Topic: Economic Devastation - page 9. (Read 504811 times)
Interrupting the flow of the thread a little, but hae been reading up on China and the current geopolitic atmosphere today
The Trump admin is obviously pivoting towards Russia and away from China (which was Obama's play - appease China, freeze out Russia).
This puts enormous pressure on China, who no longer has the cheap wages or productivity room-to-grow that they have had for the last two decades.
Trump will antagonise over currency manipulation, tariffs, North Korea & Taiwan etc etc and the Chinese have few options.
- can't just dump Treasuries (although they are now sellers) as it implodes their economy as well.
- can't grow out of debt. They are already facing a massive debt bubble which is no doubt both worse than reported and larger than estimated due to the absence of including WMP's in the debt calculations. Growth is limp and the markets they export to like Europe are still flatlining.
- they are trapped by the Impossible Trinity and will either impose stringent capital controls or do a shock devaluation of the Yuan to claw back a short term export advantage.
The Trump admin can squeeze China and the inclusions of known China agitators makes it more likely we will see a hot war over the South China Sea for its fishing and ship route importance.
On top of this, China is having an internal power struggle.
Relating this to Bitcoin, if things get desperate and capital controls get ramped up, the effect a PBoC 'ban' on the market will be brutal, at least short term. But, on the other hand, a sharp devaluation of the Yuan will put a rocket under bitcoin short term.
The Trump admin is obviously pivoting towards Russia and away from China (which was Obama's play - appease China, freeze out Russia).
This puts enormous pressure on China, who no longer has the cheap wages or productivity room-to-grow that they have had for the last two decades.
Trump will antagonise over currency manipulation, tariffs, North Korea & Taiwan etc etc and the Chinese have few options.
- can't just dump Treasuries (although they are now sellers) as it implodes their economy as well.
- can't grow out of debt. They are already facing a massive debt bubble which is no doubt both worse than reported and larger than estimated due to the absence of including WMP's in the debt calculations. Growth is limp and the markets they export to like Europe are still flatlining.
- they are trapped by the Impossible Trinity and will either impose stringent capital controls or do a shock devaluation of the Yuan to claw back a short term export advantage.
The Trump admin can squeeze China and the inclusions of known China agitators makes it more likely we will see a hot war over the South China Sea for its fishing and ship route importance.
On top of this, China is having an internal power struggle.
Relating this to Bitcoin, if things get desperate and capital controls get ramped up, the effect a PBoC 'ban' on the market will be brutal, at least short term. But, on the other hand, a sharp devaluation of the Yuan will put a rocket under bitcoin short term.
Recently I have been thinking about the viability of gift economics. I am just starting to explore this issue and do not claim any deep knowledge on the topic. However, I have seen this concept in two different venues in just the last few weeks.
In "Sacred Economics" by Charles Eisenstein the author argues extensively for the viability of such an economics. I have just started to read the book. It is well written with an excellent critique of usury but I have not yet gotten to the heart of Mr. Eisenstein's argument.
http://sacred-economics.com/read-online/
Just today I found this attempt to codify gift economics into cryptocurrency. Vadim Frolov appears to be planning to roll this out in the form of an open sourced decentralized platform called thank-u
https://medium.com/@vadim.frolov/thank-u-value-and-money-redefined-on-blockchain-to-fix-ad-blocking-79de7a87231c#.yl9husm8r
This is a topic I will need to explore further. I plan to finish reading Mr. Eisenstein's book and follow the progress of this thank-u platform.
In "Sacred Economics" by Charles Eisenstein the author argues extensively for the viability of such an economics. I have just started to read the book. It is well written with an excellent critique of usury but I have not yet gotten to the heart of Mr. Eisenstein's argument.
http://sacred-economics.com/read-online/
Just today I found this attempt to codify gift economics into cryptocurrency. Vadim Frolov appears to be planning to roll this out in the form of an open sourced decentralized platform called thank-u
https://medium.com/@vadim.frolov/thank-u-value-and-money-redefined-on-blockchain-to-fix-ad-blocking-79de7a87231c#.yl9husm8r
This is a topic I will need to explore further. I plan to finish reading Mr. Eisenstein's book and follow the progress of this thank-u platform.
