-nothing-equivalent/25124#25124

Philosophy is argumentation. I'd prefer more precise, actionable discussion, which was the stated intent in opening post of this thread.

Philosophy of morality is very relevant to this thread:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1597/is-it-immoral-to-download-music-illegally/25125#25125

[Hueristic]

All value is based on time.

Nonsense.

Value is based on relative fitness.

One of the generative essence of my theory of everything (see the last two articles in my blog unheresy.com and also my Understand Everything Fundamentally essay), is that fitness can not be characterized with any holistic (aggregate or macroscopic) metric. Fitness is inherently local and individualized.

Someday I will write some more carefully thought out essays to unify all the detailed arguments. But not now. I am busy being a programmer again....

Just because something does not fit into your myopic view does not make it nonsensical. I guess I gave you more credit than you deserve.

[OROBTC]

...

Philosophy of morality (and just morality alone, or philosophy alone) are huge topics.  

Re downloading music illegally, well, when I want to listen to music, I either turn the radio on, put on a CD or go to Youtube.  I don't download music, but that's just me.

Would be listening to music on Youtube count as immoral?  Not going there.  Example: does illegal downloading "fight the man"?  

Arguing philosophy is above my paygrade.  A deep, deep set of rabbit holes.  I have bigger fish I am trying to fry: protecting my worthwhile assets in the perilous times to come.

[TPTB_need_war]

You are entirely missing the point.

Value is not a homomorphism to spacetime. Value is a diverse (n-dimensional) fitness landscape (entropy) where the relationship to time and space is such that they are not just dilated but not even structurally preserved.

Sheesh this is above your paygrade apparently? Or maybe just a math fact you haven't contemplated.

[TPTB_need_war]

I have bigger fish I am trying to fry: protecting my worthwhile assets in the perilous times to come.

As I said, very relevant to this thread:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1597/is-it-immoral-to-download-music-illegally/25125#25125

...

Thus the the only possible operative definition of morality is self-interest.

(Edit: you might choose it is in your self-interest to consider the interests of others. That is still self-interest, even if you characterize it as sacrifice obviously you didn't do if it wasn't to your benefit overall.)

...

You asked whether it is moral to violate laws. Usually it would only be in one's self-interest to consider doing so when society has become unreasonably coercive and not consent with free will, i.e. when choice of jurisdiction is effectively nullified. I would again argue the self-interest of that tradeoff has to be weighed by each individual. Smaller communities impinge less on the degrees-of-freedom of jurisdiction.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants— Thomas Jefferson

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety— Ben Franklin

[explorer]

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2648-liberty-movement-needs-more-innovations-to-counter-technological-tyranny

[username18333]

Philosophy is argumentation. I'd prefer more precise, actionable discussion, which was the stated intent in opening post of this thread.

So we don't want an anti-money (whom can free-for-all coinbase nilly-willy debase faster race into the abyss) shitcoin that is designed to perniciously, self-destruct into a mutual chaos.

Since you so deride "anti-money" (TPTB_need_war), you would (directly) address the post below if your grievances were genuine.

So his "solution" is NIRP and a cashless society to prevent anyone from escaping paying negative interest rates on their wealth. And use this resource extraction to continue to backstop the $250 trillion of debt in the world. In order words, Summers thinks we are stupid enough to be a dog chasing our tail wherein the excess "capital" is money we are expropriating from ourselves to prop up "capital" that would otherwise evaporate in a contagion of defaults. And then claim this excess capital that we stole from ourselves (via NIRP) is what is causing the excessive market demand for return of capital (aka safe haven) and thus NIRP.

Soc. We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the [capital] or [money] is beloved by the [1‱] because it is [money], or [money] because it is beloved of the [1‱].

(Germaneness mine.)

[username18333]

I = space + time.

I = spacetime

I am non-trivial, why are you?  

This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.

A "non-trivial investment" in a PoW-coin mining operation is definitively such when it consistently renders unprofitable the execution of an assault on the coin therewith.

(There is not particular point where probability waves become a human; therefore, the "I" is an element of the hyperreal - a symbol that references other symbols (namely, those of a self-concept) yet not the real.) "Non-trivial," however, as "I" used it, indicates that the investment - whatever form it could assume - was of a nature that left imprudent an attempt upon the PoW of the PoW-coin therewith.

[MF Doom]

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2648-liberty-movement-needs-more-innovations-to-counter-technological-tyranny

That is a great read, chilling, but 100% verifiable with only a small amount of searching online.

Those who have been following "alternative media" sources probably know the majority of these things, but this gives a good summary to anyone who may not follow anything but the lamestream media.

The problem with some of these is the fact that people (especially Americans) are so divided against themselves.  They need to wake up and realize that just because they white house shines some rainbow colors on the building doesn't mean they are on your side.  I think (and so do many others) that they are 100% intentionally dividing the people.  That is why the only issues they focus on are issues that dont matter much, but ones that people get the most worked up about.

Once you can see what they are doing, it makes the martial law warnings all that much clearer.  They want division, becasue a divided people cannot stand against the govt.  ONLY if people start to band together can the gvt forces be stood up to.

[TPTB_need_war]

uselessname18333,

The masses don't love money enough to hoard it (thus the power-law distribution of wealth), yet they need money as a unit-of-exchange (and thus as a unit-of-account and a reasonably stable store-of-value) in order to maximize the division-of-labor which is essential to maximizing production and efficiency (the inexorable march of entropy which can not be reversible per the Second Law of Thermodynamics which Einstein even said was the most fundamental law of nature). Even the Bible says employ honest weights and measures of which an anti-money would be a violation.

Thus the goal is not anti-money, but rather a technological advance into the Knowledge Age wherein capital is knowledge creation which is inherently not a homomorphism to spacetime, thus can't be financed with usury.

Q.E.D. End of discussion. I have work to do.

You are entirely missing the point.

Value is not a homomorphism to spacetime. Value is a diverse (n-dimensional) fitness landscape (entropy) where the relationship to time and space is such that they are not just dilated but not even structurally preserved.

[username18333]

I think (and so do many others) that they are 100% intentionally dividing the people.  That is why the only issues they focus on are issues that dont matter much, but ones that people get the most worked up about.

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

Substantive discourse circa the real is unbecoming of plutocracy.