No monopoly

[flix]

It's a video about gold, but the lesson applies just as well to bitcoin:

Gold: Independent Money
http://youtu.be/RvL_Dm2d99A

3:07-3:20

The ability to issue money is too much power for governments, banks, anybody... The best way to stop the abuse of power is to spread it as thinly and widely as possible

[1714981498]

1714981498

[1714981498]

1714981498

[1714981498]

1714981498

[1714981498]

1714981498

[TheGer]

The best way to stop the abuse of power is to give everyone a gun.

It's a video about gold, but the lesson applies just as well to bitcoin:

Gold: Independent Money
http://youtu.be/RvL_Dm2d99A

3:07-3:20

The ability to issue money is too much power for governments, banks, anybody... The best way to stop the abuse of power is to spread it as thinly and widely as possible

[Explodicle]

The best way to stop the abuse of power is to give everyone a gun.

It's a video about gold, but the lesson applies just as well to bitcoin:

Gold: Independent Money
http://youtu.be/RvL_Dm2d99A

3:07-3:20

The ability to issue money is too much power for governments, banks, anybody... The best way to stop the abuse of power is to spread it as thinly and widely as possible

You would be surprised. In my country pretty much anyone can get a gun (it's one of our highest laws) but most of them tolerate rampant abuse of power on a local, state, and federal level. Guns don't help if the people who own them are disorganized, poor, and brainwashed.

[TheGer]

Brainwashed would be the most harmful one in that list.  Even poor and disorganized populous that has guns can affect change.

What country is it you live in?

[GideonGono]

Brainwashed would be the most harmful one in that list.  Even poor and disorganized populous that has guns can affect change.

Very true. In some cases it's irreversible. Most of the people who are now dependent on the welfare state are probably gone forever.

[TheGer]

Most of the country is dependent on some kind of Government handout to one degree or another(food stamps, wefare, unemployment, subsidies, contracts ect.).

[onesalt]

Most of the country is dependent on some kind of Government handout to one degree or another(food stamps, wefare, unemployment, subsidies, contracts ect.).

It would help if the rich hadn't been screwing everyone over for about 20 years now.

[TheGer]

Don't you mean 20 Centuries?

[Explodicle]

Brainwashed would be the most harmful one in that list.  Even poor and disorganized populous that has guns can affect change.

What country is it you live in?

United States of America. The second amendment of our constitution guarantees the right to "bear arms" (own guns).

[TheGer]

Lol sorry you had me bamboozled since they are making it harder and harder, and intimidating people who try to get guns nowadays. 

Anyone remember the phrase No Fly, No Buy?  Brought to you by the Soetaro Administration.  The same administration caught gun running into Mexico and Honduras recently under the guise of the ATF, who ironically enough is harassing good Americans who wish to legally own firearms.

Shame.

[GideonGono]

It would help if the rich hadn't been screwing everyone over for about 20 years now.

It would help if the poor and middle class weren't so stupid as to think rich people are evil when they are in business but benevolent when they are in govt office.

The whole notion of "Tax the rich" is based on a fallacy. First, one must ask, who are the rich? The rich are the ones who in most all societies hold political power.  Having political power and connections is the easiest way to get and stay rich.

In the USA for example just look at the net worth of senior members of govt who make all the rules:

Barack H. Osama - Net worth $10.5m source

Nancy Pelosi - Net worth $35.2m Source

Harry Reid - Net worth estimated between $3.1 - $6.7 million source

I can go on and on...

After decades of "socially progressive" policies all other the developed world we still see an increasing gap between rich and poor.

I wonder, are people really that stupid to believe this shit? Or is this some kind of sick joke and I'm in the twilight zone?

What will it take for you lefties to realize the plan ain't working?

[Explodicle]

I'm a "lefty", and appreciate the US government being used to prove me wrong just as much as the anarchists appreciate similar proof with Somalia. Not all leftists are the corporate schills you see in government. Much like you guys, my dreams have yet to come to fruition.

The republic, any republic, will inevitably degenerate into a government for sale. It's simply cheaper to bribe/threaten one man than an entire voting population. If there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy. The word "statist" conveniently wraps non-anarchists up into a neat little package, but most people I would actually consider leftist support the current administration as little as you do.

The monster is formidable enough without us bickering and portraying each other as strawmen.

