Avatar
penglunds
4c90355803186305619422ec913623cb5232d1335a33495eff0dea252b987959
Sailor, filmmaker, open protocols.
Replying to Avatar Kevin's Bacon

Just had a thought. It's a long one so bear with me...

Public goods generally cannot be wholly controlled by a single private company. If people attempt to surrender control of the public good to a single private company attempting to enforce a monopoly on it, the public good will be neglected, other options will still remain on the market (and those able to understand this catastrophe and the existemce of alternatives will patronize them), and the private entity entrusted with sole control over the good will use the inadequacies of its own handiwork as a pretense to get more funding to attempt to "solve the crisis" that it either still believes it can solve or still tries to convince other fools that it can solve.

Government, as I hope is obvious, is the premier private entity whose whole business model is monopoly and promising more than it can achieve, and is predicated on exactly this dynamic.

A pet theory of mine about natural monopoly that I've been developing:

The information and feedback mechanisms necessary to properly manage a resource, if they cannot fit into one mind or one private decision making unit, indicate that the resource cannot be a natural monopoly.

A natural monopoly can only occur in matters such as an owner over its private property, where the economic actor who owns the monopoly has, exclusively, the complete information necessary to direct the resource (property) to its most economical/ethical/important uses. If there is such a thing as authority, this theoretical limit is the boundary of its exclusive domain.

A customer at the grocery store who buys an orange now has sole control of that orange, knows its location in his car and later at home, knows where the guns are in his house for defending his property, knows what he needs the orange for, etc. He knows very little about all the other oranges at the store, which are a different resource, and even less about all the oranges in existence, which the store does not have the knowledge to control either. It would be impossible for this store or this customer to control all oranges. Voting doesn't magically transfer the knowledge either. Each actor controls its resource, but the public good of oranges is not wholly controlled by anyone. #Bitcoin is the same exact way, a public good with a distrubuted and immutable ledger, incentive framework, and verification system that no single private entity controls. Property rights under nature work this way. It is the way the world is. We are actually living in anarchy right now, but most people, even anarchists are deluded into thinking we are not. The government is merely a criminal that results in tremendous opportunity costs versus the alternative of people acknowledging the truth of their limited understanding and that of other people.

This theory of property/natural monopoly usually works out to exactly the kind of private property delineations that libertarians define. Sole ownership of a resource is determined not only by deontological or pragmatic oughts, nor only by the norms that tend to develop in greater degrees of rationality and human capital, but also by the very nature of reality and the frontier of possibilities itself. It is an observation of the Natural Law, the way things actually work as a fact.

#Economics #Monopoly #KnowledgeProblem #PublicGoods #TragedyOfTheCommons #NaturalLaw #Property

Thank you for your thoughts! Just wrote this article about centralization vs decentralization: https://medium.com/@penglunds/centralisation-vs-decentralisation-forming-a-coherent-understanding-976d269ae491

Would love your thoughts. I don’t necessarily see the government/nation-state as in conflict with decentralization per definition as long as they’re not in control of money supply. In democracies, government is just a naturally arising central entity - just as a company in my opinion.

What makes you think he understands that? Because he’s pro monopolisation in the oil sector? Trump is nothing but a product of the fiat system.

Replying to Avatar Leo Fernevak

As some voice hope for a Kamala Harris pivot toward a pro-Bitcoin stance, I find this implausible and will explain why I believe this.

Below I will have a look at Kamala's stand on taxes, energy and climate. First a glance at the Biden-Kamala constellation.

On March 9th, 2022, Joe Biden signed a document that involved the US government exploring CBDCs. The only way I can interpret this is as a plan to develop and implementing CBDCs. R&D does involve the 'd' as in development.

Source 1:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/09/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-on-ensuring-responsible-innovation-in-digital-assets/

Next, it can be instructive to have a look at Kamala's tax policies from 2020, which are also largely mirrored in her 2024 position.

Here we find that Kamala had listed capital gains taxes on her policy document in 2020 and still support them in 2024. Not very bitcoin-friendly at all and a disaster in terms of the erosion of private property rights.

Source 2:

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/kamala-harris-tax-proposals-2024/

Next up we have the subject of energy and climate. As expected, the more aligned a candidate is toward the UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, the more climate alarmism and de-industrialization policies we find.

This applies to the US, Canada, France, Australia, Germany, UK, Sweden, Norway and a host of countries that are pro-Agenda 21. Not a coincidence.

Ironically, Kamala's negative stance on US energy will likely boost Trump's campaign and he has been consistent in his pro-American energy position for 8 years, in spite of the coordinated MSM backlash.

Source 3:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/23/climate/kamala-harris-on-climate-energy/index.html

In conclusion, considering the ideological foundation of the Democrats, grounded in the UN Agenda 21 climate alarmism, and with 6 years left to reach the Agenda 2030 climate goals, we can expect Kamala to reduce the US energy capacity of oil, coal and gas in favor of environmentally questionable solar and wind energy, resulting in a de-industrialization and possible energy rationing.

