Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity?

[CoinCube]

every single law would be in a civil contract format, no law shall be forced on anyone, based on the anarchist voluntarist principles.
...
Its just that easy

I think that you severely underestimate the potential in the human race

Sorry BitcoinFreak12 your world fails for the same reason that communism fails (an utter misunderstanding of human nature).

The communists had a beautiful dream too. If only the workers of the world unite and throw off their chains and we will all have such an abundance of goods. Development with be unfettered with productive forces so great everyone's needs will be met. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. A perfect world.  

Starry eyed blind faith in the wonders of human benevolence and potential will lead you right where it took the communists... megadeath and Stalin.

[1714884196]

1714884196

[1714884196]

1714884196

[interlagos]

every single law would be in a civil contract format, no law shall be forced on anyone, based on the anarchist voluntarist principles.
...
Its just that easy

I admire your optimism Bitcoinfreak, but I think you have a lot of misplaced faith in the lazy and economically unviable masses.

And I think that you severely underestimate the potential in the human race

Sorry BitcoinFreak12 your world fails for the same reason that communism fails (an utter misunderstanding of human nature.

The communists had a beautiful dream too. If only the workers of the world unite and throw off their chains and we will all have such an abundance of goods. Development with be unfettered with productive forces so great everyon's needs will be met. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. A perfect world.  

Starry eyed blind faith in the wonders of human benevolence and potential will lead you right where it took the communists... megadeath and Stalin.

That's why money and state must be separate. Before blockchain came along this was achieved with banks, but that quickly converged to centralization. PoW secured blockchain allows competiton for control over money in a neutral way judged by an algorithm. Maybe land ownership will also be tracked via blockchain in the future, thus reducing the need for goverment even further. Though enforcing the land ownership according to blockchain might still require some physical security operation, which should be transparent and self-sustainable (read: taxes) so that it doesn't turn rogue.

[farfiman]

.....
The communists had a beautiful dream too. If only the workers of the world unite and throw off their chains and we will all have such an abundance of goods. Development with be unfettered with productive forces so great everyone's needs will be met. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. A perfect world.  

Starry eyed blind faith in the wonders of human benevolence and potential will lead you right where it took the communists... megadeath and Stalin.

His system can work for a while - on very small scales for example the Israeli Kibbutz from the 1940's till about the 80's.
After that it more or less fell apart - greed and envy kicks in eventually.

[contagion]

This message from CoinCube was too important to leave in private message. Hope he won't mind if I reply publicly.

I can't think of a single crime that can be enabled by anonymity. Can you list one?
...
Why are you against privacy?

I am not against privacy at all. However, I do have some concerns about the extreme case of unbreachable anonymity.

I can think of lots of crimes that are enabled by anonymity. Here are just a few.
1) Facilitation of breach of contract as the contracted individual can disappear without consequence.
2) Creation of marketplaces that encourage and drive undesirable behavior. 1) pedophilia, rape, murder, assassination.

True there are ways to mitigate some of these but only partially. Formalized justice and vengeance are two of the tools used by socialism to drive convergence. The above failures represent more examples were dynamic systems composed of completely autonomous actors do not converge on desirable behavior. There are likely many others.

I consider true anonymity in an economy to be not much different from desperate romans burying their gold in the ground. It makes sense, and it is the smartest option available, but it is also expensive and inefficient.

Anonymous crypto is definitely a much better choice than burying capital in the ground. Nevertheless, I view it as a high cost and inefficient solution made palatable only because the alternative socialism collapse and megadeath is much worse.  

Hence my comments that I hope that someday once we have successfully transitioned to a knowledgeage and socialism is caged we can mostly discard anonymity and the downsides (crime, ect) that come with it.

1) Contracts shouldn't be designed to require the courts for restitution. This drives collectivism as you duly noted. For example, futures and options contracts should have sufficient collateral attached, and the contract automatically settles when the collateral limit is breached.

Remember my theory about how the Knowledge Age will drive away debt contracts and fractional reserves.

Note even in a contract that requires identity (e.g. photographs and fingerprints) for restitution, the individual can not disappear. He still has a body and that body can be tracked down. This is the way crimes were solved since Mesopotamia. Anonymous internet communication doesn't make it more difficult to hunt down individuals as compared to the way it was done before the internet. There was always anonymous money and transactions in the past. Whereas, if we give the State the power to make all transactions trackable in the imminent switch over to digital currency, we will surely all die in megadeath 666.


2) Pedophilia, rape, murder, assassination have been going on since Mesopotamia. Communications were always anonymous in the past. You want a 666 control system to try to stop what has always existed and you will get instead your nirvana of megadeath.


----

Internet anonymity is nothing like burying gold coins. It doesn't have to be cumbersome nor cost more (but there is a lot of programming work that needs to be done to make it so). It doesn't have to decline the velocity of money and can in fact increase the velocity which has been collapsing, by providing an outlet for the private sector to grow and interopt without the oppression of the State.

[cryptogeeknext]

It always puzzled me, that even though each half of the yin-yang symbol contained most of its own color, it also contained the opposite color in its purest form (circle). Think of it what you like

[rsvoter]

It is good to see that 71% (5 of 7) of the people do not expect a Madmax outcome with socialism and the debt implosion confiscating (and taxing to death) all savings, capital, and retirements.

Because if 71% saw what I believe is coming, then we could perhaps avoid the bad outcome by acting sooner to prevent it.

Note I voted yes, so it is better to exclude my vote when calculating the above percentage.

Thus we definitely need anonymity, and the 29% (2 of 7) will be using it and I believe sustaining their capital. I believe the rest will go over the cliff with the Titantic.

Agreed

[BitcoinFreak12]

@BitcoinFreak12

I had a similar insight about the new societal structure a couple of years ago:
"consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124477

In short global society is organized as a hierarchy of consensus groups starting with the minimal cell - family. Smaller consesnus groups are then free to join or leave larger ones. I'm still of the opinion that transparency in communication will help the whole system to self-organize in the best possible way. Collaboration requires transparency of communication.