...
I saw that article earlier, CC. I am considering starting a series at Facebook of short links & pictures showing the CRAZIES who are suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome", pretty much the same as the earlier Bush version, but seems to be more extreme re Trump.
But all I would wind up doing is pissing-off my deluded relatives who are in the tank for The Left.
I saw that article earlier, CC. I am considering starting a series at Facebook of short links & pictures showing the CRAZIES who are suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome", pretty much the same as the earlier Bush version, but seems to be more extreme re Trump.
But all I would wind up doing is pissing-off my deluded relatives who are in the tank for The Left.
Differences Between The Women's March And The March For Life
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-29/im-woman-who-went-womens-march-and-march-life-differences-were-stunning
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-29/im-woman-who-went-womens-march-and-march-life-differences-were-stunning
Quote
A week after the Inauguration of Donald Trump, politically active women across America could choose to make themselves heard at two major rallies revolving around women's issues. They could attend a pro-choice, feminist march known as the Women's March or they could wait one week and attend the 44th annual pro-life, March for Life.
The marches had their similarities. Both marches were held in D.C. Both marches were heavily attended by women. And both marches attracted people from all over the country to participate. But each march was not made equal.
Being physically at the marches, it is easy to recognize differences between the two. In fact, some of the differences were downright stunning. Take a look for yourself, perhaps you will agree.
March for Life
The Women's March
The marches had their similarities. Both marches were held in D.C. Both marches were heavily attended by women. And both marches attracted people from all over the country to participate. But each march was not made equal.
Being physically at the marches, it is easy to recognize differences between the two. In fact, some of the differences were downright stunning. Take a look for yourself, perhaps you will agree.
March for Life
The Women's March
Singapore's plea to its people: Won’t you please have more children?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2017/0129/Singapore-s-plea-to-its-people-Won-t-you-please-have-more-children
Quote
As Singapore goes all out to reverse its ultralow fertility rate, many nations facing tough economic and social problems as the ranks of young people dwindle watch closely for lessons.
Singapore’s fertility rate is among the 10 lowest in the world. The average number of births per woman in 2015 was 1.24, according to government statistics. That’s well below the replacement rate of 2.1, the number of babies generally required to maintain a country’s current population level.
...
Singapore is an acute example of what has become a worldwide trend. Nearly half of all people now live in countries where women, on average, give birth to fewer than 2.1 babies. The Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group in Washington, estimates the world population will reach 9.9 billion in 2050, up about 33 percent from an estimated 7.4 billion now. Yet the growth rate has steadily declined since its peak in the late 1960s.
...
Governments across the world, from Denmark to Japan, are struggling to come to terms with shrinking populations, and the implications for everything from supporting aging populations to growing the economy. But Singapore’s all-out approach stands out as one of the most ambitious.
...
Singapore has introduced a wide range of policies to help defray the costs of raising children in one of the world’s most expensive countries. Couples can get baby bonuses and housing priority, and men can take advantage of extended mandatory parental leaves – just like women. The government sponsors dating services to help with the first step: finding a partner.
...
The government’s aim is to help make parenthood as easy as possible. Aside from the housing initiative, it has also extended mandatory paid paternity leave from one to two weeks and even provides cash for babies. Families receive $14,000 (Singaporean; almost US$9,900) for their first child and are eligible for the same amount if they have a second; they receive S$20,000 for a third child, as well as for a fourth, and S$26,000 for each child beyond that.
The results have been mixed.
...
“I cannot solve the problem, and I have given up,” Lee (the country’s founding leader) wrote in his last book, published in 2013. “I have given the job to another generation of leaders. Hopefully, they or their successors will eventually find a way out.”
...
