Short synopsis of Bitcoin's liberty proposition:
#[1]
A few thoughts on U.N. Agenda 21 and how Bitcoin reverses authoritarianism.
As a starting point it is reasonable to believe that all individuals attempt to solve problems, at least from their own understanding of how things work.
Central planners will favor authoritarian solutions while voluntarists will favor compelling win-win arguments that can inspire people to be convinced of something.
Politicians tend to align with the 'ethics' of the Trolley Problem; that if they believe they can help the many (or the planet), that this warrants sacrificing some groups of people.
In 1992, 178 nations signed up for Agenda21.
The Trolley Problem however, is deeply unethical; the assumption is that it is virtuous to sacrifice some for some believed 'greater good'. We have seen this tried time and time again throughout history with devastating consequences.
To start with; how could central planners possibly know that X will happen if Y is not sacrificed?
There are both corrupt assumptions combined with plausible power motives mixed into this mental model.
The U.N. Agenda21 can set policy in 178 countries for the simple reason that they signed up for this global policy program in 1992. Coordination in policy between nations is therefore built in.
The fractional reserve banking system is a global, ticking time bomb. Most governments favor a new system of CBDC's to keep their power intact, as well as expanding their control tools.
Governments basically have two choices:
1. Allow free agency and liberty for all. This is the free market path.
or
2. Restrict liberties and use coercion, force or herding via narratives to keep control. This is the central planning path. CBDC's are required to achieve this.
If government bureaucrats are attempting to 'solve' the problem of complete management of society, as they are inclined to do - that's their own, believed main purpose of central planning - then the implementation of social credit score systems appears to them as tempting tools of absolute control. As Jabba Carsten the BIS banker like to say: absolut kontroll.
If 178 nations chose the central planning path in 1992 by signing up for U.N. Agenda21, it's not unreasonable to think they saw it as the only possible path forward for governments to stay in control as the economic system of printing money and growing national debts was heading toward certain catastrophy.
This doesn't excuse governments for pursuing a central planning path.
In 2009, money that cannot be inflated was invented, solving the problem of how to end moneyprinting. Bitcoin became the alternable to dystopian central planning.
Yet, moneyprinting + CBDC's keep governments in control, so there is a clear power motive involved. CBDC's are also necessary for social credit score systems and carbon allowance restrictions, as per the U.N. Agenda2030 goals.
As the Club pf Rome observed: they imagined that there was a need for a global, cross-national threat that could pull nations together to reach unified policy agreements.
They came up with (false) climate concerns as a unifying threat. This is the building block of U.N. Agenda21; climate alarmism.
Zooming out, the Trolley Problem is visible:
1. Belief in a climate disaster that is always 5-10 years ahead.
2. Belief in the justification of sacrificing X, Y or Z in order to avoid the believed doomsday scenario.
What could go wrong when power ambitions enter this equation. Secondly, what could possibly go wrong even if we assumed no power ambitions, naive though as that would be.
The Trolley Problem is unethical at its core. It assumes that central planners are all-knowing & incorruptible, while they justify their power by assuming that humans are greedy and incompetent. Greed certainly have a way of rising to power.
It is in this context that we need to understand the authoritarianism of Covid-19, lockdowns, movement licenses, Covid-passports, mandated injections and movement-regulating discrimination. Discrimination based on whether or not an individual have injected a poorly tested product with obvious risks of side-effects that the government demand to force upon individuals via false narratives, coercion, threat or force.
Movement licenses are clearly goals by themselves; to tie your liberties to central databases - social credit scores - which can and will be used to centrally manage your options in life based on your compliance with the fickle beliefs and whims of either incompetent or malevolent central planners, often times both.
This is also one of many reasons why Bitcoin matters. Bitcoin is the only monetary protocol that can bring down the emerging CBDC control tools and the social credit systems that depend on CBDC's, while also preserving the savings and freedom of everyone to transact without discrimination.
Witout moneyprinting and CBDC's, social credit systems have no future. Bitcoin solves core systemic problems of central planning tyranny and overreach.
Initially I was looking for a way to protect my savings from inflation. As I started to read about bitcoin in 2018 I was attracted to the decentralization and sovereignty dimensions, as well as the 21m hard cap.
By 2019, the bitcoin subreddit linked to an article by the IMF where they suggested implementing CBDC's, negative interest rates on savings accounts combined with voicing a keen intent in getting rid of cash.
Then as 2020 came along, we had full-blown government authoritarianism starting with lockdowns, mask mandates, culminating in forced injection mandates, movement licenses , restrictions and discrimination of us unvaccinated.
Later there was the Canadian trucker convoy whose protesters stood up against the forced vaccinations and had their accounts frozen for defending individual liberties. Bitcoin was the only funding that could reach them.
Bitcoin is a tool for liberty. It is neutral money that can't be corrupted by authoritarian governments. Prosperity is downstream from liberty; without freedom nothing else matters.
Standing true to yourself is worth the fights.👍
We live in alienating times and our natural ways of life have been eroded for a long time while. The familiar, practical and sturdy calls. Bedrock and grounding.
I think good UI is mainly efficient flow.
Yet having a functional wheel rolling is more important than instant efficiency.
#[1] describing itself. 🤔
#[0]
Probably a few hundred years until procedural generation becomes comscious. Yet, being courteous is still a good character trait.
That's fantastic news, congratulations to the family extension! 🧡🧡🧡
Sorry, I don't click on compressed links.
This is what I suspect:
1. Governments want to control the narratives AI produce.
2. Unfounded fear of AI is spread. Claims that AI is conscious will naturally fuel such fears.
3. Governments step in to control AI narratives.
Have a great Sunday at Nostrica!☀️
Me and my wife went to a nearby open air market here in Poland, bought homemade jam and also honey with raspberry among other things.🧡
Overview of a free market (voluntarist) society:
1. Everyone own their mind, body + the fruits of their labor.
2. Fractional reserve banking is outcompeted by hard, neutral & non-printable money.
3. No social credit systems exist since governments can't control or print money.
#Bitcoin
Sean verified his pubkey on the blue bird yesterday:
https://twitter.com/seanonolennon/status/1636938918695424001
Yup, that's way too soon.
$1M Bitcoin arrives neither too early nor too late, it arrives precisely when it was meant to.
Good for bitcoin in this hypothetical scenario.
They are either peaceful or expansionist. If they are peaceful then they will align with bitcoin and see value in supporting it.
If they are expansionist then they will likely aim at creating a world government that they can extract taxation/trubute from. Since there is no chess move they can make to stop bitcoin, their efforts would push bitcoin toward becoming a primary human defensive technology.
I'm rarely angry though for me it boils down to problem solving. If I get annoyed by a colleague that I have to interact with I attempt to view the situation from the outside as a neutral observer. Unfounded assumptions often leads to conflicts and communication is key to understanding where and why someone drew the conclusions they did. Talking directly and frankly to people's faces is often necessary. If I can distill a number of win-win principles then that provides me with a neutral compass that is objectively useful.