Hey i`m open to any liberty based ideas, I myself am an anarcho-capitalist, but i`d accept even a libertarian world rather than the socialist-corporatist that i`m living in now.

So perhaps we can build the liberty world step by step, and then we can decide how far we will go, full anarcho-capitalist or we would retain a smaller state, but a very small one in a form of a libertarian fully open society.

The issue now remains to take the first step, and dont hesitate

One pointing out though, i dont consider the family as the basic unit, i consider the individual the basis. Because the family can be abusive, or just not exist, orphans, or just simply people who like individuality like I do.

So for example i am not married and i would never marry, because i consider the marriage a socialist-marxist thing, ,a collective household bullsh*t,because you have to share the income and the property, the responsability (household debt),and else, and if you divorce you are forced to give up half, which is a very communist principle.

I`d much happily live with a woman as a couple or girlfriend relation, than to bind myself legally into a communist stupidity. Now you might think its crazy, but its just my view of marriage, i dont like socialist/communist stuff

[BitcoinFreak12]

The communists had a beautiful dream too. If only the workers of the world unite and throw off their chains and we will all have such an abundance of goods. Development with be unfettered with productive forces so great everyone's needs will be met. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. A perfect world.  

Starry eyed blind faith in the wonders of human benevolence and potential will lead you right where it took the communists... megadeath and Stalin.

I despise communism, but atleast they had a dream about a better world, with prosperity, their methodology was idiotic and unorganized. Bunch of hippy homeless people and lazy farmers stormed the streets of Leningrad in 1917, that is not a really promising state organization to begin with.

Besides the only reason Stalin and Hitler took place is because the people were desperate, and the economy was in ruins, which was exactly because of the Weimar Republics debt ponzi scheme (sounds familiar...hmm...just like in the USA now).

And in Russia, the tzar also had a debt ponzi scheme running, both in Germany and Russia, they took too much loans as WW1 costed too much, and then they didnt had the ballz to default instead they rand a debt ponzi scheme, which by 1917 in Russia gone critical, so the Socialists had a chance to revolt because of inflation.

Now both the German emperor and the Russian tzar were powerhungry maniacs trying to rule the world, but instead of those, the people replaced them with even bigger powerhungry maniacs: Hitler and Stalin.

So what do you think power can achieve: wars ,famine, pestilence and death (just like told in the Bible, where the world leaders and those who run the debt ponzi scheme are the antichrist  ).

So obviously we need to create a society where nobody can achieve big powers, and that can happen only in the free market, with competition, where if no government is involved and no taxes exist:Anarcho-Capitalism. There would be atleast 5-6 companies on the top hating eachother (never signing any trust agreements), which would compete and none of them could ever destroy the other 4, so the powerbalance can be achieved.

[interlagos]

@BitcoinFreak12

I had a similar insight about the new societal structure a couple of years ago:
"consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124477

In short global society is organized as a hierarchy of consensus groups starting with the minimal cell - family. Smaller consesnus groups are then free to join or leave larger ones. I'm still of the opinion that transparency in communication will help the whole system to self-organize in the best possible way. Collaboration requires transparency of communication.

Hey i`m open to any liberty based ideas, I myself am an anarcho-capitalist, but i`d accept even a libertarian world rather than the socialist-corporatist that i`m living in now.

So perhaps we can build the liberty world step by step, and then we can decide how far we will go, full anarcho-capitalist or we would retain a smaller state, but a very small one in a form of a libertarian fully open society.

The issue now remains to take the first step, and dont hesitate

One pointing out though, i dont consider the family as the basic unit, i consider the individual the basis. Because the family can be abusive, or just not exist, orphans, or just simply people who like individuality like I do.

So for example i am not married and i would never marry, because i consider the marriage a socialist-marxist thing, ,a collective household bullsh*t,because you have to share the income and the property, the responsability (household debt),and else, and if you divorce you are forced to give up half, which is a very communist principle.

I`d much happily live with a woman as a couple or girlfriend relation, than to bind myself legally into a communist stupidity. Now you might think its crazy, but its just my view of marriage, i dont like socialist/communist stuff

I agree with what you said. My example of family was in terms of a minimal group that required consensus and collaboration, but not in a legal sense of the word. Being an individual is perfectly fine too.

Now regarding first steps and taking action. The system I described would work best if done bottom-up, but reality is such that we already have power clusters operating in the shadow that would likely prevent any competition in this space. So the most appropriate action in our situation is to start opening them up, step by step, little by little. The only way to let black hole evaporate, is to stop feeding it, which means moving away from obscure financial system currently in place to an open and transparent one like Bitcoin.

Anonymity will always be there as a countermeasure, but for now we need to get more open to restore the balance and not let our star system to collapse into another black hole.

Here is my Christmas gift for everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-rxe9Ayb8c
Enjoy!

[contagion]

BitcoinFreak12 and interlagos,

Bottom-up organization devolves to centralization and corruption, when taxes need to be collectivized. There is no way to prevent the THE IRON LAW of Political Economics[1]. The salient point is that when resources are collectivized, the flies come to the honey. You can never stop that fact of economics.

We have already tried that, it was called municipal governments, county governments, and state governments. What happened? United States. European Union. Asian Union coming 2015.

Review the relevant discussion in the thread below:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=892294.msg9933752#msg9933752

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and never realizing you will get the same result every time.

Thus you are insane.

[1] In collectivized action the self interest incentives are misaligned with the global optimization.

The only form of decentralization that will resist centralization is as I have described on this page and the previous page of this thread. Review the post where I explained how to technologically invert the Political Economics so that the resources are pushing away from the center (making the intermediaries dumb) and out to the individuals at the edge of the social interaction network. In this way, paradigms shifts are never suppressed by the center power, because the center has no power.

Please stop this INSANE discussion. You are obscuring the important solutions I have provided. You are rehashing shit that humanity has tried over and over since Mesopotamia and has never worked.

