You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Will We See a New Version of 1933's Executive Order 6102?

in #anarchy4 years ago

80% of Bitcoin is controlled by 5 miners in China. same shit. You as individual can do nothing about it. Same dynamic about control exists in the government and world wealth.

legitimate: "conforming to the law or to rules."

If the system, democratic or not, fraudulent or not that is governed in any way by a group of people decide X, then X, whatever that is, becomes legitimate.

Sort:  

I agree my use of illegitimate might be misused. I should have used immoral instead.

It's true that a lot of the newly mined Bitcoin are mined in China. I guess that's what you meant to say because less than 80% of Bitcoin have been mined so far and 80% of the current supply isn't owned by Chinese or at least it's pretty impossible to say for sure.

You as individual can do nothing about it. Same dynamic about control exists in the government and world wealth.

Humans decide economic policies. Economies and wealth don't take decisions. They are things.

I'm interested in working with anyone to better our lives and our world.

I agree my use of illegitimate might be misused. I should have used immoral instead.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.

What is right and wrong behavior is entirely subjective and again, subject to the interpretation of democratic means and group approval. What is right in China might not be in the U.S. What was right 500 years ago might not be today. What is right today might not be 500 years from now. |

It's true that a lot of the newly mined Bitcoin are mined in China. I guess that's what you meant to say because less than 80% of Bitcoin have been mined so far and 80% of the current supply isn't owned by Chinese or at least it's pretty impossible to say for sure.

927 People Own Half Of All Bitcoins


http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-of-the-bitcoins-2013-12

You were saying?

Humans decide economic policies. Economies and wealth don't take decisions. They are things.

never implied otherwise. also. they are not things. they are concepts.

I'm interested in working with anyone to better our lives and our world.

bullshit statement. Every single person on this planet strives to makes the lives of SOME people better. Thing is, you can never improve all people's lives no matter what system you choose. There are always gonna be losers and winners.

At least stand by the word of the psychopathic books you support like "The Art of War". Don't sell me the bullshit "I am trying to make the world better". Beauty pageant statements don't cut it. Especially when you are blatantly intellectually inconsistent.

What is right and wrong behavior is entirely subjective

"Entirely"? Have you read Sam Harris' Moral Landscape or Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behaviour? Steven Pinker's The Better Angles of Our Nature touches on how morality changes over time, but it's not (IMO) completely subjective because it can be seen taking a specific course as the circle of empathy expands given our improving position on Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. More on that here.

There are always gonna be losers and winners.

There you go again with that fixed pie, zero sum thinking. We talked about this before. It's a flaw in how you go about framing other topics, IMO.

Same dynamic about control exists in the government and world wealth.

This is a significant mischaracterization, IMO. "Wealth" doesn't come to my house with a gun and threaten me with violence or throw me in a cage if I don't obey. Wealth doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force in a geographic region. Wealth can be anything people believe it to be. Wealth involves natural monopolies, not artificial ones backed by violence. If you don't like bitcoin, pick a different one with a model which better suits your worldview. There are hundreds to choose from: https://coinmarketcap.com/

You don't even have to use crypto. You can use rocks, or shells, or tally sticks, or whatever.

Yes, there is a power dynamic and a mechanism of control in wealth for those who choose to operate within a given system. You still have choice. There is no choice when it comes to government. We are born into it and we have no other place to live which allows for voluntary living.

As to the misuse of the word "legitimate", I agree with you. For a long time, I misunderstood that word to be synonymous with justified, moral, etc. This is just another symptom of our programming. We are taught from an early age via indoctrination camps known as public schools to believe what is good and bad is defined by government.

"Entirely"? Have you read Sam Harris' Moral Landscape or Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behaviour? Steven Pinker's The Better Angles of Our Nature touches on how morality changes over time, but it's not (IMO) completely subjective because it can be seen taking a specific course as the circle of empathy expands given our improving position on Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.

I have. So what? Is it valid just because they say so? Simply, when you are at war and you kill someone is defense against an imaginary piece of land. In times of peace is murder. Referencing others with weak points doesn't make yours more valid.

There you go again with that fixed pie, zero sum thinking. We talked about this before. It's a flaw in how you go about framing other topics, IMO.

Again. I am not a zero sum guy. I told you. Again, the wealth increases, FOR EVERYONE but the gap widens which make it seem very much like a zero sum thing. Which part from this you can't understand? Google it. The millionaires and billionaires increase and the middle class diminishes. Some win, some lose. This is how evolution works. Anything else goes against nature itself.

This is a significant mischaracterization, IMO. "Wealth" doesn't come to my house with a gun and threaten me with violence or throw me in a cage if I don't obey.

You are being over-dramatic now. No need to go Dollar vigilante tinfoil. There are rules that you agree to take part. If you don't like it leave.

Wealth doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force in a geographic region. Wealth can be anything people believe it to be. Wealth involves natural monopolies, not artificial ones backed by violence. If you don't like bitcoin, pick a different one with a model which better suits your worldview. There are hundreds to choose from:

There are also many countries to chose from but as much as it applies to FIAT a whale can make a move and people can starve. A mouse click can bring a much more painful death than a gun.

Yes, there is a power dynamic and a mechanism of control in wealth for those who choose to operate within a given system. You still have choice. There is no choice when it comes to government. We are born into it and we have no other place to live which allows for voluntary living.

