No, you haven’t thought it through. The State won’t have Bitcoin in the long run because theft becomes an unprofitable venture and everything the State has is stolen.
Discussion
Idiot. Are you not reading what I write, or simply choosing not to understand?
The value of fiat eventually goes to 0. That means the state’s capacity to send drones will also trend toward 0.
The state will use a "stablecoin" type currency backed by the states own bitcoin and natural resource reserves.
That's where we're heading.
And then what? They have no infinite resources. When states go on spending more than comes in the states will die. It is that easy.
It’s possible that they do back their stablecoin with bitcoin but that will eventually get rugged imo.
No I think the concept of the initial Idea is deeply flawed and roots in a lot of insecurity, failure and the need for someone else who has to be accountable for it.
This is no concept that is real. It is a selfcreated baseless conspiracy theory.
Which initial idea? Crypto anarchy?
You: "States have infinitely scalable violence"
Probably the widest spread of power from the state can be found within communist surveillance states. But I would argue, that with surveillance the productivity and reproduction of population will naturally decreas.
This means they will eventually fall into ashes and be eaten by a stronger form of state.
Evolution is also happening with states. Means the fittest form of state will eat the inferior states.
Therefore for sure many million people can life under repressive regimes. But repressive regimes are and will always be weaker than free states.
So yes I agree that voilence makes part of reality. But I arge that violence is a loosing game. Every single time. And the free people will win more land, more ressources and just leave no air to breath for violent states.
I wish I could believe that. I really wish that. But you're arguing against a point that wasn't my point. Straw man, though I've seen worse examples.
States **_will_** have infinitely scalable violence. And we're helping them get that, since immutable money reduces material costs.
**_The state_** is not necessarily the current state. You're right that they undergo evolution, but the constraint is not the appeasement of the people, but rather their ability to extract value from the people without being challenged. Those are close, but not the same. If you start building drones and loading facial recognition software on them and assassinating people, you may be hated by everyone, but it won't matter because you have the power. You will become the state.
I am trying to **_avoid_** this happening. You're wasting my time because you argue the premise without solutions. You miss the forest for the trees. Get with the program, man. Tell me I'm wrong **_after_** we make this future impossible. Until then, you are actively aiding the enemies of liberty.
What is your solution?
Is your point, that in the future terrorism will be a sustainable ever growing force?
Since as long as violence is not tolerated, is brought toljustice in one way or an other, you are trying to kind of solve a nonexisting threat.
I mean yes someone is and will in the fututre kill with drones. But as long as the actor looses power, in my eyes all is fine. In the example of Putin we can see this clearly. He attacks and pays with all his power.
And like this is every act of violence. A threat actor can only hold power as long as he does actually use power rarely. A kidnapper, which just kills the kidnapped people, will not make no money.
So what is even the threat you describe? You really make very little effort to make me understand your ideas.
They got by just fine during the gold era. Printing isn't the only effective way to steal.
Considering the other ways to steal, printing is relatively humane.
On second thought, I'm taking this one back. Printing is extraordinarily inhumane. It just appears humane in the first order set of effects. Second, third, etc order effects are mass homelessness, suicides, wars - all on a larger scale than simple theft allows. But that's also kinda my point, if people would please fucking notice it... Drones lower the cost of violence at an exponential rate over time, and as bitcoin makes material things cheaper, it will only assist in reducing the cost of drones. Simple theft will be more than enough to sustain a state.
Theft by the state, aside from money printing, actually requires approval by the majority. Even the most totalitarian of governments needs approval, that is why so much effort is put into propaganda and censorship. A small militarized group of people against enormous masses of people, like 1000x more, is ultimately what government is. So it needs citizen approval to steal from them (unless they can just print it).
The state can't get away with blowing up its own people directly, they have to use false flags. So unstoppable free speech like nostr hopefully, takes out their ability to propagandize people into allowing theft, and without theft, the state can't exist.
Good thoughts, but I feel like there's more. The Sovereign Individual predicted that violence would move to more frequent but smaller scale incidents, as opposed to the large scale violence of modern nation states. I wish I could remember how it said it... Hopefully that suffices. I think the people who control the state will change tactics, because we're forcing them to, but the violence will not end. Not because of bitcoin alone. We have to anticipate these changes. There's no crypto anarchy if you have the threat of violence hanging over your head, probably quite literally. So we need solutions to reduce the effectiveness of drones. Being able to print up our own drone swarms is an idea, but I don't think its a complete idea, since the computational load of intercepting a killer drone will always be much higher than the computational load of identifying a face and kamikaze-ing it with a little bomb on a pressure trigger. You can do that yourself - I'm kinda shocked its not already happening. We need a way to make that impractical, or everything we do now is wasted. We have to put our minds into solving this. We can't wait for it to become a reality first. Peace us secured now, not later. I don't have the answer. That's why I'm making a fuss about it, because it needsathe attention.
Your basic thought, that violence is could grow sustainable is a logical fallacy. Violence and extortion is a predetor. And it can only survive when there is pray. And since both pray and hunter are the same species, hunter are always fewer. Most people will always live in freedom outside of the hunter pray tention. And wherever is a overshoot of hunters, local economy will get weaker, if society can not get rid of the hunters.
That's a lot of assumptions.
You mention that you are surprised that these drones are not already used that way. Well they are used that way now by state-sponsored Jewish terrorists (IDF) in occupied Gaza. They are NOT, however, used by maniacal people with a vendetta against humanity. That imagined threat is almost 100% state propaganda, and is the narrative of choice when pushing for totalitarianism. Reality about human nature is not so bleak, it is not something we have to over-prepare for.
