In the spirit of Christmas, can we on bitcointalk.org try to find some political consensus? Can Flying Hellfish and TECSHARE agree on anything?
Some points which might find general agreement:
- The freedom of individuals is important.
- The prevailing banking/fiat system is on the whole bad.
- In most places, the people would be far better off if major changes were made to their respective governments.
- As long as scarcity exists, the existence of some form of trade is good.
- Technology is good.
- Humanity should dominate the universe.
Any others? Do you disagree with even those broad statements?
I sometimes find it hard to form a solid opinion on broad statements than ones that are drilled down.. well I think so anyway.
Sometimes over simplification can lead to me not knowing if I agree or disagree... then again it's the details that are impossible to thrash out to an optimal solution that makes me realise there is no knowing if you are more positive or negative in either direction.....hmm.
1. freedom of the individual
Yes agree its important but unsure if it can be more important than the impact on the group of that freedom. So is it important or not? Well I think we should aim for as much freedom as possible.
This is a tough balance in any society. I highly value individual freedoms although... Each individual can not be free to do exactly as they like else an optimal quality of life (in terms of enjoyment) can not be led by the optimal number of individuals.
The individuals freedom should be something that should be set to max settings until clearly negative/non optimal on group. I had this discussion before on here with another person where I still think that if were possible every individual should be free of all rules(if that is what they want) if they could live isolated or apart from others where their actions had no direct impact. Later trade between them and any other group could be on agreeable terms.
This sadly is not possible as of now but may become possible. Over intrusive government or any layers of control that are not needed should be rolled back until doing so is again clearly negative or dangerous for the group. Really though until any individual can opt out freedom of the individual needs balancing carefully. I do believe even anarchy is better than centralised control that is clearly not working for the optimal quality of life for the optimal amount of people. Especially if that control is spiraling out of control in terms of becoming more centralised, more powerful and less optimal for more people.
2 The prevailing banking/fiat system is on the whole bad.
This is a system of control that I do not believe seeks to provide an optimal standard of life for an optimal number of people at this time.
3. In most places, the people would be far better off if major changes were made to their respective governments.
Yes but the blueprint for such changes I would not know exactly where to start. Even small changes can have large and unintended impact through so many levels and permutations I would be scared of what to change first. Streamlining and making them more efficient would be the first way ..... but I know even governments and their actions or even abilities to enact change are part of a wider connected web of global trade and business.
4. As long as scarcity exists, the existence of some form of trade is good.
Yes I think so
5. Technology is good.
Hmmm. Another one where I have no idea of the true answer. Technology and well all science is to me a simple discovery of laws that exist so merely unraveling the truth of these laws and building things that operate upon those laws. This knowledge has great power to do good and bad. However to me as technology enables control and influence of a small central control over the majority regardless of their will then I will say this discovery of laws is both good and bad and is good for somethings but bad for others. I think I would say it is both essential and terrifying. It will depend upon how it is put to use. Long term I say it is good short to mid term it could be bad for lots of people. Then again from observing the timeline of technology perhaps it has made things better for people and most will only see it as good. Unclear.
6. Humanity should dominate the universe.
I have no idea. Again I am not sure what alternative forms of intelligence or dominating forces there are. To me humanity to a vast degree is born of being self aware, awareness of others and awareness of the interactions between parties and their effects for both sides then running a calculation of what the self gain vs group gain ratio is. Self being favoured but if it is sociable which I expect any form of intelligence would be then moderate consideration to the group and their ability or motivation to interact on a basis you would like. I mean I just made that up as I thought about it... the last bit so could be totally incorrect and crazy.
These are just where I am now of course... as always open to change my mind if I can see that those answers are non optimal...or just hugely flawed.
optimal is a great word I am sure of that.
Am I a communist by the way? Someone said that I was .....but I had always preferred to be civilian in a capitalist democratic society than in any communist based country ... as far as I know anyway.
Could question 1 - 6 all have the same answer like ... yes or no depending on which action led to the optimal enjoyment for the optimal amount of people ... compared to the alternative? I mean is that the goal of most people answering but yes or no is just their idea of how to reach the goal? Or are we all aiming for different things by disagreeing ( if we do) ?