[GideonGono]

I'm a "lefty", and appreciate the US government being used to prove me wrong just as much as the anarchists appreciate similar proof with Somalia. Not all leftists are the corporate schills you see in government. Much like you guys, my dreams have yet to come to fruition.

The republic, any republic, will inevitably degenerate into a government for sale. It's simply cheaper to bribe/threaten one man than an entire voting population. If there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy. The word "statist" conveniently wraps non-anarchists up into a neat little package, but most people I would actually consider leftist support the current administration as little as you do.

The monster is formidable enough without us bickering and portraying each other as strawmen.

Fair point. But if "there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy," then how is govt control of anything a good thing? Wouldn't total decentralization be the only practical way to have a just society? This reality supports 100% anarchy IMO. No?

[Explodicle]

I'm a "lefty", and appreciate the US government being used to prove me wrong just as much as the anarchists appreciate similar proof with Somalia. Not all leftists are the corporate schills you see in government. Much like you guys, my dreams have yet to come to fruition.

The republic, any republic, will inevitably degenerate into a government for sale. It's simply cheaper to bribe/threaten one man than an entire voting population. If there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy. The word "statist" conveniently wraps non-anarchists up into a neat little package, but most people I would actually consider leftist support the current administration as little as you do.

The monster is formidable enough without us bickering and portraying each other as strawmen.

Fair point. But if "there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy," then how is govt control of anything a good thing? Wouldn't total decentralization be the only practical way to have a just society? This reality supports 100% anarchy IMO. No?

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

[myrkul]

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

[jgraham]

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

[myrkul]

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

Can you show me instances where it does not?

[Explodicle]

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

Can you show me instances where it does not?

Corporations have some degree of centralization, usually with a CEO on top. If complete decentralization was always better, then corporations would not exist; everyone would work for themselves.

[JA37]

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

Yes, and if a little salt each day is good for you then a few kilos a day is better. Right?

[jgraham]

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

Can you show me instances where it does not?

Is that an implied yes? (I kind of expect you to bow out now...but let see what happens)

[GideonGono]

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

Can you show me instances where it does not?

Corporations have some degree of centralization, usually with a CEO on top. If complete decentralization was always better, then corporations would not exist; everyone would work for themselves.

I think the key difference is that as far as corporations are concerned the centralization is voluntary as opposed to involuntary centralization whenever the state is concerned.

[NghtRppr]

If complete decentralization was always better, then corporations would not exist; everyone would work for themselves.

I don't care what's "better". What's right? Stealing from people or not stealing from people?

[myrkul]

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

Can you show me instances where it does not?

Is that an implied yes? (I kind of expect you to bow out now...but let see what happens)

Is that an implied no? (I kind of expect you to bow out now...but let's see what happens)

[Explodicle]

GideonGono - exactly. I think we can agree that in the case of corporations, radical decentralization above all else would be bad.

bitcoin2cash - myrkul did not ask about "right", but to answer your question, obviously I agree that stealing is wrong. Would you please elaborate?

[jgraham]

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

Can you show me instances where it does not?

Is that an implied yes? (I kind of expect you to bow out now...but let see what happens)

Is that an implied no? (I kind of expect you to bow out now...but let's see what happens)

Oh hey, it's the argumentation of fifteen year olds! (parroting).

Lulz, No it's not a "no" but it's kind of amusing how you've just become rather cagey about a point you made sound, at least to me as if it was pretty clear cut.  What's the point in me  dragging out examples if this isn't what you are saying?   I thought Atlas was the only person who demanded people attack strawmen for his amusement.  If you've just realized you've said something stupid then just fess up.  It happens.

[myrkul]

Lulz, No it's not a "no" but it's kind of amusing how you've just become rather cagey about a point you made sound, at least to me as if it was pretty clear cut.  What's the point in me  dragging out examples if this isn't what you are saying?   I thought Atlas was the only person who demanded people attack strawmen for his amusement.  If you've just realized you've said something stupid then just fess up.  It happens.

It's a fairly simple request. Give me one example where the efficiency/decentralization curve reverses.

I'll freely admit that there are organizations where decentralization would hurt efficiency. That's not what I'm talking about. I am saying, if a little decentralization is good, then more is better, and complete is best.

If you can't find one example to refute it, then fess up yourself. I don't feel like dancing today.

