Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
The rules should never be changed with the express purpose of targeting any specific account(s).
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Attempting to dodge the question of PRINCIPLES by feebly rushing-to-disqualify my sincere questions, clumsily painting me as "a friend of thine enemy" is nothing but a naked ad hominem attack.
The rules should never be changed with the express purpose of targeting any specific account(s).
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Do you stand by your PRINCIPLES or do you just change the rules because someone made contradictory statements?
With this precedent, should we start freezing the accounts of "abusive" "spammers" like those with negative rep and marked with 3+ blacklists? Why not? Haven't they also been branded as "untrustworthy"?
Isn't it "the community's" responsibility to FREEZE all accounts of "evil" and or "undesirable" and or "untrustworthy" individuals?
Isn't it "the community's" responsibility to FREEZE all accounts of people who insist on COHERENT PRINCIPLES (because only an evil person would insist on such a thing)?
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
https://steemkr.com/hive/@davemccoy/sorry-to-see-steemchiller-glory7-rakkasan84-wonsama-fenrir78-and-many-others-get-shafted
I have had real trouble articulating a response to your last posts and comments.
However, as usual i have been poking around, looking at account behavior and drawing some conclusions.
As you know, the narrative we have been fed is that there was a perceived treat to the integrity of the platform. If the treat was real, then I would say that hard forking J Sun's Stake out of the new chain was justifiable.
What is unjustifiable in my mind, is targeting other peoples accounts and keeping the proceeds for themselves.
Some of the instigators of the Fork are still active on the Steem Blockchain. Some have halted their power down and are voting witnesses for a day or so then removing the votes and voting other witnesses, maintaining their flag campaigns against accounts which have opposed them in the past.
Those activities make it difficult to establish stable governance and IMHO should be viewed as a hostile threat to the Steem Blockchain.
If was in J Suns position I would use my Stake to maintain witnesses who would protect the Chain and hard fork them out.
The most amusing thing to me is all the complaining going on about censorship. What happened to their own argument of The Blockchain is immutable and you can still be seen on other front ends?
100% this.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find the critical logical errors and conflicts within the Holacracy Constitution,
Click to watch full analysis, especially the Q&A session,
Gosh I would not where to begin. I have looked at the Holacracy thing before and I know they keep updating their Constitution. If I remember correctly it is NOT a user friendly document.
This guy rubbed me up the wrong way for some reason, not sure why. I am more intuitive than logical.
Despite my deficiencies (especially with regard to language) I have held management positions from the age of 19. I have never applied for a role as manger, I have always been invited. This is probably because I do not attempt to dominate people and do not tolerate those that do.
We are not so different from animals with regard to our natural inclination to organize ourselves into hierarchical structures. These hierarchies need not be tyrannical but unfortunately often are.
A less cumbersome approach than Holacracy may be to adopt NVC
I just looked up the definition of holacracy:
A holacracy is a governance structure characterized by a distribution of power among self-organizing groups, rather than the top-down authority in the typical hierarchical corporate culture model. A holacracy provides a flat management structure that distributes authority.
That pretty much describes my management style anyway and it has worked for me. However I was managing a small US owned NGO here in NZ and those guys are psychopathic. Not just that organisation but that whole Corporate world. It was a huge eye opener for me
This may be off topic a little : )
But you may be interested in this first part of this video by Alex Jones regarding the Federal Reserve posted by @ackza
https://steemit.com/infowars/@ackza/banned-video-a-new-alex-jones-video-platform-discussing-trump-taking-over-the-federal-reserve-hah
Thanks for the notification!
Just watched, definitely worth the look.
They came for JUSTIN SUN and I said nothing, because I'm not a rich authoritarian.
They came for the name-callers and I said nothing, because I'm not a name-caller.
They came for the Christians and I said nothing, because I'm not a Christian.
They came for the conspiracy theorists and I said nothing, because I'm not insane.
Then they came for the independently minded skeptics, and those types never stand up for anyone but themselves, so they were easy-pickins.
