I look forward to the time when the politicians have to court us on the basis of the good their regions offer.
Until then, they must be defunded.
Discussion
it’s a chicken or the egg type of deal i guess.
i really think differentiating between leaders, those who seek to serve the common good, vs politicians those who seek private goods is necessary.
if leaders don’t run, politicians win
if leaders run without support, politicians win
after i get this book over the finish line, i think that is the next goal.
writing the field manual for assaulting municipalities, turnings communities into little citadels and bastions of sound governance. then just destroying corruption with asymetrical morals and sound money
The gulf between leaders and politicans is the same as between visionaries and rent-seekers.
yeah, good connection, also a similar dynamic with cooperation vs extraction
Whatever you're writing sounds interesting.
it’s the moral analysis of the monetary system and bitcoin. Push aside all the economics, and just do the ethics, going back to Aristotle.
when you understand the ethics, you understand why the economics perform the way they do.
These are ancient ideas, easy to grasp, but will be fresh for bitcoiners and nocoiners
I'm in favor of that general conversation. I do have reservations about Aristole's ideas as he lays out in Nichomachean Ethics. My novice view is that he is primarily focused on virtues that pertaining to the polis (courage, generosity, magnaminity, justice, etc).
Personal ethics such as humility, gratitude, fortitude, love, faith, and perseverance give way to ethics that promote the highest good for the city (horizontal vs vertical).
In my barely informed view is that ehat it means to be human can only be understood in light of our relationship to God and our purpose as created beings.
He 💯 nails the “What is money” question, its nature, and outlines the essential seed of all economics in about 3 paragraphs.
and hylomorphism avoids the stupid impasses people collide into when they say “value is purely subjective” or “purely objective” in reality, it’s both
Economics grows out of ethics, because without justice no one would exchange or engage in commerce
he says money is literally the glue that binds society together. so from those necessary intersubjective connections, all economics are secondary to ethics, and these aren’t “personal ethics” but objective morals for human objects.
i’m taking probably every correct intuition you have about money, and g providing the philosophical anchor to objective reality, when our feet on planted so firmly on ontological bedrock, we can actually be persuasive to nocoiners and orange pill the masses
economic analysis will just put the masses to sleep cause you have to think.
we recognize moral terms, it’s not a calculation.
I disagree with the notion that money is the glue that binds society together. Monetary policy is downstream of morality. A clear sense of the chief end of our existence is what binds us together. And while I would disagree with Aristotle about what the summum bonum is, it is clear that a principled pursuit of the highest good is essential. But if we don't acknowledge that the summum bonum transcends our horizontal interactions (whether social, political, or economic) I'm afraid even that will be in vain.
“clear sense of the chief end”
we are saying the same thing:
Downstream of morality is the same as saying morality is primary
From your note, I think you are taking the glue analogy a little different than what is meant. that’s on me.
Both are parts of the truth and need to be combined for tbr whole.
The final end that unifies and directs our collective action is essentially the abstract, immaterial form
Money as social glue is the concrete, practical, material object
they are inseparable as a unified whole
I may have missed you saying morality is primary. If so, my bad. I look at families as the essential social unit. They are held together by covenants of blood, purposes, and moral convctions. This depends on the transcendentals. I believe that Aristotle would support this point. My issue is that he didn't give weight to God's involvement in the moral equation. Human action often has nothing to do with our interactions with one another and what is best re community thriving but rather with our relationship with the divine. The material gives way to the spiritual, which is a domain where money is irrelevant.
Maybe I'm arguing for a distinction without a difference, or for a perspective I don't really comprehend, but I don't see an acknowledgment of a supernatural conscious moral being in Aristotle's thinking.
Your spot on with with family being the atomic unit.
Society is more like a molecule, how families cohese.
Aristole fully acknowledges the necessity of a being of pure actuality to kick start existence, that’s his way of talking about God.
Aquinas bridges Aristotle’s concept of God into Catholic verbiage.
For both, morality is objective, so as God is our creator, he is also the author of morality.
You are correct in understanding that essential connection between God and morality.
Aristole wouldn’t disagree with you. Aquinas would articulate that thought in an easier way for us to understand in modern times.
I appreciate the clarification. When does the book get out there?
I finished it right before 3 weeks of travel for weddings and graduations, so when i get back, ill read it one last time with fresh eyes and deliver it to the publisher.
i found a good artist here on nostr and she is doing the cover. so things are coming together
I've been down this road with a book. only half the journey is writing the thing.
what did u write?
I wrote a hero's journey for my son. It started as a short story and turned into a 300 page beast. The editing was the worst part. I effectively rewrote it three times. I'd link it, but it would dox me.
understand the concern.
that’s really cool. when you have a reason to write, it just flows
i was thinking about my girls as a motivation.
i would literally rather die than pass this monetary nightmare on to them as their inheritance
I can’t describe the flow state of writing when it’s flowing any other way than a spiritual out of body experience.
Once I started it, the story just kept coming. I had an idea how it was going to end, but I didn't know how my characters would get there. It was fun seeing it happen. I actually teared up at the end as I wrote the two main characters making peace with one another and being satisfied with what they had accomplished together. It was a resolution my son needed to see.
book is done, traveling for a bunch of weddings and graduations, so giving my self some time away from it, when i get back will read it one last time with fresh eyes before delivering it to the publisher