Josephine Teo (enior minister of state who oversees the National Population and Talent Division) often urges young people to look for love and settle down early, but even she has acknowledged a fine line between gentle persuasion and heavy-handed intrusiveness... "Millennial Singaporeans, who number nearly a million, are not about to start families because someone exhorts them to. If and when they decide to, it will likely be because they regard marriage and parenthood to be achievable, enjoyable, and celebrated.”
Singapore’s fertility rate is among the 10 lowest in the world. The average number of births per woman in 2015 was 1.24, according to government statistics. That’s well below the replacement rate of 2.1, the number of babies generally required to maintain a country’s current population level.
...
Singapore is an acute example of what has become a worldwide trend. Nearly half of all people now live in countries where women, on average, give birth to fewer than 2.1 babies. The Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group in Washington, estimates the world population will reach 9.9 billion in 2050, up about 33 percent from an estimated 7.4 billion now. Yet the growth rate has steadily declined since its peak in the late 1960s.
...
Governments across the world, from Denmark to Japan, are struggling to come to terms with shrinking populations, and the implications for everything from supporting aging populations to growing the economy. But Singapore’s all-out approach stands out as one of the most ambitious.
...
Singapore has introduced a wide range of policies to help defray the costs of raising children in one of the world’s most expensive countries. Couples can get baby bonuses and housing priority, and men can take advantage of extended mandatory parental leaves – just like women. The government sponsors dating services to help with the first step: finding a partner.
...
The government’s aim is to help make parenthood as easy as possible. Aside from the housing initiative, it has also extended mandatory paid paternity leave from one to two weeks and even provides cash for babies. Families receive $14,000 (Singaporean; almost US$9,900) for their first child and are eligible for the same amount if they have a second; they receive S$20,000 for a third child, as well as for a fourth, and S$26,000 for each child beyond that.
The results have been mixed.
...
“I cannot solve the problem, and I have given up,” Lee (the country’s founding leader) wrote in his last book, published in 2013. “I have given the job to another generation of leaders. Hopefully, they or their successors will eventually find a way out.”
...
Josephine Teo (enior minister of state who oversees the National Population and Talent Division) often urges young people to look for love and settle down early, but even she has acknowledged a fine line between gentle persuasion and heavy-handed intrusiveness... "Millennial Singaporeans, who number nearly a million, are not about to start families because someone exhorts them to. If and when they decide to, it will likely be because they regard marriage and parenthood to be achievable, enjoyable, and celebrated.”
Versus
Israel has the highest birth rate in the developed world.
http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-has-the-highest-birth-rate-in-the-developed-world-and-thats-becoming-a-problem-2015-9
Quote
Although most people don’t realize it, Israel is the only Western country that has a positive birthrate
The average Israeli woman has three babies in her lifetime, nearly double the fertility rate for the rest of the industrialised countries in the OECD.
Today's population of 8.4 million is forecast to reach 15.6 million by 2059 and 20.6 million in a high case scenario.
...
there is no national discourse or recognition that a problem exists. On the contrary, government policies are geared to encouraging a high birth rate.
The reasons are various, from the biblical command "Be fruitful and multiply" to the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust, to fears of being outnumbered by Arabs.
Israeli government policy encourages population growth with benefits such as child allowances, free schooling from the age of three and funding for up to four in vitro fertility treatments a year.
The average Israeli woman has three babies in her lifetime, nearly double the fertility rate for the rest of the industrialised countries in the OECD.
Today's population of 8.4 million is forecast to reach 15.6 million by 2059 and 20.6 million in a high case scenario.
...
there is no national discourse or recognition that a problem exists. On the contrary, government policies are geared to encouraging a high birth rate.
The reasons are various, from the biblical command "Be fruitful and multiply" to the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust, to fears of being outnumbered by Arabs.
Israeli government policy encourages population growth with benefits such as child allowances, free schooling from the age of three and funding for up to four in vitro fertility treatments a year.
