2014-10-21 12:06 GMT+02.00, ben <colypse@???>: > Hey Odinn. I posted your idea in the basic incom reddit section to get
> some new thoughts into it. This is the first comment:
>
> Basic income only works if it is fungible. Without a state backing up
> a given currency as a medium of exchange, no cryptocurrency can be
> considered to be fungible in a universal sense.
> This is good work, though. I'm really impressed by the effort. (end of
> comment)
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I dont have the knowledge to understand the technical stuff you wrote.
> But to me, this only shows the limitation of the persons way of
> thinking, the governments powerstructure and the need to free them
> from the "backing" making them obsolete so they are left behind or
> implement it as a new paradigm.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -ben
>
> 2014-10-21 10:16 GMT+02.00, ben <colypse@???>:
>> Thanks for the answer and the ideas Odinn :D
>>
>> 2014-10-21 9:20 GMT+02.00, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd@???>:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2014 10:37 AM, odinn wrote:
>>>> (Ruminations)
>>>>
>>>> I don't consider myself a libertarian, and dislike boxes, but I'm
>>>
>>> Of course, there is a conflict of needs.. on the one hand we need some
>>> kind of words to communicate but whatever words we choose will be
>>> misinterpreted either intentionally or unintentionally by others, fwiw
>>> I understand that nothing quite fits.
>>>
>>>> voluntaryistic / cryptoanarchistic with a dash of constitutionalism
>>>> (e.g. if people bothered to fight long enough for "rights," and defend
>>>> them in a variety of fora, then we should consider what those rights
>>>> are and respect them when they are expressed ~ though I don't mean
>>>> that as an endorsement of the state, it's simply "what people do" and
>>>> "how we respect each other"). Throw in a dash of zen, and you've got
>>>
>>> I think we should be careful of immortalizing a `right' because it's
>>> something people have historically fought for. People in history have
>>> fought for ``the right'' to do some pretty gruesome things, at least
>>> gruesome by today's standards... At the time it was considered normal
>>> and right.
>>>
>>>> enough terms to put me in a box. I don't care much for politicians,
>>>> but I appreciate that more people seem to be aware that they can
>>>> choose more than red or blue (e.g., go with third parties) if they
>>>> wish to vote. But that's just me stating the obvious.
>>>>
>>>> ( Caleb ~ )You asked where that libertarian stateless utopia is. You
>>>> probably did not read the full article that I sent. A quote from the
>>>
>>> I would not have written you back without reading it first, tired
>>> as I was having just gotten up I may not have caught every nuance.
>>>
>>>> article comes to mind: "Presented with statism's ridiculous and
>>>> backward narrative, we must wonder who the starry-eyed utopians really
>>>> are." Indeed! But moving right along: Remove "libertarian" and
>>>> "utopia" and you are left with "stateless." So, to get to the root of
>>>> it, where is this so-called stateless society? It should be plainly
>>>> obvious that wherever it manifests it will be difficult to identify.
>>>
>>> Yes I saw it, what then is the objective of a stateless society, or
>>> really any political endevor, if not to create a utopia or at least
>>> something better than what we have today ?
>>>
>>>> It does not have a flag or a banner. It certainly does not have a Ron
>>>> Paul or a party. It does not have national boundaries. It would be
>>>> too easy if I were to to respond by saying it is everywhere and
>>>> nowhere. But that's part of it, so I will say that it is everywhere --
>>>> everywhere that the minds and hearts of people who wish to co-create a
>>>> new society make a decision in any moment of any day that they wish to
>>>> liberate themselves from fear. It is not purely notional, either, as
>>>> the distributed functions of consensus and the gears of
>>>> decentralization have been turning in terms of societal development
>>>> well before the internet came into existence and long before anyone
>>>> could push a key on their computer and participate in decentralized
>>>> and distributed-digital systems that do not require national
>>>> boundaries or nationalistic identities and forms.
>>>>
>>>> There is a great deal of what I describe that occurs throughout
>>>> society without being seen, which makes it harder to explain if you
>>>> are asking for clear and perhaps visible evidence of it.