So people aren't motivated to be wanton killers. There just aren't any motives for it. On the other hand, the state absolutely has very clear motives: profit and legitimacy. But if killing becomes super cheap, the profit motive goes away, because you don't need an expensive military industrial complex to build cheap drones. However the other motivation of state legitimacy remains as long as people give power to the state. The state needs enemies such as (false flag) terrorism to justify its existence.
Good points. The state will probably prop up more terrorists to do the extorting, so they can steal while still claiming legitimacy. I agree that nosy people are good and won't do terrible things... Its the few that worries me. And the absolute nature of the prize of victory. The most ruthless psychopath will rule the world, unless we figure out how to defang them.
*most
Not nosy. Silly autocorrect
Simple thought experiment to show how theft is a loosing game.
3 people are on one island and 3 on an identical twin island. On one island everyone is fishing. The fishers fish 4 hours a day and the rest of the day they read, write, build ships, cut trees and maintain their common house.
On the other island only two fish, read, write, bild ships and maintain the house. The third invests all his time in forging weapons and train to be the strongest. To sustain he forces the other two to gift him fish and a bed to sleep in the house.
Even in the case the other two do never revolt and accept all supression, their island lacks at least a third of productivity compared to the twinisland.
So whenever one of thos islands will be able to sail to the other island, it is very clear which island has the better odds to win this fight.
Classic economics. It focuses on the one idea without any thought of what might break the model. These kinds of hypotheticals are only for learning the basics so you can move on to bigger models. I'd say you're at maybe freshman econ level - which is good, since you're trying.
Now, tell me one place on earth where slavery has never existed. Idk, maybe it exists. How about one place with no rent seeking behavior? No dominating special class of people?
Dude, even after we had this global second enlightenment and banned slavery, it only took us a couple of decades after finally ending its disguised form (Jim Crow) to reinstitute slavery on mass scale in the form of monetary debasement.
So your model is incomplete. There's something perpetually incentivizing a suboptimal, nonvoluntary form of organization. I have ideas, but I want **_you_** to have ideas. Seriously think about this.
Do you know the concept of superposition? Means that something that does not work sustainable in small scale, will not magically work at large scale.
You are kind of arguing that a boser with cancer would have a chance fighting a boser who has no disability at all.
Now, tell me one place on earth where slavery has never existed. Idk, maybe it exists. How about one place with no rent seeking behavior? No dominating special class of people?
I never made any argument that there is no violence or suppression.
But do you also know that slavery was lowered for economical reasons?
Why so many people think the state could print money? The central Bank can print money. But the central bank is independent from politics.
Call it whatever you want. The fuckers who deem themselves our betters while running around using violence to make us all dance their tune like a western villain shooting at someone's feet.
I feel sorry for your insecurity. But no matter what is your reason. Please stop to support some rare conspiracy theory.
You try to tackle imaginary problems with real actions. But the problem is psycic not reality.
I never know what the hell you are talking about.
By controlling the flow of money the central bank can fully control the government. Splitting them mentally into distinct organizations makes about as much sense as pretending my left hand is a different person. A distinction without a difference.
Keep on with your nonsense. Germain at least can articulate concepts, makes hypothesis and tries to defend them. For this I value him.
You give no hypothesis. Means there is no motivation in reading your analysis.
I can attest that Bill can do the same at least as well as I can and probably better. Give him an honest try and you'll get the same.
The state will confiscate Bitcoin from its own citizens when Bitcoin becomes the global reserve currency.
Which it will.
The state will scample to confiscate as much from the people who own the least and can't defend themselves.
Nepal and El Salvador will probably be the least likely to confiscate because they're already investing early they won't need to.
Their citizens will be the most privileged people on earth, their economies will be economic powerhouses.
But other governments really won't have a choice.
They will first offer you a stable coin, to replace the local currency, in exchange for you Bitcoin, but if you don't accept they will black bag you and your family in the night and torture you, and torture you family making you watch.
And after you give up your seed phrases they'll kill you and your family.
Correct. But they'll use drones and the publicized threat of drones because drones are cheaper. Also it Bhutan, but close enough.
You are both quiet rare pessimist with a big realitydisconnection.
The state is only a group of people, same as a company is a group of people. In order to rule, a government always has to legitimate itself.
Democratic politicians legitimize their power through elections and the political institutions through the decisions of the politicians. Jourists legitimate their decisions on the laws. Laws are created by executive power and accepted by parlament.
National banks have independence from politics and have independent goals to get to 2% inflation and stabilize the value of the money.
So whome of the above named sends the drones to your face nostr:nprofile1qyd8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnndamx2un9d9nkutnpwpcz7qpq2h6h8dj3ale4rk6hkpsp6gcz9kx9xtucyhd3pftn86lnn0j25gdslv72w4 ?
The state is not those things. The state is whoever has the power. If those things don't have the power, someone or something else will ; and if something or someone else has the power, then that's the state. There are many ways of legitimation, and the approval of the farm animals is not the only way. Throw a dart at a map and tell me what you hit. You live in a bubble made out of your ignorance. It doesn't sound like you've ever travelled or experienced risk.
I have, and I had the balls to risk my life in a situation where I had no power. I openly defied the police in a communist country. I lived. Now you tell me about states and legitimacy. You're a clown.
You definition of what a state is deffers quiet a lot from mine.
Also there is a big difference between your definition of a state and the various definitions on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State
In order to talk about the actions of a state we would have to understand at least what is a state.
And it does not help me to understand what a state is, when I go anywhere and act against the police. Understanding what a state is, is actually a cognitive activity.