Bullshit. There was always plenty of places. Here is one. I can also name plenty of places in Australia, Mongolia, Africa, Russia, Latin America. You just want it catered based on the current economic system aka WITH a government. Otherwise you will have morons like TDV ripping people off in Chile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland

As to the misuse of the word "legitimate", I agree with you. For a long time, I misunderstood that word to be synonymous with justified, moral, etc. This is just another symptom of our programming. We are taught from an early age via indoctrination camps known as public schools to believe what is good and bad is defined by government.

You can be taught similar things from the blockchain. So what? We are all brainwashed. It is inevitable. It is part of being human.

I don't think their points are week, or I wouldn't bring them up. They argue morality is not as subjective as you are describing but have objective aspects to them rooted in our evolution and brain structure. Talking about how the moral nature of an action changes in different categories and circumstances does not mean it's subjective. Yes, during war it's not called "murder" (even though that's exactly what it is). This too is an example of how the circle of empathy is expanding and more people are coming to see war as murder. Same thing goes for cutting someone open with a knife. If there's consent, it might be a life-saving surgery. Context matters unless you're over-simplifying on purpose to avoid important details.

Saying the middle class diminishes implies a loss which I'm saying is not the case on a more objective level. If the standard of living of the poor today is higher than that of kings in the past, that is not a loss according to my framing of it because, as you said, it's not zero sum, though you saying "some win, some lose" implies you believe it is. If I arbitrarily give one person $1,000 and another person $10 can we really say the second person "lost" $990 or anything at all? No, they gained and that's an objective reality.

If you don't like it leave.

And go where? Those who enforce non-consensual "contracts" and have a monopoly on force love this argument because it allows them to ignore the deeper issues of consent. If two adults don't agree to a contract without coercion, it's not a contract. If most forms of government on the planet today resemble a form of slavery (even if things are much better than they once were) that doesn't make it okay and it doesn't mean we can't continue expanding the circle of empathy to reach a point where individuals and society really could function via voluntary means and actual contracts.

A mouse click can bring a much more painful death than a gun.

Who's being overly dramatic here? IMO, this is a ridiculous statement. "Clicks" in free markets uncontrolled by threats of violence don't bring about painful death unless you're referencing something I'm not familiar with. Most likely, governments were involved creating monopoly situations backed by threats of violence. We don't see much of that in cryptocurrency, do we?

Naming geographical locations on the globe doesn't mean someone can live there voluntarily.

You confuse me, @kyriacos. Sometimes we have fun, respectful, interesting discussions. At other times, you seem to respond with a lot of negative emotion like you had a bad night's sleep or something. I get you don't like voluntaryism / anarchism or those who believe the world can be improved by removing government (which I define as a monopoly on the use of force in a geographic region). Okay. We disagree. We can still discuss our views respectfully.

I don't call your views bullshit, and I ask for the same level of respect in return.

Loading...

I never said moral aren't subjective.
I never said 927 persons didn't owned half of Bitcoin in fact I knew it looked something like that.

Your statement saying 80% of Bitcoins are owned by 5 miners was blatantly erroneous yet every time I pointed out a false statement you made you never acknowledge it.

Can I asked you why do you live? Do you love life? Do you have any goal in life and aspirations? What are your biggest aspirations?

I never said moral aren't subjective.

Well, you did try to say that first was illegitimate and then immoral. You sure as hell implied that there was something "wrong". if you understood that it was subjective you wouldn't make the statement. You rather didn't know how to answer and decide to salvage the say by "hey I didn't say it wasn't".

I never said 927 persons didn't owned half of Bitcoin in fact I knew it looked something like that.

Yes you chose to attack the actions of the government when the crypto world is plagued by the same exact type of market?

Your statement saying 80% of Bitcoins are owned by 5 miners was blatantly erroneous yet every time I pointed out a false statement you made you never acknowledge it.

You have a reputation for being intellectually dishonest so here is my exact words again. I warned you to be extra careful when you debate me.

80% of Bitcoin is controlled by 5 miners in China. And it is true. They do. Just pay attention how the whole market hangs from their wishes in the days before August 1st.

Can I asked you why do you live? Do you love life? Do you have any goal in life and aspirations? What are your biggest aspirations?

irrelevant. Again. Trying to salvage your position by using bullshit tricks you learned from your bullshit books :)

not gonna work on me pal.

Forcing people to do stuff against their will is wrong. I sure did implied that current governments are morally wrong. It sure is subjective.

If you think I'm dishonest can I ask you why you are interacting with me? What is your purpose of interacting with me?

I'll stop replying because I have come to the subjective conclusion that you are dishonest or delusional.

I expect you'll say something like you won, I can't take it, I can't debate you, you're smarter, I can't debate you cause you're right, I'm full of shit but that's not the case.

It is my hope people can understand and see the situation for what it is.

Forcing people to do stuff against their will is wrong. I sure did implied that current governments are morally wrong. It sure is subjective.

Nobody is forcing anyone. Much like Steemit there is a system in place. If you don't like it. leave.

If you think I'm dishonest can I ask you why you are interacting with me? What is your purpose of interacting with me?

I am allergic to bullshit if you have noticed. Nothing personal.

I'll stop replying because I have come to the subjective conclusion that you are dishonest or delusional.

Sure, turn it on me now.

It is my hope people can understand and see the situation for what it is.

and that's exactly your problem. You care about what other people think. Check my posts from day 1. I don't give a shit what other people think and surely as hell I don't sound like a cheesy repackaged advertisement that is shilled from a whale.

kyriacos Can you do one for Steemit ?