Not as easy as you may think. !invest_vote
I'm torn on this. I never advocated for Justin Suns stake to be taken, nor approved. However, having said that before I move on to my largest dilemma in this, I do wonder at the legalities of using that stake in a manner not consistent with the language used in the Bitcointalk forums at the beginning of Steem (as well as other areas I don't remember offhand). I believe it is reasonable for there to be a panic and show of force when out of the blue stake that was proclaimed dedicated to the growth with no interference in the chain is suddenly being used in such a manner.
My largest dilemma? Justin cries over his stake being frozen when he came out of the gate saying he was going to destroy all of our stake. It was ill conceived on his part to think he could waltz in after buying that Steem (no way do I buy that Ned didn't tell him the preconditions laid out at the beginning), announce he was killing off our chain/token and forcing us to a new token side chain of his chain. In that light, it seems to me to be a form of self defense. If I wanted Tron tokens or some form of side token from it, I would have gotten some already.
I believe the announcement made by Blocktrades yesterday is the correct path forward. Create a new chain using a snapshot and exclude that stake from participation in it. Then the burden for the new chain will be on Justin to keep afloat. He comes off as believing he bought a community when he bought that stake.
Ned made it perfectly clear in a recent interview that his stake was 100% free of any community obligations.
100% free of any community obligations.
Yet his earlier statements, coupled with 4 years I believe of his actions backing those statements, do tell a different story.
While I agree that Ned was probably sincere at the time those statements were made, they were not considered legally-binding and Ned has since, "abandoned steem" and sold his stake to Justin Sun with ZERO pre-conditions to do with it as they see fit.
I agree. Perhaps if Steemit's stake were not frozen in the first place, what they were trying to prevent would not be caused.
Although I don't support Justin either to be clear.
Kid #1 - I broke the rules because that other kid was going to use the rules against me.
Kid #2 - I only used the rules against that other kid because they BROKE THE RULES (even though it's my god-given-right to use the rules as I see fit as long as I don't BREAK THEM).
I can agree to a statement like that to the extent it may be a general principle that should be applied. I can disagree to say that rules can be changed to the extent humans are not perfect and therefore their rules can be muddy.
Tron Steem Drama
Freezing accounts can and cannot be done depending on whether or not we should be playing judge in this whole Steem Tron Drama and it depends on whether freezing is really a bad thing or not really a bad thing. It comes down to private property rights, it depends on what Steem is and is not, it depends on how decentralized Steem might be, how the hierarchy and voting system may work or may not work. Simply, put, I don't really know yet except that I think Tron has been trying to take over Steem even as they actually bought Steemit and not Steem.
I've heard a lot of people describe "the reward pool" as "community property".
I've never heard anyone describe the steem in your personal wallet as anything other than "private property".
Yeah, I would hear similar arguments when I lived in Vietnam lol.
I appreciate the mentions and all, but I'd like
to point out I did not say "the community."
I do see the multiple ways to view this
community vs. Justin Sun thing. If they
felt they had to exclude his stake I would
have preferred they did so defensively after
he moved to fork. See dhimmel's post about
it. Even then, it's still a slippery slope for the
reasons that you mentioned. Where do it end
after you start down a path such as that.
Well stated.
(EITHER) you believe in protecting individual property rights (OR) you believe "THE COMMUNITY" can take what they want at will.
I believe both, but the latter isn't
necessarily right or just, it's simply
evidence that the law of the jungle reigns
supreme behind the illusion of bc/morality.
I think reputations may have been tarnished
on both sides a little bit. Had Sun been put
on notice that the community will fork away
and null his stake on the new iteration if he
tries to fork with astroturf witnesses, then
the action would have seemed more like a
an honorable and defensive move to me.
The professor in your Harvard lecture is a charming and charismatic CON-ARTIST.
He's leading the students down his primrose-path, while dodging FUNDAMENTAL LOGIC, by presenting false-dichotomy after false-dichotomy.
The very definitions of "utilitarian" and "ethics" are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This professor never considers basic definitions (PRIMARY AXIOMS).
This professor didn't even hint that the very definition of "murder" is critically flawed.
