Today’s hike

I have a few people, but not really one for all things. My wife would talk to you about any of it if she knew you. (I wouldn’t mind if you talked to her about a few things too!)

Very hard to predict what other people will actually do given changing incentives. Best to do what you think is right and embody the ethos you’d like to see. Maybe people will surprise you.

There’s the spiritual question which is important, but that’s not the question in terms of the handle under which you post or the views to which you attach your name.

That’s your representation in the world, and there’s no question what we mean by that.

Funny, but that’s a good rule for a cause you don’t believe in.

Fair enough — appreciate that.

Don’t mind strident disagreement, feel free to savage my arguments all you want.

My only issue was being called a spook which is as disqualifying to your reputation in these circles as being a racist would be in Twitter circles (and I’ve been called that too for expressing heterodox views.

But very rare to get an apology on any kind of social media, so respect for that.

I like to experiment with all kinds of health remedies I’m not sure are helping so long as I feel confident they’re not harmful.

Been oil pulling, taking supplements, giving blood (to shed iron) for years now.

I honestly have no idea if any of it has helped but almost positive none of it has hurt.

Same reason I took ivermectin instead of the mRNA for covid.

Didn’t mean to re-post, that last reply from the poster calling me a spook which is beyond retarded and the puerile Twitter equivalent of calling someone with whom they disagree a racist, but to quote it.

Don’t conflate the right to privacy with a choice to hide the fact that you are using freedom tech. You absolutely have a right to privacy and use freedom tech privately.

But how much more powerful is it to use it openly and for the state for find out they can’t stop it.

I’m not offended. I just realize you’re not a serious person.

True colors. Ugly.

Calling me a spook is weak. Like some wokster on Twitter calling someone with whim they disagree a racist. Disappointing to find that same mentality here.

I agree with this — war is only one lens through which to view it.

But the metaphor isn’t important.

The point is while some people really do need to be anonymous, on the whole it’s bad game theory. For each anon individual, it’s helps them in the short term to evade the wrath of the state. But by being anonymous, you perpetuate its frame and empower it.

That’s why they censor and why they punish those who speak out: because they want people hiding and afraid. They don’t want people openly defying them.

If you’re the deep state you want a fearful and hiding population, only dissenting in secret. Last thing you want are people doing it out in the open because that’s contagious.

100 percent agree you should have the choice to conjoin. No objection to that at all. I don’t care to out anyone.

I’m just saying the message is backwards and a drag on the purpose of the tech which is freedom.

I’m not taking issue with Matt (I don’t know him.) I’m disagreeing with the message in that particular post.

Basically a lot of people here sounds like communists themselves — they want to encourage people only to accumulate wealth in secret, as though the masses can’t tolerate people of disparate means living side by side. As though the point of freedom tech is to secure your bag and disappear into your citadel.

Instead of walking down the street in broad daylight, going zero fucks what anyone thinks about it because you earned it, and it’s freedom tech which makes it very hard to confiscate.

I think certain people need to be anonymous like Satoshi.

But the vast, vast majority do not. And no doubt by revealing yourself you add some personal risk. But game theory-wise, you reduce your long-term risk by normalizing the use of the protocol under your own name.

I really think the message should be stand up, don’t apologize or hide for using freedom tech. Otherwise it’s not freedom tech.

No, Satoshi needed to be anon. He was birthing system-destroying new freedom tech. He was the ultimate spy.

We are not spies. We are soldiers. And you want the enemy to see the size of your army and decide to negotiate peacefully.

You are only empowering the enemy by hiding, not yourself. You are ceding him the entire world.

I just hear “Fear, fear, fear, be afraid, comply outwardly, only resist secretly, they have all the power, we have none, etc.”

What’s the point of freedom tech with that attitude?

Here’s an unpleasant fact to contemplate:

You can be killed. Easily.

You can be killed on the street by a drug-addled psycho, you can be killed by the police for non-compliance.

You can die of a heart attack or cancer or medical error (three leading causes of death in the US), and you will definitely die of something one day. That is a given.

But that is not a good reason not to stand up for your rights openly and fight for them.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act Only On That Maxim You Would Will To Be A Universal Law.

In other words, do what you’d like to see everyone do. Do you think people should stand up to the State’s overreach? Or grumble about it powerlessly behind an anon handle and let it happen?

You choose how it will go by your own actions. You create the ethos of the world.

You seem to think hiding is necessary for freedom. I don’t. The State is emboldened when people hide. When people tell it to fuck off, it shrinks into irrelevance. By fearing it and hiding from it, you make it stronger.