[BitcoinFreak12]

@BitcoinFreak12

I had a similar insight about the new societal structure a couple of years ago:
"consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124477

In short global society is organized as a hierarchy of consensus groups starting with the minimal cell - family. Smaller consesnus groups are then free to join or leave larger ones. I'm still of the opinion that transparency in communication will help the whole system to self-organize in the best possible way. Collaboration requires transparency of communication.

Hey i`m open to any liberty based ideas, I myself am an anarcho-capitalist, but i`d accept even a libertarian world rather than the socialist-corporatist that i`m living in now.

So perhaps we can build the liberty world step by step, and then we can decide how far we will go, full anarcho-capitalist or we would retain a smaller state, but a very small one in a form of a libertarian fully open society.

The issue now remains to take the first step, and dont hesitate

One pointing out though, i dont consider the family as the basic unit, i consider the individual the basis. Because the family can be abusive, or just not exist, orphans, or just simply people who like individuality like I do.

So for example i am not married and i would never marry, because i consider the marriage a socialist-marxist thing, ,a collective household bullsh*t,because you have to share the income and the property, the responsability (household debt),and else, and if you divorce you are forced to give up half, which is a very communist principle.

I`d much happily live with a woman as a couple or girlfriend relation, than to bind myself legally into a communist stupidity. Now you might think its crazy, but its just my view of marriage, i dont like socialist/communist stuff

I agree with what you said. My example of family was in terms of a minimal group that required consensus and collaboration, but not in a legal sense of the word. Being an individual is perfectly fine too.

Now regarding first steps and taking action. The system I described would work best if done bottom-up, but reality is such that we already have power clusters operating in the shadow that would likely prevent any competition in this space. So the most appropriate action in our situation is to start opening them up, step by step, little by little. The only way to let black hole evaporate, is to stop feeding it, which means moving away from obscure financial system currently in place to an open and transparent one like Bitcoin.

Anonymity will always be there as a countermeasure, but for now we need to get more open to restore the balance and not let our star system to collapse into another black hole.

Here is my Christmas gift for everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-rxe9Ayb8c
Enjoy!

Elect yourself world president , i`ll vote for you

BitcoinFreak12 and interlagos,

Bottom-up organization devolves to centralization and corruption, when taxes need to be collectivized. There is no way to prevent the THE IRON LAW of Political Economics[1]. The salient point is that when resources are collectivized, the flies come to the honey. You can never stop that fact of economics.

We have already tried that, it was called municipal governments, county governments, and state governments. What happened? United States. European Union. Asian Union coming 2015.

Review the relevant discussion in the thread below:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=892294.msg9933752#msg9933752

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and never realizing you will get the same result every time.

Thus you are insane.

[1] In collectivized action the self interest incentives are misaligned with the global optimization.

The only form of decentralization that will resist centralization is as I have described on this page and the previous page of this thread. Review the post where I explained how to technologically invert the Political Economics so that the resources are pushing away from the center (making the intermediaries dumb) and out to the individuals at the edge of the social interaction network. In this way, paradigms shifts are never suppressed by the center power, because the center has no power.

Please stop this INSANE discussion. You are obscuring the important solutions I have provided. You are rehashing shit that humanity has tried over and over since Mesopotamia and has never worked.

I mostly agree with you, but let me say one thing about your idea of pushing away the resources.

I think the most important factor is to have a good education system, which not necessarly has to be government, it could be a privatized wonderful system.

Because there are huge problems with the education system worldwide, now i cant speak for the entire world, but i know how it works in my country. Basically its a repetitive drone-like memorization process, where you give X student Y material and he has to memorize it like a drone, instead of understanding.

I`m pretty sure it works the same way across the world, whereas instead of letting the student think for himself, and understand the material, he has to not think for himself, and just memorize it.

I think its a huge propaganda machine, where the statists try to dumb down the average people to become obedient, and never question authority, just like if you were in a military, never question the superior officer or you go to court martial, just like that.

So the edutation system, since it became state managed (after 1900 in various countires, before that we had local techers teaching with more passion), became a huge 12 year long brainwashing facility where you dumb down the average people, and make them obediend and to never question authority and make always what the teacher says.

Now for a student, it might not be so obvious, for me it took many years to figure it out, now i`m in my late 20's but i clearly remember when i was in highschool, how much propaganda was there, and its hard to see it with the eye of a student, but after a few years it becomes obvious.

I even remember my own kindengarten, where it all started, with the fact that you need to ask for permission to go to the toilet, its just a simple think like that, and it wasnt really for anything important ,because they would always let you out to go to the toilet, obviously they wont let you pee on yourself, but the question was really irrelevant.

The motive of the question was more like a psychological, to intimidate the 3 year old child to not do things what he needs to do or wants to do, but instead surrender himself to an authority from a young age and to always ask for a permission.

And believe it or not, but in my highschool aswell you had to ask for permission to go to the toilet, seriously. A 17-18 year old almost graduate student has to ask for permission from the teacher to go to the toilet at 18  

There was just so much propaganda and statist psycho-infiltration there that i get nausea when i think back of my highschool.

And you see this small thing , the asking of permission to go to the toilet, in adulthood results in things like:
-asking the superior (state) for a driving permit to drive cars
-asking the state for a fishing permit to fish
-asking the state for a bulding permit to build a house
-asking the state for a gun permit to carry a gun
-asking the state for a business permit to let you sell stuff in your business
etc....

So you can't do these on your own, you always need to beg the state for those permits, because what difference does it make, i mean what could possibly go wrong if a person just fishes without permit (other than the fact that get gets a huge fine and up to 1 year jail), i mean he doesnt hurt anybody, but the state just doesnt like people to think for themselves.

The state must always infiltrate your life, it infiltrates in your TV, the internet, your personal life, and even in your mind, and its just horrible how much propaganda you get nowadays.