Then he calls KANT'S DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS, "categorical ethics"? WTF?
Aren't all categories of ethics technically "categorical"??
The only person who made a lick of sense was the very last audience member who spoke about feeding their family. +PROHUMAN +PROFAMILY
There areprobably hundreds of problems with this entire discussion, but two very important topics which were 100% absent include "the fundamental attribution error" AND "human instinct".
They don't call it the trolley problem for nothing.
If you send the trolley down path (A) to save the people
in path (B) are you responsible for killing the people in (A)?
How can one decide or not decide knowing that doing either
will condemn one group to death while sparing the other group?
Notice I left out murder in exchange for killing because we common
folks tend to conflate the meaning of the two. Killing is more of an
amoral term, so we don't have to address the intention of the act.
Moral absolutism doesn't do so well when pitted with this one.
Here is another interesting one for you, it's about meta-ethics.
There are more than relativism vs. absolutism, and probably a
slew of sub-sects to consider as well, he covers a lot in ten mins.
different schools of thought and how they may see the Trolley problem.
This is a very impressive appeal-to-ignorance (don't get me wrong, I love watching this stuff).
Let's try this.
(1) Please make your personally preferred definition of "fact" explicit.
(2) Please make your personally preferred definition of "morality" explicit.
(3) Please tell me if you personally believe that (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive.
If moral absolutism could be compared
to theism and moral relativism to
atheism, then I'm agnostic.
I realize, those are big ifs.
What do you think of these "absolute" AXIOMS?
AXIOM #1 - PROTECT YOURSELF
AXIOM #2 - PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
AXIOM #3 - PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
I disagree. (IFF) you subscribe to a principle-less pure power-for-power's-sake "law-of-the-jungle" (THEN) telegraphing your intentions to your rival (via threats) is frighteningly naive.
I don't subscribe to just one, I think
both exist, and both have their place.
I can go on a Safari with a long arm &
shoot a Lion just because I can do it.
Or I can go on a Safari with a long
arm & shoot a Lion in self defense.
They both demonstrate law of the
jungle, but the latter was within
the realm of reasonableness if
am protecting my or someone
else's life in a lion attack. Guy's
post seems to suggest that we
can fork if he chooses to go his
own way w/o comm support.
You can't subscribe to "optional" principles.
If you consider principles "optional", then THEY'RE NOT PRINCIPLES.
A principle is something you follow no-matter-what-the-cost.
If you can be bribed or bullied - then you had no principles in the first place.
So if you go on a Safari because you're
an animal lover, and the tour guide is
attacked by one lion in a pack of lions.
Do you shoot that lion with his rifle or
not? Mind you, if you don't, what will
end up happening is one of the other
lions will attack the group. The keys
to the automobile are in the pants
of the man getting attacked by the
lion. So, you either go against your
principles and kill the animal. Or
let the animal eat the tour guide
keys and all, and wait for the rest
of the pack to eat the group?
It's a trolley problem whereby
one's inner principles & morals
are challenged based on events.
I think you might like this, it is a
free Harvard lecture about Justice.
It can be easy to view things solely in
black and white, but on rare occasion
life gets in the way and muddles it all up.
Click to watch 2 minutes,
I've been told repeatedly by high-ranking-community-leaders, "if you don't like it, start your own blockchain".
That's exactly what they should have done (since that's the advice they give to everyone else).
Can't argue that, also since the community
divide will likely result in two blockchains.
This means, you don't have to collect the
airdrop on the sisterchain. You can just
use the tron/steem chain if ya want.
Does this mean that steemcleaners and cheetahbot and marky will GO AWAY??
Hmmmm, that might be interesting!!
I changed the attribution to "special thanks to" after my modification to your insightful quotation.
Would you like me to remove you from the credit?
Nah, it's fine. I just wanted to clarify that I was
not calling the community organized criminals.
I can see both sides of this debate, and it's very
unfortunate that it went down the way it did. I
think forking was overkill if clear communication
could have happened and if dhimmels solution
was a plausible move forward. They stuck a fork
in it now, so I guess it is over and done, for better
or worse, consequences be damned. We shall
soon see how well it's received by bystanders.
