The Impending Financial Crisis is an Opportunity for Justice and Redistribution of Wealth

There are several tired out arguments in the dialog of ideas floating around in various news media. Most of what I see posted as a solution is completely unoriginal and just brings us back to the same old problems as before. Socialism is becoming popular again. UBI (Universal Basic Income) is being talked about as a solution to the problem of automation (humans being displaced by computers and robots). These social issues are difficult problems and typically a solution carries with it several unintended consequences. For instance, for Obamacare to work, it carried with it the mandate that everyone must join in or pay a fine.

source

Most of these solutions have a common theme; put all the money into a giant centralized pot, so that there will be enough to cover everyone. At the root of all of these solutions is one fundamental fatal flaw; it requires coercion and use of force. This should be a key tipoff that the idea is no good. If an idea is good enough, it doesn’t require force because many will want to be involved and choose to engage of their own free will.

The idea that “everyone has to be involved” is wrong. It comes from an idea that was introduced by Bush 41 known as “globalism” and since the early 1990’s many have become convinced that globalism is the solution to all of our problems.

The reverse is said to be true in the field of programming. To solve technical problems, isolation and localization is what is required. When a bug is found in software, tracking the effect of global variables becomes very difficult. In order to understand where that memory leak (or financial leak in global monetary systems) occurred, you have to isolate the environment and localize your variables to do an effective trace (audit) of where the fault (or theft) occurred. Globalization is an environment favorable to software bugs and political / financial parasites.

This is why a one world government is a terrible idea. There is no “one solution fits all” and the more one centralizes power into the hands of the few, the worse corruption and terrorism will get. Terrorism is nature’s way of telling organized power that it has become too centralized. You can think of it visually as a target. The more that you concentrate value into the bulls eye, the more likely that a single hit can wipe it out. This is why distribution enhances safety and balance, and concentration carries with it security risks (remember Equifax, Best Western data breaches for instance). On the battlefield, when under fire, the sergeant tells his troops to spread out, so that one grenade can’t take out the whole platoon.

The one glaring hole nobody is talking about

We have a social architecture problem and that problem is that all solutions require the use of force or some sort of coercion. This is not acceptable. Until this is understood and addressed, no solution put forth can possibly have any hope of success and the end result will always be violence.

Ask yourself this: can someone give to another a right that they themselves do not have? If you say no, then ask yourself how the government gets the right to do things that individuals do not have? Governments can murder and steal with impunity (murder is called war, and stealing is called taxation or civil asset forfeiture). Yet an individual doing any of these things would be jailed or executed. Now you can give to someone else what you yourself have, but you should not have the right to vote to give what you do not have from someone else’s wallet. Yet this is what is happening because people are morally and ethically confused.

If we make the exception that government can have these rights, then you must accept the moral contradiction that some people will end up “above the law”. In this case, the police then have the right to murder if they “fear for their lives” and bankers have the right to freeze your accounts if they don’t agree with your donation to wiki-leaks. This is a practical reality and you cannot have both; you must either make exceptions for some and create gods among yourselves or come to the realization that there is a glaring moral contradiction.

Some will point out that we need to pool our resources to thwart some sort of threat, such as invasion. For instance if we don’t have a military allowed to commit murder, then we can become the victims of collective mass murder ourselves. The only exception to the non-aggression principle is self defense. On an individual level the application of this is straight forward. But on the collective level, this can create a lot of collateral damage. The answer to this problem is to decentralize threats, because centralization of power creates more terrorism.

The philosophy of voluntarism (sometimes spelled voluntaryism) solves these problems. I’ve been looking into this for a few years now and it seems to contain the fewest ethical paradoxes. This to me indicates that this philosophy creates the most harmonious match to the reality of the natural world and natural law and is the most just.

Metaphysical implications of the impending financial and border crisis

One of the problems of government power is the creation of a monopoly based upon jurisdiction. As such, it is anti-competitive which means that there is no incentive to innovate, and existing services that are rendered are poorer and lag behind the trends in technology. Recent news of a government shutdown due to lack of funding for a border wall - aka Saturn in Capricorn is a perfect metaphor for what is happening between bitcoin and the established financial system.

Currently the borders are leaking humans and the financial system is draining equity away from national fiat. In the latter case, it is not so obvious yet, but the leak that has sprung in the field of the current economic system, which is merely a trickle now, will become a torrential flood when nationless cryptocurrencies scale sufficiently and the bail ins start. We are also beginning to see that the definition of citizen is changing. Part of this is because some national identities are dissolving. Other nations are beginning to compete for its citizens such as Liberland and Estonia and a few others.

Mostly wealth just changes hands and isn't destroyed

Remember, when the next financial crisis happens, most wealth is not “lost”. What really happens is that agreements get rescinded (aka bankruptcy) and what actually does exist (tangible property and superior SOV - Store of Value currencies) changes hands. We don’t need to force this with socialist policies. It will happen naturally as the value of national fiat crashes. When this happens the magnitude of the theft that has been perpetrated on us (to the magnitude of 10’s of trillions) will become evident because the parasites will no longer be able to extract rent.

Corporations that have benefited by not paying taxes will suddenly realize that if they want to continue to have profits, they must take on the funding for the roads and infrastructure needed to stay profitable because the local government will not be able to do so.

Because this is already happening in the currency wars with several smaller and weaker nations, this is expected to climb the ladder of national "sovereignty" until it reaches the nations with the largest honeypots (treasuries). The danger here is that war is declared to preserve the centralization of power. We must not fall for this trick or we will almost certainly enter the period of digital panopticon that I've warned about. But if enough distribution happens because governments of the world are weakened enough to be forced to compete for relevance in their services (such as crime insurance instead of a criminal justice system built on revenge) which maintains blockchain based accountability to those citizens who opt in, then we can have a world of peace and prosperity never imagined before.

---

Donations (public bitcoin address):

3FwxQsa7gmQ7c1GXJyvDTqmT6CM3mMEgcv

---

---