So my original point was, that if you want to start to change anything, we need first to wake up from this brainwashing propaganda, which starts as soon as one goes to kindengarten, and from age 3 until death, it will manipulate and control your life and also it will intimidate you, harass you and do other evil things to you and every other person on the planet.
First people need to wake up, and stop feeding our children this propaganda, we first of all need a better education system worldwide I think thats the very first step, because if you continue to educate people in this indimidative manner, then obviously they'll become statist drones.

[BitcoinFreak12]

I mean statism has almost become a religion, it's the religion of the 21st century. Now i`m an atheist myself, but i have many christian friends, and i also grew up in a christian household, my country is very religious.

And even though religion starts to lose power in the western world, it's influence finally starts to diminish, more and more atheists are coming out, and leaving religions.

And not just atheists, but even amongs my religious friends, they also gave up going to church, they remained chirsitan, but they just dont follow the mainstream churches, because we all know what organized religion does (hint: extreme pedophelia, genocide, crusade, spreading AIDS,etc) , and all my religious friends despise this, so even them as they cant give up religion, atlease they stopped going to churches and now they form decentralized religious communities, sort of like a praying community.

So you can see that even the religious people are now against the organized religion's powerhungry agenda, and the organized religions become more and more decentralized, and start to lose more and more influence.

However this is only 1 victory, the 100.000 year old beast (religion) finally is on its deathbead, a new beast has risen up, an even more ferocious beast, which is only 5000-6000 year old and has already caused more harm in these brief 5000 years, than the religion has ever caused in the 100.000 years.

The new beast is called the state, and its almost like a religion, an anachist has called it the religion of the 21st century, whereas many new atheists, despite the fact that they reject an invisible God ruling over them, they easily accept another invisible God ruling over them as the State.

Because the State fits almost every definition of a God:
-omnipotent: definitely, in the sense that it rules over all of our lives and can do whatever they want
-omnipresent: yup, mass surveilance, TV and Media propaganda, it's in your house, you neighborhood, and your mind
-omniscient: yes, it thinks that it knows everything,thus it makes you follow it as it thinks that it knows everything better than you do
-omni-belevolent: definitely not, but funny because even the christian god has comitted genocide and its depicted as belevolent, so the state comitting genocides in the 20st century, yet in every media its depicted as the wonderfuly protector of the nation
-invisible: yes
-requires worship: oh yes, definitely
-rewards the obedient and punishes the wicked? : yes, good statist drones get government aid, bad statist drones go to jail
-requires blood sacrifices: yes from time to time it requires people to sacrifice their lives to it: wars
-requires your money: yes its called taxes
-has earthly representatives: yes its called politicians
-has a place of worship: yes, its called government building or parliament building
-requires people to pray: yes, people protest before a state building to get more welfare
-wants to control our lives: yes, it infiltrates everywhere and wants to control every aspect of your life
-promises you good stuff but never gives you any: yes, before every election you are promised better wages and welfare, but after the election you actually get more regulation and taxes
-does it have inquisitors: yes government agents eliminate the heretics
-does it tolerate heretics: no
-does it like atheists: no, it punishes them with jail in some places
-does it like if you worship another God: no, it considers it treason
-does it commit genocies: yes, throughout the 19 and 20 centuries many examples are well known
-does it like gay people: no, in many european states they ban gay marriage
-does it like abortion: no, in many european states they ban abortion
etc...

So you see, the state is exactly as if it were a God like in the bible, but the big problem is that although the bible god doesnt exist, unfortunately the state God exists. And it's just like a cult, some people would die to protect it, and they are very fanatics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T2MiRiZJ9Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIJhAE85NGE

[contagion]

Bottom-up organization devolves to centralization and corruption, when taxes need to be collectivized. There is no way to prevent the THE IRON LAW of Political Economics[1]. The salient point is that when resources are collectivized, the flies come to the honey. You can never stop that fact of economics.

We have already tried that, it was called municipal governments, county governments, and state governments. What happened? United States. European Union. Asian Union coming 2015.

...

The only form of decentralization that will resist centralization is as I have described on this page and the previous page of this thread. Review the post where I explained how to technologically invert the Political Economics so that the resources are pushing away from the center (making the intermediaries dumb) and out to the individuals at the edge of the social interaction network. In this way, paradigms shifts are never suppressed by the center power, because the center has no power.

...

I mostly agree with you, but let me say one thing about your idea of pushing away the resources.

I think the most important factor is to have a good education system, which not necessarly has to be government, it could be a privatized wonderful system.
...

And believe it or not, but in my highschool aswell you had to ask for permission to go to the toilet, seriously. A 17-18 year old almost graduate student has to ask for permission from the teacher to go to the toilet at 18  

...

And you see this small thing , the asking of permission to go to the toilet, in adulthood results in things like:
-asking the superior (state) for a driving permit to drive cars
-asking the state for a fishing permit to fish
-asking the state for a bulding permit to build a house
-asking the state for a gun permit to carry a gun
-asking the state for a business permit to let you sell stuff in your business
etc....

Include a marriage license which originates from paying the King for permission to not take your fiancee to his bed.

I mean statism has almost become a religion, it's the religion of the 21st century. Now i`m an atheist myself, but i have many christian friends, and i also grew up in a christian household, my country is very religious.

And even though religion starts to lose power in the western world, it's influence finally starts to diminish, more and more atheists are coming out, and leaving religions [but running directly to the State or other new delusion].

...

However this is only 1 victory, the 100.000 year old beast (religion) finally is on its deathbead, a new beast has risen up, an even more ferocious beast, which is only 5000-6000 year old and has already caused more harm in these brief 5000 years, than the religion has ever caused in the 100.000 years.

The new beast is called the state, and its almost like a religion, an anachist has called it the religion of the 21st century, whereas many new atheists, despite the fact that they reject an invisible God ruling over them, they easily accept another invisible God ruling over them as the State.