[Explodicle]

Lulz, No it's not a "no" but it's kind of amusing how you've just become rather cagey about a point you made sound, at least to me as if it was pretty clear cut.  What's the point in me  dragging out examples if this isn't what you are saying?   I thought Atlas was the only person who demanded people attack strawmen for his amusement.  If you've just realized you've said something stupid then just fess up.  It happens.

It's a fairly simple request. Give me one example where the efficiency/decentralization curve reverses.

I'll freely admit that there are organizations where decentralization would hurt efficiency. That's not what I'm talking about. I am saying, if a little decentralization is good, then more is better, and complete is best.

If you can't find one example to refute it, then fess up yourself. I don't feel like dancing today.

Do you consider corporations to be completely centralized, partially decentralized, completely decentralized, or not applicable? I might be misunderstanding you, because corporations already optimize themselves for efficiency.

[jgraham]

Lulz, No it's not a "no" but it's kind of amusing how you've just become rather cagey about a point you made sound, at least to me as if it was pretty clear cut.  What's the point in me  dragging out examples if this isn't what you are saying?   I thought Atlas was the only person who demanded people attack strawmen for his amusement.  If you've just realized you've said something stupid then just fess up.  It happens.

It's a fairly simple request.

So is buying milk but I won't bother doing that unless I'm out.   If you're not going to commit to a position then it's no skin off my nose.  I sure don't mind having meta-discussion. I'm pretty easy about these things.   Like I said you made it sound pretty clear cut but hey if it's not then I don't really have to argue to make my point.  Good job!  

I don't feel like dancing today.

Completely incorrect.  You instigated dancing around (what I assume) is your point.  Furthermore it's the only thing you are devoting any energy to (in this conversation).  Contradiction city! LOL!

[JA37]

It's a fairly simple request. Give me one example where the efficiency/decentralization curve reverses.

In fact, organizations can suffer from extreme decentralization. For example, some analysts believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) experiences some problems because all its structure and systems are based on the assumption that crime needs to be investigated after it happens. Over time, this assumption led to a situation where, instead of following an overarching strategy, each FBI unit is completely decentralized and field agents determine how investigations should be pursued. It has been argued that due to the change in the nature of crimes, the FBI needs to gather accurate intelligence before a crime is committed; this requires more centralized decision making and strategy development.

Brazil, J. J. (2007, April). Mission: Impossible? Fast Company, 114, 92–109.

[myrkul]

 I sure don't mind having meta-discussion. I'm pretty easy about these things.  

All I've ever seen you do. You don't discuss topics. You discuss discussing topics.

I'm So Meta Even This Acronym.

And I'm not looking for examples of organizations suffering from decentralization. I know that some organizations benefit with centralization. I'm looking for a single example of the curve reversing. 

[Explodicle]

And I'm not looking for examples of organizations suffering from decentralization. I know that some organizations benefit with centralization. I'm looking for a single example of the curve reversing. 

I'll assume that you are implicitly accepting that the FBI would be more efficient if it was more centralized. If so, then one of two things must be true:
A) More centralization would help, all the way up to complete centralization. The director should be hands-on at the expense of everything else. Field agents should have no autonomy, instead following orders from the top down.
B) More centralization would help, up to a point. Once this point is crossed, the curve "reverses".

Right? If I'm waaaaaay off, could you draw me a few of these curves you describe?

[NghtRppr]

And I'm not looking for examples of organizations suffering from decentralization. I know that some organizations benefit with centralization. I'm looking for a single example of the curve reversing. 

I'll assume that you are implicitly accepting that the FBI would be more efficient if it was more centralized. If so, then one of two things must be true:
A) More centralization would help, all the way up to complete centralization. The director should be hands-on at the expense of everything else. Field agents should have no autonomy, instead following orders from the top down.
B) More centralization would help, up to a point. Once this point is crossed, the curve "reverses".

Right? If I'm waaaaaay off, could you draw me a few of these curves you describe?

The problem is you're just using a vague term "centralization" without describing exactly what's being centralized. Would the FBI benefit if all of their people were centralized to a single (very large) room? No. Would the FBI benefit if all of their data was centralized to a single network? Yes. Centralization is good and bad, depending on what's being centralized. As long as you're being vague, you won't reach any meaningful conclusions.

