Yes. There were some issues initially with Amethyst where it was hard to write notes longer than the screen, but that's been solved for some time now.
Heh, or rocks in sacks, who really knows.ππ
The transaction speed of a sack of gold is the same as the transaction speed of a sack of rocks.
Ask JP Morgan about nickels and rocks. π π€£
I often circle back to the parable of a broken window. So many aspects of govt seem to follow this concept. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window.
Interesting parable by FrΓ©dΓ©ric Bastiat.
Right, there are so many assumptions made by the central planning model that are obviously incorrect.
Future potentials are mostly unseen, at least to observers. Interventions in the free agency of individuals have both a negative effect directly as well as impossible-to-measure downstream consequences.
When and if we have individual liberties this allow us to focus all our attention on being productive; we can plan ahead knowing that our property and the fruits of our labor is safe 5 or 10 years from now.
If we are robbed of our liberties and thereby our future, or if coming generations are robbed of their future, our focus will inevitably be spent on fight or flight; to regain freedoms.
Thank you my friend. My wife and I were about to go out when I wrote it so it was just a direct flow of unfiltered thoughts.π
Yup, the river is unrelenting and unyielding, yet overcomes every obstacle without effort, a great teacher.π
Good morning/evening. βοΈ
You can hear from the voice of the river that it has traveled for a long time.
I have to assume you have some severe problems at this point. π€£π
I.e. Bitcoin is the better Atlas in holding up the world economy and human civilizations.
Not an Atlas that is wasted on propping up the $dollar of course.π
Cool idea from a scifi perspective.π
Bitcoin is the better Atlas.
Well formulated.
Bureaucrats generally attempt to solve what they believe to be management problems. Since all freedoms comes with risks, the logical result of combating risks, then, is by abolishing free agency, one step at the time.
This is the tragic but predictable trajectory of bureaucracy and central planning, if allowed to proceed without course correction.
We have to judge harmful actions from their observable consequences rather than merely intentions. Intentions remain an area of speculation while actions are measurable. The road to hell is paved with central planning in the guise of good intentions.
I will check out Metropolis.
Those are your assumptions, not mine.
Governments using the Trolley Problem is very risky and the potentials for harm and undermining individual liberties are evident.
Is this clear enough as to how I used the term?
'I call anything that harms or destroys a thing evil, and everything that preserves and benefits it good.'
/ Socrates (via Plato's Republic)
That's the classical definition of good versus evil and it's purely logical.
Do you agree or disagree that the Trolley Problem can be used for motives of power and control? If there is agreement then we are debating situations and applications that can be explored individually.
Not sure how I am able to gatekeep anything. How about countering my arguments instead.
Governments that are willing to harm innocent individuals by assuming some probability thesis that can be both flawed in its probabilities and also impacted by power motives, is definitely in the malevolence spectrum.
If I am willing to pull a lever that can harm innocent individuals, that is a malevolent action even if I have or make up some motives for why it is necessary. Who am I to assume that I have sufficient data in the first place to justify harming innocent people. Central planners don't have access to most of the data and their ideology and power motives will also impact how they define a Trolley Problem.
Agreed, I do believe there are actual malevolent Malthusian ideologies involved in our governments, although probably not at the lower 99%, but rather the top 1%.
Corruption rises to power. Psychopaths can always game whatever system is in place since they have no morals. They merely repeat the expected slogans of a given social system with sufficient conviction and no criticism.
This works because loyalty always trumps competence in social hierarchies. Competence can be bought on a need-to-have basis. Loyalty is harder to come by.
I believe I saw parts of Metropolis if you refer to the black-white movie, I don't remember seeing it in full so I probably didn't.
Right, it comes back to the Trolley Problem.
My view is that the Trolley Problem is malevolent in itself: sacrificing innocent individuals for some believed cause is a form of malevolence, regardless of intentions. Harming innocent people does not redeem destructive actions by proclaiming lofty goals.