Because the State fits almost every definition of a God:
-omnipotent: definitely, in the sense that it rules over all of our lives and can do whatever they want
-omnipresent: yup, mass surveilance, TV and Media propaganda, it's in your house, you neighborhood, and your mind
-omniscient: yes, it thinks that it knows everything,thus it makes you follow it as it thinks that it knows everything better than you do
-omni-belevolent: definitely not, but funny because even the christian god has comitted genocide and its depicted as belevolent, so the state comitting genocides in the 20st century, yet in every media its depicted as the wonderfuly protector of the nation
-invisible: yes
-requires worship: oh yes, definitely
-rewards the obedient and punishes the wicked? : yes, good statist drones get government aid, bad statist drones go to jail
-requires blood sacrifices: yes from time to time it requires people to sacrifice their lives to it: wars
-requires your money: yes its called taxes
-has earthly representatives: yes its called politicians
-has a place of worship: yes, its called government building or parliament building
-requires people to pray: yes, people protest before a state building to get more welfare
-wants to control our lives: yes, it infiltrates everywhere and wants to control every aspect of your life
-promises you good stuff but never gives you any: yes, before every election you are promised better wages and welfare, but after the election you actually get more regulation and taxes
-does it have inquisitors: yes government agents eliminate the heretics
-does it tolerate heretics: no
-does it like atheists: no, it punishes them with jail in some places
-does it like if you worship another God: no, it considers it treason
-does it commit genocies: yes, throughout the 19 and 20 centuries many examples are well known
-does it like gay people: no, in many european states they ban gay marriage
-does it like abortion: no, in many european states they ban abortion
etc...

So you see, the state is exactly as if it were a God like in the bible, but the big problem is that although the bible god doesnt exist, unfortunately the state God exists. And it's just like a cult, some people would die to protect it, and they are very fanatics.

Indeed, this has been discussed else where as follows...

(apologies continuing the religious topic which was only on topic to the extent that political and religious collectives are argued to be self-serving delusions that can be manipulated by those entrusted with leadership or controlling roles, e.g. the ministers and politicians)

The breaking point for me was recently someone I've known since 2007 telling me that Tribulations will begin Sept 23, 2015 and massive death and suffering globally by 2019, which corresponds to Armstrong's (non-religious) computer model of massive global implosion and global pandemic by 2019. I just can't fathom a God that will save 144,000 (or even 144 million) and send the rest of the humanity into eternal excruciating pain with open sores on their body. It sounds too similar to CNN's Ted Turner's Georgia Guidestones' inscription proclaiming to reduce the population to 500 million totalitarian eugenics. I was forced by that challenge to think clearly and make a decision. No more standing with one leg on each side of the fence.

The Bible's psychological profile will appeal to people who do not want to think clearly. Typically they have some psychological handicap which causes them to need this delusion. In my case, I think I was drawn to it because of love of and loyalty to those who subscribed to Christianity, the failure of my marriage, death of my relationship with my father, murder of my only full blooded sibling sister, the loss of vision in my right eye, and then being infected with incurable high strain HPV which lead to the decline in my health. I guess I wanted to believe there was still something to feel positive about in spite of all the failures in my life. But falling into that delusion actually made my behavior worse. Rather than dealing with my depression, I covered it up with a nebulous mayonnaise. It is very important to be proactive about depression and attack it by accomplishing happy and positive actions using clear thinking so we don't just haphazardly wander into self destruction.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6595

The temptation to choose sides
 Posted on 2014-12-22 by Eric Raymond

One of the most unfortunate social behaviors of human beings is that in the presence of any dispute, they feel a strong need to choose a side. And then stick with it, even when their chosen side behaves very badly.

...

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6599

Self-sacrifice as hacker-culture glue
 Posted on 2014-12-24 by Eric Raymond

...which argues that onerous religious requirements are effective ways of building in-group trust because they are commitment signals that are difficult to fake.

It occurred to me to wonder: do hackers do this? And…I think we do.

One thing we sacrifice as a commitment signal is time. Software engineering and the support tasks around it are notorious time sinks, and working on open-source projects readily expands to fill up every free waking hour you have. The results are visible as code and commit volume.

Admittedly, it’s hard to disentangle the extent to which this is an intended commitment signal from how much we love what we do. But maybe this isn’t such a problem as it appears; religious people claim to love their group observances too, and appear to be truthful in this at least some of the time.

The question, then, is how much of the quasi-obsessive, apparently overcommitted behavior of hackers comes not from the obvious primary rewards of creative work but from a desire to signal in-groupness. I don’t know the answer, but now that I’m considering the question I’m pretty sure it’s not zero.

Note that this is a different mechanism than seeking reputation for the quality of one’s work. That comes from results, whereas the commitment signal comes from investment.

And, er, why play for in-groupness and peer trust? Well, I point out that my blog regulars recently threw nearly three grand in donations at me so I could build the Great Beast of Malvern, on which I am typing now. I think we may reasonably suppose this had something to do with peer trust.

The Great Beast is an extreme example, but there are rewards of peer trust less obvious and more common, such as the ability to recruit help for projects you need done.

Another thing we frequently sacrifice is earning capacity. Yes, there are plenty of people nowadays who have good jobs writing open-source code – but then, there are plenty who don’t, too. At least some are voluntarily forgoing more lucrative employment at closed-source shops. Principle? Possibly. Commitment signaling? Also possibly. As I never tire of pointing out, all interesting behavior is overdetermined.

Because I am an honest rationalist, I am now going to point out a significant problem with this theory. A straight-line analogy with Iannaccone’s type case of mainline protestants vs. evangelicals suggests that the hard-core self-sacrificers and fundamentalists in the hacker community ought to be gaining adherents at the expense of more moderate and inclusive tendencies.

This is not the direction in which the community has been moving since the early 1990s. Yes, yes, I know, as one of the “moderate” thought leaders and a strong advocate of inclusiveness I might not be considered entirely disinterested here…but I always believed I was liberating a pent-up demand rather than bucking a trend in the opposite direction, and history seems to have borne out that belief. Our fundamentalists certainly talk like a beleaguered minority…

There are a couple of possible explanations. One is that Iannacone’s theory is, despite its superficial plausibility, broken – he has somehow mistaken accident for essence. Another is that despite the apparent similarity in behaviors there is some fundamental difference between the psychology of religious believers and hackers that means his insights are true about the former but do not map over to the latter.