The debate might be overkill or self defense?
I think the fork should have happened regardless. Given the freeze etc is not changed and the moment they got no further with the Korean community and neither letting go of the gas no matter how many "simple" options Justin was given. Ideally, they knew they were going to fork midway the snapshot should have been done and then they could have ceased all facades and just let it be. If he did not mess the chain then another snapshot could be done for more up to date figures because the main idea is to replace not be a fork of steemit and the plan is to exclude. I have no issue with that. It has been enacted with caution fair enough but it comes off as it maybe should as spiteful. Instead of showing strength and leaving it at a point of well we did try and then we let them be there was a push until the end.So probably overkill, effective but overkill.
Perhaps I should clarify that any "will of the community" is a de facto government.
Oh, I'm not saying your comment is correct or incorrect just that I didn't say it. TBH the whole situation is muddy and can be viewed from many different angles. In the strictly technical sense the new forked iteration wasn't the stake or property that Justin acquired or purchased. If you have a CD of you singing a song and you loan it to me and I copy it and give it back to you and then deface the copy with scratch marks so the CD doesn't work, I didn't destroy your property. You still have your CD of you singing. So there is the strictly technical way of looking at the things and stuff but then there is also the question of the moral perspective.
First off, I don't know how you could possibly come to that conclusion (who do you think the "real" owner is/was?).
And Secondly, regardless of who you or I or anyone believed the "real" owner is/was, INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS SHOULD NEVER BE TARGETED.
Rules change, I get that, I'm not against all rule changes, but any rule change MUST apply equally to all accounts.
Making special-temporary-one-time-only-rules for special-temporary-one-time-only-cases is a wide-open-door to FASCISM.
The forks suggested are an entirely new chain.
A new token which is airdropped. People don't
seem to have faith in his governance. If he creates
a divide that forces a split, then his ninjamine coin
will not be airdropped on the new chain. He'd still
have all of his Steem to sell, if it has value after he
breaks all the things and stuff by leading people
to a place where they don't wish to follow. What
he wouldn't have is whatever the new token is.
It's not ideal, I'd like for there to be only one
chain in the end, and for him to keep all of his
stake with the option to sell it. But his desire
to control the future of the blockchain might
end up being the tokens undoing and the
creation of a new community and token.
That certainly "sounds good".
However, it does absolutely nothing to fix the REAL PROBLEM.
They're still targeting specific accounts (airdrop some accounts and not other accounts).
And by neglecting to even acknowledge the REAL PROBLEM (de facto centralization by anyone with sufficient stake or by anyone powerful enough or charismatic enough to collude with major exchanges), they seem doomed to FASCISM.
Which is fine. We casually accept dictatorial control from our governments and our corporate jobs and our parents. Why would anyone expect the steem blockchain to be any different.
I just wish they'd stop droning on and on about "decentralization" and "protecting personal property" and "libertarian principles".
What a flipping joke!
Is "dhimmels" solution to expand the "top witness" category to 200 instead of 20?
https://steemit.com/steem/@dhimmel/the-best-protocol-level-solution-to-the-tron-takeover-impasse-do-nothing
Thanks for the link, it appears they're simply proposing 1 vest 1 vote, which is difficult to disagree with, but I'm not sure that alone will "solve" any potential future hostile take-over.
I like how @remotehorst23 put it. Code is law! (in "Justin Sun is indeed a clever fox") And unfortunately his whole story is in German only so far and might be difficult to read without a German framework installed (thinking of the movie Existenz here.)
So basically we are talking skills here. I agree with you on "The rules should never be changed with the express purpose of targeting any specific account(s)." Yet this is not how it's supposed to be. Or: There's this little word "should" again. Sais who? Marshall Rosenberg has a lot to say on this and it helped me a lot to see the world and its organized crimes differently. (Just a random pick from searching for "Marshall Rosenberg should", a 4 Minutes video.)
This all as well comes to what Rudolf Steiner once noted with Social Threefolding and which had been a theme in the French Revolution with "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity". However, seldomly one catches on to the idea that even a judge can't have any special "right" over someone else without organizing crimes a.k.a. organizing privileges.