>>>>
>>>> I strongly suspect that the visible manifestations of developing
>>>> decentralized, distributed systems and / or stateless societies will
>>>> become far more evident only after anonymity technology advances
>>>> enough to be both lightweight and widespread. Without saying much
>>>> more about that, I believe that 2015 will be a significant historical
>>>> marker in the area of such technologies, which include, but are not
>>>> limited to implementations of such a variety as SNARK-based unlinkable
>>>> transactions via Zerocash, Output Distribution Obfuscation involving a
>>>> hybridization of BTC system(s) and BCN ring signatures, distribution
>>>> of stealth TX technology throughout large numbers of currency systems
>>>> (currently it is present in several systems), and Scalable Zero
>>>> Knowledge via Cycles of Elliptic Curves designed to make zero
>>>> knowledge proofs lightweight and accessible to all programmers,
>>>> contingent on provable CPU. These are but a few of the many
>>>> developments that will alter many aspects of your life in ways mostly
>>>> unseen.
>>>>
>>>> I have stated in various fora that it has taken almost 226 years to
>>>> arrive at the next major point of revolution action, and by necessity
>>>> that is 'anonymity.' However, without relational strength and an
>>>> understanding of how relationships themselves are the ultimate
>>>> technology, the exponentially expanding possibilities for collective
>>>> and distributed participation to compassionately serve many elements
>>>> and aid in the determination of priorities to fund, and more, will not
>>>> be realized. (My project, http://abis.io, still in a very early
>>>> stage, is a reflection of my optimism that we are capable of doing
>>>> more together (without direction being given by "authoritative"
>>>> organizations) given time and a greater level of understanding.) Thus
>>>> there will be a constant tension between bellicose corporation-states,
>>>> their struggling advocates, and the increasing numbers of persons who
>>>> either by choice or undesired circumstance, become (for all intents
>>>> and purposes) stateless, whether or not they declare or are even aware
>>>> of it being so. Some have made statelessness an advocacy issue or a
>>>> point which they have individually declared. I submit that it is not
>>>> about such a declaration (though declarations are interesting to
>>>> explore as expressions within the context of discussion of what
>>>> statelessness might mean), but rather about a realization that one may
>>>> be free from fear and in opening oneself to finding the _many_
>>>> _vehicles_ to a more compassionate future, the detachment from statism
>>>> (and indeed, departures from ideologies of all kinds) will come
>>>> naturally. Such terms, such as "stateless," "government," and
>>>> "statism," indeed will cease to have relevance in the way we
>>>> understand them today as society realizes more and more its collective
>>>> potential. Perhaps then we will begin to consider "stateful" (such
>>>> as, in a state of being) more descriptive of these 'decentralization
>>>> developments' than "stateless" within the context of the
>>>> corporation-state, or even notice that such references to the "state"
>>>> as a nation, government, or corporation-state will diminish, for if
>>>> the "state" as it has been known is no longer that important to us,
>>>> then we need not regularly refer to it, nor need we be bound to other
>>>> arguably related terminologies, such as "anarchism," "socialism,"
>>>> "capitalism," and all the -isms we have allowed to condition our
>>>> minds. Freeing oneself from fear, thus the old language will not
>>>> excite or raise one's interest, but natural thoughts which create
>>>> concepts, new terms, and numerous permutations and styles of
>>>> meditation, can arise at any time, for any person, anywhere. The
>>>> vehicles to our destinations, of course, are those which you might
>>>> intend or those that you realize or are surprised by ~ they are
>>>> countless in number.
>>>> Thus does language set the tone for what we may choose to build for
>>>> our shared future, the relationship provide the basis for connecting
>>>> our minds and hearts to each other, and the reflection upon our
>>>> present moment create the state in which we exist, now.
>>>
>>> I respect your position here, personally I feel that the opportunity
>>> of anonymity is limited and will eventually pail in comparison to
>>> decentralized states which compete for the individual's voluntary
>>> association.
>>>
>>> The reason why I don't expect the anonymous cryptoanarchy to scale
>>> is because The Darknet, as it were, is the Jungle. One mistake, one
>>> too many details in an IRC story, one day too late to update your
>>> system...