The possibility that I think is both most interesting and most likely to be true is that Iannacone’s theory is correct but incomplete: the rigorists only win if in-group signaling is the most important consequence of rigor, and not generally if there are other instrumentally rational and sufficient motives for those behaviors. In the hacker culture, we ship software; we do things that have useful results. And ultimately we judge by those results; “Show me the working code” easily beats “Show me your sacrifice.”

A related point is that fundamentalists are almost by definition worse at building coalitions with people outside their in-group than moderates are. That may be an acceptable handicap for an inward-facing religious group, but to the extent that hackers need to play well with others to get what they want, that requirement gives our moderates an advantage.

Overall, while I think the application of Iannacone’s ideas I’ve sketched is descriptively very plausible, there is one final problem with it. It’s not very generative. I have not yet identified a testable consequence. Perhaps one of my regulars will notice one.

And again I am explaining the solution upthread and at some posts in the Economic Devastation thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg9940008#msg9940008

Open source theory is rooted in evolutionary psychology, by Eric S. Raymond[2]
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6586#comment-1364271

(note you won't find my comment below at the above link, because Eric S. Raymond censors my comments. Go figure    )

Money is a language for exchanging value. In open source we are saving in acquired (personal and collective) knowledge and reputation, thus a language of value exchange.

When software or knowledge has become the most valuable product in the economy[1], this exchange can in theory significantly fulfill individual’s needs and desires. However, it is probably not the most efficient currency.

Knowledge and projects aren’t fungible. The maximum division-of-labor insures that some needs can’t be fulfilled by trading knowledge in kind.

Yet we don’t trust fungible monetary representations of value because they are inherently social institutions which are debased with debt and fractional reserves in a devolution into the antithesis of knowledge due to the Iron Law of Resource Statism.

Proof-of-work solved the Byzantine Generals Problem so in theory inverted the location of power in a monetary system moving it from the collective center to the individuals at the ends of the network, leaving only dumb protocol agents in the center — the end-to-end principle.

The individuals unleashed from that horrific Iron Law, are now free to vote with their value to walk away from initiatives (e.g. Paypal or Coinbase loaning in Bitcoin fractional reserves offchain) that debase the knowledge value in a decentralized cryptocurrency.

I assert that monetization of open source with decentralized cryptocurrency is imminent. The maximum division-of-labor is a more efficient and powerful force than open source’s gift culture — it scales.

One generative prediction is that open source will become more modular and granular because project module developers remunerated in a knowledge backed currency are able to maximize their division-of-labor without the collectivization variance risk tradeoff of the gift culture when open source developers choose between applying their effort to larger projects that have the most inertia and smaller projects that have the most potential gain in (knowledge and reputation) value.

Gold can’t be that knowledge backed currency because it can’t be exchanged digitally and anonymously. It is impossible to make a digital proxy backed by physical gold that obeys the end-to-end principle because proof-of-work is based on decentralized consensus without trust. How could you not trust anyone to hold the gold backing, yet still insure the backing exists.

[1]	Iron was a precious metal 342 B.C.. Commodity prices inexorably trend downwards. http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#2nd_Law_of_Thermo

[2] Eric S. Raymond is the 150 - 170 IQ genius writer and progenitor of the term “open source” and promoted it as a non-communist, alternative to Richard Stallman’s and GNU’s antecedent “free software” movement. He is famous for writing the The Art of Unix Programming, the Cathedral and the Bazaar, and the Magic Cauldron, which enumerated many of the design and economic philosophies and principles that drive the internet, modern software, and open source. If you want to dig into understanding the coercion, communism problem with “free software” which ESR corrected with his promulgation of “open source”, listen to Eric’s advocacy in the following video about permissive open source licenses versus the GNU GPL viral licenses which compel certain actions on the licensee.

http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/05/17/lessons-from-a-jug-talk-with-eric-esr-raymond/ (skip to 9:30 mins in video, or 11:15 for punch line)

[interlagos]

I have an idea.
What if instead of moving to Knowledge Age, we move straight to Joyful Age.

In Joyful Age your joy becomes money.
It's inherently decentralized system because everyone can generate joy by doing things that they feel most passionate about. Think of it! What is more joyful - to know something or to learn something? What is more joyful - a static state or a process? Maybe that's why a system, where different competing incompatible paradigms alternate between each other, exists. It's called time. I will tell you the secret - time never started and it will never end, because it runs in a circle.

Everything is created to have joy and yet you are given a choice to not have it. See, in order to have joy of "rising from the ashes", for example, we need to create ashes first and then convince ourselves to get there. The problem is that sometimes this process takes so long that by the time we are there we have completely forgotten what the purpose was in the first place

So instead of waiting that someone will come and give us joy, why don't we generate joy ourselves and share it with others? The Universe will take care of the rest, she is a grown girl after all, she knows how to handle herself.

[contagion]

Eric S. Raymond is very much into female empowerment (wants them to carry guns, admires smart, strong females, etc) and he has at least a 150 IQ, so you could start with his insights (really you widen your perspective by reading Eric's writing and his comments in the comments section of each of his essays):

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aesr.ibiblio.org+hypergamy

The society has gone bezerk because the socialism destroyed the women, which thus destroyed the men:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/01/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/05/05/birth-rate-declines-with-higher-taxes-is-hollywood-to-blame-for-divorce/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/14/economic-decline-returning-marriage-to-historical-norms/

Women are hormonally unstable (that is a medical fact), hypergamy driven. Men drive the production, responsibility, and structure of the economy and society. It was the castration of men by the State that destroyed Western civilization.

I am not saying there are not very smart females, but this doesn't change the statistical reality that women primarily exist for child rearing. I would want my daughter to achieve as much as she wants to, but ultimately unless she follows the false life plan, she would most likely be happiest if she had a child in her 20s to have her own family.

...

