Statism and the Unmaking of Reality
https://mises.org/wire/statism-and-unmaking-reality
"Murray Rothbard wrote that egalitarianism was a war against nature. Statism has become a war against reality."
The Matrix philosophy in Andrew Tate, Barbie, and RuPaul’s Drag Race (from Darkhorse Livestream #184)
Discussion of the trivialization and misappropriation of the "Red Pill" concept
What Will It Take for Cryptocurrencies to Become Full-Fledged Money?
https://mises.org/wire/what-will-it-take-cryptocurrencies-become-full-fledged-money
"The potential for denationalized money is real and important. But progress still must be made before cryptocurrencies can become true substitutes for fiat currencies."
There wouldn't be a charge for quote posting, so as long as we see when people quote our posts, good content can be discovered without junking up our comment threads.
Most likely, someone will come up with better solutions, but I really like the idea of users having broad control over their experience on nostr.
Fundamentally, spam is about leveraging very low marginal cost situations to multiply very low marginal benefits, so the necessary fee might be incredibly low.
On the user-specified threshold, it might slow down the emergence of someone with good ideas, but my guess is that most of us would have very low thresholds. On the other hand, I can imagine that there are some relatively big fish who might be more interested in using nostr if they can set a higher level and make engagement more remunerative.
What do you think about a pay-to-comment mechanism like Stacker News uses?
The payment for one comment is incredibly low, but many comments in a short period of time can become costly.
Perhaps users could set their own price to comment on their posts.
NIH Successfully Vaccinated People Using...Mosquitos?
-Kim Iversen Show
Has World War III Already Begun?
https://mises.org/wire/has-world-war-iii-already-begun
"The recent actions of the Federal Reserve are reminiscent of central bank activities in wartime."
Why Almost Everyone Who Talks about Energy Is Wrong
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/why-almost-everyone-who-talks-about:1?r=8T2xqWjtafHWYGxQBSsrbw1wQPm7sWRq
"Far too often, the discussion over “energy” begins with a variety of assumptions that go unchallenged. The first is that energy policy should first and foremost be about environmental impact. The second is that traditional fossil fuels are obviously bad for the environment. This leads to the third, that society must obviously change its energy usage to stop an environmental disaster from happening.
These assumptions are so ingrained in the conversation that even opponents of green policies often base their arguments on them. Team blue may say that we need more taxes and regulations to force a change in energy use. Team red may argue that only by getting the government out of the way will business innovate its way out of fossil fuels.
What everyone seems to agree on is that fossil fuels are a bad thing and that transitioning to alternatives is a necessary part of a better future.
But what if these assumptions are wrong?
Should energy concerns be focused primarily on the environment rather than human well-being? As we’ve noted, the environmental impact of so-called green energy is greater than many believe, but even if this were not the case, would an energy source that is unable to support as many people as fossil fuels but is less environmentally harmful necessarily be “better” for society?
Proponents of the energy revolution argue that environmental crises will prevent human thriving. They warn of violent weather and destroyed farmland. Yet this is not what we’ve seen. In fact, climate deaths have declined over time, despite the media’s attempts at rebranding extreme weather events as modern phenomena. Farmland and food supplies have increased. Interestingly, many of the same individuals concerned about global warming and rising sea levels are continuing to buy houses and property on beautiful coasts.
In fact, the actual findings of the institutions that push the hardest to change our energy consumption do not match the severity of their rhetoric.
For example, government officials looking to promote alternative energy celebrate the work of Nobel Prize–winning economist William Nordhaus. While Nordhaus will often talk about the need for an energy revolution, his own work tells a different story.
A 2018 United Nations report he assisted with outlined a variety of global polices—such as phasing out fossil fuels—needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
While the headlines lauded the report as clear evidence of the need for a green energy revolution, a careful analysis of Nordhaus’s economic model revealed just the opposite. As economist Bob Murphy has noted, Nordhaus’s own findings show that the economic costs of achieving the report’s policy goals would be greater than the projected damage done by a higher rate of global warming.
To recap, the UN’s own analysis, conducted by a Nobel laureate specializing in the economics of climate change, shows that its policies would be more detrimental to the economic well-being of society than they would be beneficial to the environment. This is without question what would happen if the UN’s goals became reality. Many nations, such as China, seem to understand this and have made it clear that they will not be complying with these policies.
The hysterical nature of contemporary energy discussions has been great for the activist class, but it has had terrible consequences for intellectual debate, government policy, and the economy. The justification for this aggressive approach is the repeated warning that a failure to act will result in global catastrophe. In our next video, we will look at the poor track record of doomsday environmentalist prophecies."
Free Market in Blue Colorado? Democratic Gov Jared Polis Argues for Economic Freedom
"Colorado Governor Jared Polis isn't like most Democrats."
However, he's still awful on plenty of stuff.
Recently, I've been thinking more about the ideas of statism being a cult and statists having Stockholm Syndrome.
We should be taking those insights into account more in our persuasion efforts. You generally can't just reason someone out of a cult or mental illness, as they're robust against that approach.
DAMNING Facebook Files Show Biden Admin Censored TRUTH
"Rep Jim Jordan unveils the Facebook Files showing the Biden administration pressured the social media company into censoring Americans."
I suppose it depends who drew what on the $100 bill.
Also, elected officials who disagreed with him.
I mean all democracies jail journalists for having the wrong "sympathies" right? Right? Something something "sAVe mUh dEmOcRAcY".
https://www.rt.com/news/580645-gonzalo-lira-ukraine-torture/
It's much less shocking when you realize what Democrats mean by "Democracy" is just "rule by Democrats".
Vegan Influencer, 39, Dies of ‘Starvation’
From Infowars
‘I lived on the floor above and every day I was afraid to find her corpse in the morning,’ one friend wrote about social media influencer Zhanna Samsonova.
Jul 31st 2023 10:37am EDT
Source Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/vegan-influencer-39-dies-of-starvation/
Share, promote & comment with Nostr: https://dissentwatch.com/boost/?noback=1&boost_post_id=590871
That's a real risk with trying to live a level 7 lifestyle before you're ready.
In addition to the mechanisms from the original post,
Reputation develops over time and is why known brands can charge a premium.
You don't have to deal with scammers directly, if there's very little profit available to them. If you want to take a chance on something that seems like a great bargain, you're taking on the increased risk of being scammed.
You might even sign up with a third party service that enforces financial agreements by making merchants put down a deposit that could potentially cover customer losses from fraud. I'm sure clever people could think up all sorts of contractual arrangements of this sort.
As with so many "How would libertarians deal with ____?" questions, I want to point out that it's being raised in a statist reality where the thing is currently a problem.
That's an interesting point. It's sort of like prediction markets where the ultimate outcome is either zero or one, but the current price is the probability. So, we could interpret rising fiat price of Bitcoin as the odds of success going up.
When you realize all they mean by "Democracy" is "rule by Democrats", almost all of their seemingly bizarre comments start to make sense.