[myrkul]

The problem is you're just using a vague term "centralization" without describing exactly what's being centralized. Would the FBI benefit if all of their people were centralized to a single (very large) room? No. Would the FBI benefit if all of their data was centralized to a single network? Yes. Centralization is good and bad, depending on what's being centralized. As long as you're being vague, you won't reach any meaningful conclusions.

Good point.

Let me clarify: When I say "Centralization", I mean "Centralization of command structure" ie: there is a distinct "boss"
When I say "Decentralization", I mean "an increase in individual autonomy".

I hope this helps. I doubt it, but I still hope.

[Explodicle]

The problem is you're just using a vague term "centralization" without describing exactly what's being centralized. Would the FBI benefit if all of their people were centralized to a single (very large) room? No. Would the FBI benefit if all of their data was centralized to a single network? Yes. Centralization is good and bad, depending on what's being centralized. As long as you're being vague, you won't reach any meaningful conclusions.

Good point.

Let me clarify: When I say "Centralization", I mean "Centralization of command structure" ie: there is a distinct "boss"
When I say "Decentralization", I mean "an increase in individual autonomy".

I hope this helps. I doubt it, but I still hope.

myrkul - Unfortunately not, I have been using the same definition. Would you please draw one of these curves you have been talking about?

[jgraham]

 I sure don't mind having meta-discussion. I'm pretty easy about these things.  

All I've ever seen you do.

As is becoming your trademark.  You are completely incorrect.  I gave you a clear question about your position which you refuse to answer.  That is not discussing discussing topics.  However like I said I'm fine with having meta discussion but it's silly to whine about my doing so when you won't answer a question about your point.

You don't discuss topics. You discuss discussing topics.

Primarily when instigated by other people (like what you are doing right now!) QED baby!  

And I'm not looking for examples of organizations suffering from decentralization. I know that some organizations benefit with centralization. I'm looking for a single example of the curve reversing.  

Your point is pretty horribly defined...Curve of what "betterness"?  What is the metric?

When I say "Centralization", I mean "Centralization of command structure" ie: there is a distinct "boss"

Again a pretty terrible definition.  What does the boss do?  Provide information on what to work on?  So a centralized system has all work dolled out from a central source? Is any increase in worker autonomy - that is the worker is now able to choose their tasks - considered ...well...to increase whatever the metric is you think you are looking at?  Does any reduction in work being assigned from a single source decentralize an organization?  Does any amalgamation of work assignment into a single source centralize an organization?

Would the FBI benefit if all of their data was centralized to a single network?

Even then, if you don't define your metric the answer is indeterminate.  For example, if you're trying to optimize security - information sequestering (which includes putting the information into separate networks) *is* beneficial.

[Explodicle]

Ok, let us skip the semantics and just use this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralization&oldid=444266119

I feel like we've all been "dancing around" the contentious claim: if some decentralization helps, then complete is best. What about the FBI, whose intermediate decentralization goes too far? What about corporations, whose intermediate centralization already appears to be optimized? WTF does a curve "reversing" even look like?

If you've given up on meaningful conversation with another user, fine, don't bother. Everyone can see for themselves what has been written and personal attacks accomplish nothing.

[jgraham]

Ok, let us skip the semantics and just use this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralization&oldid=444266119

I feel like we've all been "dancing around" the contentious claim: if some decentralization helps, then complete is best. What about the FBI, whose intermediate decentralization goes too far? What about corporations, whose intermediate centralization already appears to be optimized? WTF does a curve "reversing" even look like?

If you've given up on meaningful conversation with another user, fine, don't bother. Everyone can see for themselves what has been written and personal attacks accomplish nothing.

Actually, I'd say that the Wiki makes the whole thing less clear but anyway.  If there exists organizations - that is groups of people who are attempting to accomplish some set of tasks - which can not benefit - that is increase (or decrease) some metric - from decentralization - that is pushing decision making toward the bottom of the organizational pyramid.  Then I'd say that the discussion is pretty much over.  As this would necessitate the existence of organizations for which decentralization would only benefit to a limited degree after which further decentralization would be to the organizations detriment. QED

But who knows what these guys/gals are actually talking about...maybe everyone is just referring to some set of trivial cases...wouldn't be the first time!  

[myrkul]

And I'm not looking for examples of organizations suffering from decentralization. I know that some organizations benefit with centralization. I'm looking for a single example of the curve reversing.  