Edit: Bill Gates has been trying to end the population growth in Africa, and is all part of the plan to westernize females all around the world in order to castrate men and put the power in control of the elite who control the political economics...

Really unless you understand what I am saying about decentralization and about not turning women into Frankenstein by tempting them with all the power of the State as temptation they can not resist to destroy men (and themselves), then we will just be forever hamsters on the wheel.

I hope you swallow the red pill w.r.t. to the feminist propaganda and culture you've been taught in school...

The surest metric of socialism is the percentage of the GDP attributable to government. As you can see, the banksters are using their various means to incentivize the last bastions of small government to extinction. The deal is this, if you want high credit ratings (so you get more bond investors and more foreign direct investment), you have to increase the size of your government relative to GDP.

http://business.inquirer.net/184091/revenue-generation-in-ph-weak-says-moodys

Revenue generation in PH weak, says Moody’s

The Philippines’ “investment grade” is now undisputed, but authorities still face the challenge of getting the government’s finances in order, Moody’s Investor Service said in a new report.

In its credit analysis on the Philippines, the rating agency said despite recent improvements, government revenues as a proportion to the size of the economy was still well below that of most economies with investment grade distinction.

“A continued weakness in the Philippines’ fiscal strength is its revenue generation,” Moody’s said in a report released this week.

Data released earlier this year showed the government’s revenues relative to gross domestic product (GDP) improved to 15.6 percent in the middle of 2014 from 15.3 percent the year before.

Tax revenues also inched up to 13.7 percent.

For the whole of 2014, the government is targeting a tax-to-GDP ratio of 14.7 percent and a revenue to GDP ratio of 15.7 percent.

Partly in recognition of the government’s improving revenues, Moody’s upgraded the Philippines government’s sovereign credit rating to Baa2 or two notches above the “junk” status that the country had just two years past.

Standard & Poor’s gave the country a similar rating earlier in the year, while Fitch Ratings still has the Philippines at its minimum investment grade.

Despite rising revenues, the government still lags behind neighbors in the region.

Thailand, which is similarly rated as the Philippines, had a tax to GDP ratio of 16.5 percent in 2012. Malaysia, which is rated higher than the Philippines, collected taxes equivalent to 16.1 percent of GDP in 2012, World Bank data showed.

Moody’s said in 2013, only two other countries—the tiny Sharjah (A3 stable) and the Isle of Man (Aa1 stable)—recorded lower revenue to GDP “among investment-grade sovereigns.”

The rating firm still expects the Philippines to continue making improvements.

Revenue growth will be sustained at a level higher than nominal GDP growth for a fourth consecutive year in 2014.

Over the first 10 months of the year, reported revenues grew 12.6 percent year-on-year, up from 11.8 percent for the full year in 2013.

While tax administration measures at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)—amounting to 69.6 percent of total reported revenues year-to-date—were behind the improvement in revenue growth since 2011, receipts from BIR slowed to 11.0 percent year-on-year over the first 10 months of 2014 versus an annual average of 13.9 percent in the preceding three-year period.

Mitigating this slowdown at the BIR are reforms at the Bureau of Customs (BOC), which have propped up overall revenue performance.

BOC receipts grew by 18 percent through October this year, up significantly from an annual average of 5.6 percent in the preceding three-year period.

The banksters hope one day the developing world can be just like what happened to the USA as follows.

http://grandfather-economic-report.com/piechart.htm

http://grandfather-economic-report.com/gov-trend.gifhttp://grandfather-economic-report.com/spend-regulation.gif

[contagion]

Martinfoilhat Armwrong is getting called out and reamed on 0H for spewing idiotic anti-1st Amendment crap like "One good place to start is OUTLAW negative advertising."


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-31/martin-armstrong-what-point-does-revolution-take-place#comment-5400653

Martin Armstr0ng was the gopher boy for Brit Neocon Sir Alan Walters. Armstr0ng's mentor was a card carrying member of the NWO. Walters is dead now but when he was alive this is how Walters spent his time:

> Monetarist econ advisor to Margaret Thatcher
> Adviser to the World Bank
> Vice Chairman of AIG Trading Group
> American Enterprise Institute

AEI, you may have heard, is the HQ for the NeoCon NWO Goat Worshipers who are responsible for damn near every bad thing happening in the world right now.

Armstr0ng's writings show he is trying to keep that NWO flame alive, doing his part by highlighting one side of a manufactured conflict. A manufactured conflict brought to you by his handlers in NeoCon central - the American Enterprise Instute. They have spent years pushing their Hegelian dialectic, order out of chaos game plan.

If you don't like the AEI you really won't like their scummy Atr0ngish partners over at the Husdon institute: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0295vks

Armstr0ng is one their minions. He may have arrived at this point against his will, via bribery, coercion etc, leveraging his trouble with the law. The outcome is he is a sold-out neocon pet and therefore a professional shit disturber.

Over the past three years Armst0ng is portrayed as a"voice of knowledge" on this site (and others). He typically posts three paragrahs and a few pics for impact.

Who is this guy and where did he come from? Why should we listen to what he has to say? Peculiar - he never calls out the banksters.

Caveat emptor amigos.

 <ps - still waiting for someone to prove me wrong. Waiting for three years now>

Here are some more comments from that ZeroHedge page.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-31/martin-armstrong-what-point-does-revolution-take-place#comment-5399115

One good place to start is OUTLAW negative advertising.

Wow!  Gotta love Armstrong's idea of a "revolution".  Let's use a government entity to suppress free speech.  As awful as mud-slinging dirty campaining is, it is still constituted as free speech.  Why is this garbage posted on a libertarian leaning site?  Absolutely dreadful.

I would take a totally asleep America over some of these dreadful ideas posted as "solutions" anyday.

Yeah booboo, Armstrong calls for a "revolution", yet under his proposal the very same politicians he distrusts are now going to regulate what a fair campaign ad is, and if a campaign ad isn't good enough the candidate faces PRISON TIME??? What the heck is this doing on zero hedge / fight club??? The incumbents would remain in power forever under such a scheme because any possible opponent would be thrown in a government cage.