Yes, anarchy already exists. !invest_vote !BEER !COFFEEA
(This is Steem, cross commenting on Hive)
I've been waiting my entire life for someone to reference Rudolf Steiner back to me.
Hahahaha! Fair enough! To me Steiner is simply the first source since the French Revolution who diligently explained how those three catchwords, that survived the French Revolution, can be applied in principle.
Unfortunately he spread some other popular ideas at his time that helped demagogism to scare away from those diligent explanations. And so you can't find anything on it when it comes to Equality but everything when it comes to Social Threefolding (while the German WP-Page is organized considerably better then the English one in this concern).
Please tell me what exactly have you been waiting for? How does your life relate to Steiner?
!invest_vote
When I first started seriously exploring "philosophy" (mostly by pure introspection) and I "discovered" a few things I thought were "important" enough to share with people I knew, they'd sort of nod vaguely and then interject at the first opportunity, "yeah, that sounds like _________". So, naturally, I thought, "great" I'll just go read up on "_________". And every time I did, I thought to myself, "this has absolutely nothing to do with what I was trying to communicate" or "this is just one tiny peripheral aspect of what I was trying to communicate". Until one day, someone mentioned Rudolf Steiner (or maybe it was just "Theosophy" and I found him from there). Specifically "How To Know Other Worlds". **
I found it was about 65% "the-good-stuff".
That's also when I started to realize I needed to try and master RHETORIC before I'd have even half a chance of "finding the others".
Interesting. Do you remember when it was that you first started seriously exploring "philosophy"?
It was about the same time I realized that nobody was ever going to tell me "the truth" and if I wanted to know what was "really going on" I was going to have to "figure it out for myself".
So I'm guessing you don't want to deal with absolute truths here either? !invest_vote
There are a few "absolute truths" (REAL-TRUE-FACTS).
But most ("important") things are simply a matter of opinion (GNOSIS).
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@andrepol thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
@andrepol thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !----> Who is investinthefutur ?
100% this.
anarchism - belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
anarchy - a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems
There seems to be something wrong with these definitions. If we are to organize ourselves cooperatively, we must first reach agreement regarding how we will conduct ourselves and agree on the consequences of breaking those agreements.
So rather than the state of anarchy being a state of disorder maybe its a higher order because those concerned have come to agreement?
This is my favorite combination of words.
Do you mean, "form a consensus moderation mechanism" (government)?
I think "anarchy" is like "nihilism". It's not a "belief" in-and-of-itself, it's more like a proto-state, like a hypothetical "blank-slate" or idealistic "starting-point" on which to build a "better" framework.
But the moment you start building any framework components, you're no longer a "nihilist" or "anarchist".
Thanks for the replies.
I have been struggling to articulate my response so i will post this one even if I am not happy with it.
Animals and humans always sort ourselves out into dominance hierarchies. It seems to be built into us, a necessary part of what and how we are.
I don't agree with the assertion that some make of everyone being equal, we are not.
I like the idea of the worker owned collaborative. Everyone gets to have their say, one person one vote, but their is still a dominance hierarchy within the group and not everyone receives the same income, some roles obviously hold more value to the group as whole.
I am not fond of the Stake based voting we have here but I can understand the desire to keep the illusion of anonymity alive.
You bring up excellent points.
Check out this feature length film if you get a chance,
(I agree with some of the ideas presented and disagree with some of the ideas presented)
Hey thanks for that I will watch it after lunch.
On a different note, what questions would you like to ask witnesses to determine their suitability for the position?
Probably asking them for their opinion of the soft-fork that targeted and froze a specific account would be a good start.
If they believe in protecting individual sovereignty, it should be a simple answer. If they make up a lot of excuses and say they didn't really like the idea, but it was "temporary" and "a special case", then they have no principles and simply follow the mob.
If you find any witnesses who are anti-censorship (including trash/spammer/trolls/conspiracy-theorists) and pro-individual-sovereignty, please let me know.