Since CBDCs are necessary tools to implement carbon allowances and social credit score systems, we can expect that any political candidate that is on board with climate alarmism, also see CBDCs as useful tools in herding (forcing) consumers toward eating less meat, using less gas, driving fewer miles with cars, travelling less with planes and using less energy in general, which, under her policies, there won't be sufficient energy anyway.

Bitcoin mining under this kind of energy rationing scheme would become pointless due to the skyrocketing costs of energy. De-industrializing a nation while also embracing bitcoin mining is not a compatible match. Can't work, won't work.

Trump's energy maximization plan however, is compatible with bitcoin mining at low costs. Without the climate alarmism ideology, Trump doesn't even have a use case for CBDCs, which by the way he is vocally against. Trump doesn't believe in social engineering applied by central planners to pressure people to stop eating meat or stop driving cars. He has rejected climate alarmism consistently for 8 years, in spite of global demonization and recently, an assassination attempt.

The deep state has shown itself aligned with climate scaremongering and this is the lithmus test I use to determine who is aligned with the deep state and who is not.

Are they pro energy or not?

Are they anti UN or not?

Are they anti CBDC or not?

Are they anti capital gains taxes or not?

Are they for individual liberties or not?

Are they for private property rights or not.

Are they pro bitcoin or not?

These are the questions we must ask.

#Kamala #Harris #Donald #Trump #Bitcoin #Mining #Taxes #Climate #Alarmism #Energy #Policy

Trump does not understand the single most fundamental aspect of a free market, sound money or Bitcoin. He thinks it’s an about “winning”, which is a finite game and exactly what fiat is about.

6/ In a sound money environment, the precise incentives recognised as problematic today are reversed. In such an environment, the market — which would then be genuinely free because it would not have a structural bias — would naturally align with long-term, sustainable practices.

We all strive for the same goal: a sustainable planet. However, the notion that "if we could all just unite this one time for the common goal of saving the planet" may be inspiring but is insufficient if it assumes that a single central entity, if only given full mandate, can outsmart the collective intelligence of all the world's citizens with a “wave of its magic wand”.

The concept of unity by concentrating power in one central entity overlooks how every organism on Earth has adapted to an unpredictable future for billions of years, as it is akin to putting all eggs in the same basket. Survival, whether for mosquitoes, elephants, or humans, has never depended on uniform agreement — that is an impossible standard to meet that only ends up in compromises and insufficient actions — but rather on embracing diversity of thought, allowing free agents to act autonomously in their respective environments.

The point is that we must restore the economic environment in which the marketplace of ideas operates; only then will the full collective intelligence of the world's citizens be directed towards our better judgement. In fact, by doing so, we automatically activate and lever the entire world population towards the goal of environmental sustainability.

5/ Attributing the root cause of climate change to "market-based solutions" lacks nuance. The market is merely a collection of free agents that adapt to the most efficient way of operating in a given environment.

Unfortunately, that environment is currently the centralised fiat system with skewed incentive structures, which is why the current iteration of our market — which is not genuinely free — has adapted to operate most efficiently within that framework.

The “capitalism” or "market-based solutions" we know today resemble communism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. In other words, the word capitalism has been hijacked by those who seek fewer regulations and lower taxes to continue benefiting from the system's inherent flaws. In a genuinely free market, many of these individuals would have to reinvent themselves as their line of work adds zero value to the economy.

Under the fiat environment, increasing regulation and taxes is absolutely necessary, but it's at best only a short-term solution.

4/ However, while many at the forefront of the climate change movement are correctly identifying the symptoms and desperately pushing politicians to do more, many are also falling short of diagnosing the root cause accurately — or maybe they have just become so entrenched in the current system that they cannot see it can be reinvented.

2/ Those who argue otherwise are presenting a straw man argument. For instance, it is an undeniable fact that Earth will be hit by another asteroid in the future. We just don't know when, where, or how severe it will be. Similarly, those who claim the science on climate change is “unsettled” are debating the specifics of "when, where, and how severe," which indeed can vary.

However, it is settled that climate change will have disastrous consequences to the world in one way or another unless action is taken.

The even more ridiculous claim that climate scientists — as if they were one and the same — have “conspired” to downplay uncertainty and exaggerate risk, are apparently unaware of the fact that increased uncertainty equates to increased risk. So, they effectively have a defeater for their own argument.

Climate change is real and it’s caused by the unsustainable living practices that FIAT forces upon each and every one of us!🧵…

We stand at a pivotal moment in human history, where the adoption of sound money is no longer a mere theoretical concept but a tangible goal that can be genuinely achieved.

There is no such thing as a free market under a FIAT system.

To assert that the sinful act in terms of unsustainability, for example, is merely extracting and using oil, which releases greenhouse gases and warms the planet, is a grave underestimation of the issue.

The far more egregious act is that for all the various intents and purposes that energy could have been used for — such as fuelling innovation, which could have generated something of more value than the sum of its parts — it is instead used to build tanks and weapons with the intention to destroy lives, homes, and cities.