I would expect to see this crap on Foreign Affairs, Faux News or the Washington Post, not on a libertarian website.

He called out the Politicians.  That's at least 1/3 of the problem right?  Then you have Bankers...And then you have us.  The citizens.  I'm not sure which is more pathetic.

I am always wondering about Armstrong's true intentions because I also notice he tries to deflect all blame away from the banksters who are colluding and doing creative destruction to bring about a NWO. And also Armstrong is always promoting implausible "solutions" that require us to reform government globally, which is of course can not be done without some sort of massive uprising and NWO result. He knows damn well that we can't reform the government without first collapsing the socialism, because the politics are dictated by the fact that the boomers will not agree to live in trailer parks and eat oatmeal and Chef Boyardee canned Ravioli instead of their current more lavish lifestyles.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/12/27/belarus-imposes-price-controls-as-ruble-falls/

We can deal with this coming trend in two ways. First, you can just hide your head in the sand and pretend it will not happen. Second, we can understand its cause and then address the real problem – corruption in government with structural reforms. The more people who we can win over to understanding the nature of the beast, the greater the chances of rising from the ashes.

Armstrong should know damn well from his computer model that the global economy is going to collapse and there is not damn thing any body can do to stop that outcome.

The way we will rise from the ashes is with a Knowledge Age wherein transactions are anonymous with a cryptocurrency and we Knowledge Age economy participants will ignore the Mad Max NWO government. Yeah those who can't get with the Knowledge Age will push for NWO as a final solution by 2032 to the chaos and collapse that will occur interim. And that NWO will be extreme slavery with electronic fiat that tracks every thing. The youth will agree because the boomers will have died off by then and the burden of this world government electronic taxation will be acceptable versus the alternative of the antecedent chaos.

So let Armstrong have his NWO bullshit. He can be mired in that shit with the rest of the dumbfucks who want to remain in the stone (industrial, hard resources, fixed capital over knowledge) age.

I can't believe he is this dumb. He must be an agent for the NWO. This is probably why they published his Forecaster movie. He is being pitched as a rebel but in reality he is minion on the NWO plan. Either he knows this, or is just incredibly fucking naive.

[blablahblah]

BitcoinFreak12 and interlagos,

Bottom-up organization devolves to centralization and corruption, when taxes need to be collectivized.

Correction: centralization in the presence of any pressures, such as the need to survive in a competitive environment. Taxation is just one example of a cost. It's cherry-picking and unfair lynching because it's easily identifiable and therefore a soft target.

Other costs of doing productive work might be the time spent, or the "sweat" energy required. But there the feedback loop is much tighter: people quickly notice that as soon as they stop working, the resources stop flowing. It doesn't require a high IQ to see the connection. However, the bigger the organisation and the more layers of indirection and bureaucratic absorption, the harder it is to see who pays for your servants to clean for you.


The error An-Capers and Libertarians are making is failing to identify government as an unavoidable consequence of a long evolutionary series of private mergers and acquisitions, economies of scale, internal cooperation / mutual back-scratching, hostile takeovers, anti-competitive behaviour, maintaining hegemony, corruption-collapse-rebuilding, and all that other utopian freedom-loving goodness.

The only form of decentralization that will resist centralization is as I have described on this page and the previous page of this thread. Review the post where I explained how to technologically invert the Political Economics so that the resources are pushing away from the center (making the intermediaries dumb) and out to the individuals at the edge of the social interaction network. In this way, paradigms shifts are never suppressed by the center power, because the center has no power.

Resources pushing out from the centre? Care to elaborate? Sounds like sunlight, or some low-entropy state bathing everyone with excess energy, in which case the flow should be instantaneous unless there's friction. You seem to be complaining that the friction doesn't start at the skin of the organism, rather it starts somewhere outside, feeding a layer of bureaucratic fat. IMO a much bigger disruption than 3d printers and related individual knowledge creation tools, would be a breakthrough with domestic LENR/cold fusion/whatever ultra-safe and abundant energy that bypasses the oil and gas giants. Then you get your reversal.

[contagion]

I don't respond to blahblahblah because he can't grasp simple concepts.

[contagion]

http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/12/how-might-a-china-slowdown-affect-the-world/

A world of excess savings is prone to bubbles, and either debt-fueled consumption or high unemployment, and this pretty much describes the world we have been living for the past two decades. For this reason I would argue that countries that are ... exporting excess savings – i.e. running current account surpluses – are weakening growth abroad.

This means that to assume slower growth in China will reduce growth abroad is wrong. ... As long as the world suffers from weak global demand, if China’s current account surplus declines relative to global GDP, China is adding net demand to a world that needs it. This is positive for global growth.

This logic is false in a global debt deflation contagion where global demand declines faster than China's subsidized fixed-investment sector and exports do. Simple math says that when the global marginal-of-utility-of-debt has become negative, then there is no form of QE nor debt restructuring which can stop the decline in global GDP.

I also doubt a successful redistribution to the consumer share of the economy from the subsidized investment sector, because it assumes there are assets of value to transfer between sectors. But if the assets were egregiously subsidized (i.e. examples of misallocated capital) then their net transfer value is small or even negative. For example, Michael's alternative hypothesis to the reverse real estate wealth effect on consumption is that consumers will receive lower housing costs and that the consumption of the wealthy is not as sensitive to changes in wealth. But it seems reasonable to assume that supply meets overextended demand in a frenzied mass mania speculative debt bubble so everyone who was capable of buying a condo on credit did so which would include a perhaps 50% of the consumers given a $50,000 price for a 1 bedroom condo and an annual salary of $16,000. So the reverse wealth effect would diminish consumption. And if Jim Chanos was correct that the average investment condo size is 100 sq.m, then at $2500+ per sq.m, even if these drop -50% in price they will still be unaffordable to the majority of the consumers.

[Agestorzrxx]

For most of people don't really need anonymous.