Cycles of Contention
| Cycle #1 | Cycle #2 | Cycle #3 | Cycle #4 | Cycle #5 | Cycle #6 | ||
| Mechanism of Control | Knowledge of Evil | Warlordism | Holy War | Usury | Universal Surveillance | Hedonism | |
| Rulers | The Strong | Despots | God Kings/Monarchs | Capitalists | Oligarchs (NWO) | Decentralized Government | |
| Life of the Ruled | "Nasty, Brutish, Short" | Slaves | Surfs | Debtors | Basic Income Recipients | Knowledge Workers | |
| Facilitated Advance | Knowledge of Good | Commerce | Rule of Law | Growth | Transparency | Ascesis |
France is moving into cycle #5
France's Benoit Hamon rouses Socialists with basic income plan
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38723219
Quote
He's been called the "French Bernie Sanders". After his decisive win in the first round of France's Socialist party primary, left-wing rebel, Benoit Hamon is suddenly the centre of attention.
But what do his rapid rise and eye-catching policies say about the future of the French left?
With his designer stubble and cheeky grin, the 49-year-old Socialist party rebel has been grabbing more than his share of the limelight over the past few weeks.
The most left-leaning of the seven initial candidates in the Socialist race, his programme has been built around the radical proposal of a universal monthly payment for all French citizens, regardless of income. He also wants to legalise cannabis, to tax the wealth created by robots and to ditch the labour law passed last year that made it easier to hire and fire.
The income plan he has outlined would be put into effect in three stages.
But what do his rapid rise and eye-catching policies say about the future of the French left?
With his designer stubble and cheeky grin, the 49-year-old Socialist party rebel has been grabbing more than his share of the limelight over the past few weeks.
The most left-leaning of the seven initial candidates in the Socialist race, his programme has been built around the radical proposal of a universal monthly payment for all French citizens, regardless of income. He also wants to legalise cannabis, to tax the wealth created by robots and to ditch the labour law passed last year that made it easier to hire and fire.
The income plan he has outlined would be put into effect in three stages.
- First, the current minimum welfare payment for France's poorest would be increased by 10% to €600 (£515; $640) a month
- The payments would then be extended to all those from 18-25 years old
- Finally the programme would be rolled out to all French citizens sometime after 2022, with the monthly payment increased to €750 a month
Cash is Not King: France, Germany, Discuss Cash Limits
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sputniknews.com/amp/europe/201602101034515521-5000-euros-cash-ban-terrorism/
Quote
France and Germany want to impose a Europe-wide ban on cash transactions of more than €5,000 ($5,600).
"We are striving to put in place a uniform limit on cash transactions in Europe,"
Michel Sapin (the French finance minister) discussed the proposal with his German counterpart at their regular twice-yearly meeting between the finance ministers and central bankers of France and Germany.
France has a limit of €1,000 on cash transactions, which was lowered from €3,000 after the terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo
...
In March last year Sapin announced the cash cap and other measures including greater monitoring of cash payments, withdrawals and small bank accounts in order to "fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy, which enables "terrorism that is low cost to carry out but has major impact."
France now has one of the strictest caps. In 2011 Italy banned cash payments over €1,000, and in 2012 Spain capped cash payments to €2,500 for residents
...
In addition to discussing the ban on cash, on Tuesday the two countries and their central bankers also discussed the latters' proposals for structural reform of the Eurozone, including the establishment of a European finance ministry.
"We are striving to put in place a uniform limit on cash transactions in Europe,"
Michel Sapin (the French finance minister) discussed the proposal with his German counterpart at their regular twice-yearly meeting between the finance ministers and central bankers of France and Germany.
France has a limit of €1,000 on cash transactions, which was lowered from €3,000 after the terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo
...
In March last year Sapin announced the cash cap and other measures including greater monitoring of cash payments, withdrawals and small bank accounts in order to "fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy, which enables "terrorism that is low cost to carry out but has major impact."
France now has one of the strictest caps. In 2011 Italy banned cash payments over €1,000, and in 2012 Spain capped cash payments to €2,500 for residents
...