Your point is pretty horribly defined...Curve of what "betterness"?  What is the metric?

Efficiency. I thought I made that clear here:

It's a fairly simple request. Give me one example where the efficiency/decentralization curve reverses.

You're an idiot.
Moving on:

I feel like we've all been "dancing around" the contentious claim: if some decentralization helps, then complete is best. What about the FBI, whose intermediate decentralization goes too far? What about corporations, whose intermediate centralization already appears to be optimized? WTF does a curve "reversing" even look like?

I don't feel like actually going to the trouble of breaking out the graphics program, so I'll describe it:
X Axis: Decentralization of command structure, 0 being hierarchical, endpoint being complete individual autonomy
Y Axis: Efficiency, as defined by either profit/costs or speed of response to changing conditions. 0 being inefficient, endpoint being maximum efficiency.
I contend that though the line may not start at (0,0) or (0,100), but that from the start point, the line is straight, and either direct or inverse, or that it looks like the bitcoin supply curve (or again, the inverse). The curve "reversing" would look like a parabola, starting out either direct or inverse, and switching at some point to the other.

[jgraham]

And I'm not looking for examples of organizations suffering from decentralization. I know that some organizations benefit with centralization. I'm looking for a single example of the curve reversing.  

Your point is pretty horribly defined...Curve of what "betterness"?  What is the metric?

Efficiency. I thought I made that clear here:

It's a fairly simple request. Give me one example where the efficiency/decentralization curve reverses.

Same thing.  What's the unit of "efficiency"?  Anyway, as demonstrated above your point is pretty much moot.

[myrkul]

Same thing.  What's the unit of "efficiency"?  Anyway, as demonstrated above your point is pretty much moot.

In your signature, you claim to be "rather good" with Linux. What's the unit of "goodness"?

Putz.

[NghtRppr]

Putz.

I don't know why you even still bother talking to him. I gave up on him long ago. Every now and then I'll read one of his posts but I always regret it so I just avoid him altogether. I recommend you do the same.

[Explodicle]

I feel like we've all been "dancing around" the contentious claim: if some decentralization helps, then complete is best. What about the FBI, whose intermediate decentralization goes too far? What about corporations, whose intermediate centralization already appears to be optimized? WTF does a curve "reversing" even look like?

I don't feel like actually going to the trouble of breaking out the graphics program, so I'll describe it:
X Axis: Decentralization of command structure, 0 being hierarchical, endpoint being complete individual autonomy
Y Axis: Efficiency, as defined by either profit/costs or speed of response to changing conditions. 0 being inefficient, endpoint being maximum efficiency.
I contend that though the line may not start at (0,0) or (0,100), but that from the start point, the line is straight, and either direct or inverse, or that it looks like the bitcoin supply curve (or again, the inverse). The curve "reversing" would look like a parabola, starting out either direct or inverse, and switching at some point to the other.

Thank you. Do you agree that the FBI and corporations benefit from being partly decentralized, as opposed to being completely centralized? Based on your description, EVERY organization should strive to be completely one way or the other!

[jgraham]

Same thing.  What's the unit of "efficiency"?  Anyway, as demonstrated above your point is pretty much moot.

In your signature, you claim to be "rather good" with Linux. What's the unit of "goodness"?

Putz.

Namcalling - that's a step down from parroting - reaching the bottom of your logic barrel already are we?

Why would I need a unit?  I'm not quantifying my abilities with Linux.  Are you saying you aren't quantifying "efficiency" (whatever that means) - that would be pretty silly.

Anyway, as demonstrated earlier.  Your point is dead.

I contend that though the line may not start at (0,0) or (0,100), but that from the start point, the line is straight, and either direct or inverse, or that it looks like the bitcoin supply curve (or again, the inverse). The curve "reversing" would look like a parabola, starting out either direct or inverse, and switching at some point to the other.

Lulz. So nobody knows what "slope" means? (either of a line or a line tangent to the curve) or "rate of change" for that matter?

[JA37]

I think that it depends on the organization where more decentralization increases efficiency. I don't think that a completely centralized organization is efficient, nor do I think that a completely decentralized organization is efficient. I disagree with myrkul there. I do however believe that many organizations could benefit from more decentralization than they currently have, and that it takes a good boss to dare to let go of some control, which really is what decentralization is about.