>>> () {:;}; you're lunch.
>>> It is not exactly a society without rulers; it is a society ruled,
>>> in a very personal one-on-one way, by whoever has the most blackmail
>>> and 0days.
>>>
>>> In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is
>>> getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is
>>> stupidity.
>>>
>>> Caleb
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stopping here. The stars are out.
>>>>
>>>> -Odinn
>>>>
>>>> Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>>>> Hi Odinn, Thanks for your reply, I know taking a socialist position
>>>>> on an unabashedly libertarian list is not going to be popular but I
>>>>> sent it here because I really want to be fact-checked. ~nothing
>>>>> more infuriating than bobbing heads of unconstructive agreement..
>>>>
>>>>> Your link speaks of "Rights of The State", this immediately struck
>>>>> me because I don't any longer care about rights, I care about
>>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>>> I was born in the USA which pays awful heed to Rights and Justice,
>>>>> and trucks millions off to prison cells for violation of The Law. I
>>>>> was a fervent follower of the libertarian dogma myself it because
>>>>> it looks so damned good on paper (I even have a pair of Ron Paul
>>>>> tshirts to prove it).
>>>>
>>>>> The question I have is "where's the beef?" where is the
>>>>> libertarian stateless utopia? I understand we can't have perfect
>>>>> now so maybe there is something moving in the right direction, a
>>>>> small-government state where individual liberties are protected?
>>>>> Give me any example you like as long as it's not some kind of
>>>>> libertarian community which exists under the protective umbrella of
>>>>> a social state.
>>>>
>>>>> I've not been able to find any such example and so have taken to
>>>>> trying to understand why what looks so good in theory doesn't apply
>>>>> in practice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/20/2014 02:51 AM, odinn wrote:
>>>>>> Caleb,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to waste energy typing in my own words here what
>>>>>> someone else has written in a way that I think would enhance
>>>>>> understanding of this subject in a better way than if I were to
>>>>>> comment further on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that said, I think you really need to read (and carefully
>>>>>> re-read) the following article, which I submit may well enhance
>>>>>> your understanding of this matter substantially:
>>>>>> http://c4ss.org/content/32570 >>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Odinn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>>>>>> I have a hypotheses which has been percolating in the back of
>>>>>>> my mind for some time now and I thought now is a good time to
>>>>>>> share it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all that libertarian systems offer in theory, they have a
>>>>>>> distinct problem that when it comes to practice. Unless you
>>>>>>> consider Texas a utopia, libertarian utopias don't really exist
>>>>>>> and I wanted to study how something which looks so good on
>>>>>>> paper manages to fail so completely in practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be ruled by law, as opposed to being ruled by men, means to
>>>>>>> me that nobody can just order your execution or imprisonment
>>>>>>> without dire consequences. Given wealth and power are
>>>>>>> interchangeable, if you live in a country where one person
>>>>>>> controls 99% of the wealth of the nation, there is no rule of
>>>>>>> law. He can just simply up the government and whatever checks
>>>>>>> and balances you put in place he can undo or subvert. Judges,
>>>>>>> as impartial as they might like to be, do not live in a vacuum
>>>>>>> and challenging a de-facto dictator is not good for one's
>>>>>>> health.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore, wealth redistribution is not about paying alms to
>>>>>>> the poor but about making sure that nobody amasses such power
>>>>>>> as to threaten society as a whole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tl;dr wealth and power are interchangeable, wealth/power pools
>>>>>>> up in certain lucky and industrious individuals, without
>>>>>>> redistributing it, democracies devolve into oligarchies and
>>>>>>> then eventually into monarchy or chaos. The US is in the
>>>>>>> oligarchy phase.
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>>>>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net >>>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem >>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net >>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem >>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net >>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem >>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Caleb James DeLisle
>>> XWiki SAS
>>> calebjamesdelisle@???
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net >>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem >>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mvh Ben Johansen
>>
>
>
> --
> Mvh Ben Johansen
>
::
Re: [unSYSTEM] wealth redistributio…