In addition to discussing the ban on cash, on Tuesday the two countries and their central bankers also discussed the latters' proposals for structural reform of the Eurozone, including the establishment of a European finance ministry.
Agreed.
I don't think "Contentionism" is necessarily a new insight though perhaps it is a more formal way of talking about an old and ongoing reality.
One of the books that is near the top of list of books I plan to read is Victor Hugo 1862 classic Les Misérables. The musical was good but I suspect it is a pale shadow of the original. The story is one centered around the tyranny of the law the conditions that make such tyranny inevitable and ultimately the forces that allow for the law to be overthrown. An argument for Contentionism from 155 years ago.
Interesting article in zerohedge highlights the role of debt in solidifying centralization of governance.
In Stunning Admission, Draghi Says A Country Can Leave Eurozone But Must "Settle Its Bill First"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-21/stunning-admission-draghi-says-country-can-leave-eurozone-must-settle-its-bill-first
In Stunning Admission, Draghi Says A Country Can Leave Eurozone But Must "Settle Its Bill First"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-21/stunning-admission-draghi-says-country-can-leave-eurozone-must-settle-its-bill-first
Hotel California
And this is why community and individual based diversity of strategies for dealing with for example defection of parents, is more optimum. It allows for humanity to not entire fall into a Dark Age because of some incorrect strategy, such as I how I argued upthread that enabling a State-wide apparatus for inferring with the contract between parents and children is highly destructive.
Humans have emotions and instincts from their tribal heritage that in many cases can be Frankenstein outcomes when applied to the State-wide scope. And humans aren't very good at rationalizing this and realizing this, thus small scale failure is superior to large scale group think.
When increasing the scale of systems, we should also increase their decentralization. That is the only way phenomenon can scale.
Humans have emotions and instincts from their tribal heritage that in many cases can be Frankenstein outcomes when applied to the State-wide scope. And humans aren't very good at rationalizing this and realizing this, thus small scale failure is superior to large scale group think.
When increasing the scale of systems, we should also increase their decentralization. That is the only way phenomenon can scale.
Absolutely, but isn't that still a course toward an optimal solution (that solution being full decentralization)?
I wish there was a solution but there isn't.
The solution is for people and humanity to gradually learn from our mistakes ultimately improving our behavior.
Competition of diverse strategies, because a monolithic top-down experiment is flirting with an extinction or megadeath event. Diversified failure is better than monolithic failure. This is Taleb's anti-fragility.
The best educator is consequence and the inevitable suffering it brings.
Precisely. Diverse competitions.
The role of the state is not to protect us from our bad choices.
Yet it does. Which incentivizes monolithic behavior.
The role of the state is to protect the innocent from the bad choices of others.
This only works well in very limited and clear cut cases.
In most situations, this turns into Frankenstein monolithic outcomes that kill the natural competition that is necessary for people to learn through the free market of diversified failure.
As a minanarchist, I support clear cut cases. For example, criminality as enumerated in prior post. I also mentioned today that I would support requiring all immigrants with a positive TB test to have undergone a certified DOT (doctor observed treatment meaning the doctor administers the drugs every week) for 6 - 9 months before they are allowed to immigrate to the USA. So we are stop importing multi-drug resistant strains. TB used to be nearly non-existent in the USA. Now it is coming back and with strains that can't be treated. This is fatal.
The state is failure personified.
Disagree. It is destruction of diversified failure and lumping it into monolithic failure. Not anti-fragile.
Taleb is much smarter than you or I. Maybe you should ask his opinion? I emailed him once and he replied.
At its best it is a bumbling and inefficient helper.
At its worst it is a bull in a china shop.
At its worst it is a bull in a china shop.
The worst is the end game inertia. Without exception. This is the lesson of Babylon.
The best the state can ever do is to contain and limit fallout to the individual alone.
Most of the time it accomplishes far less.
Most of the time it accomplishes far less.
It accomplishes far worse always if given enough time to foment.
Interesting article in zerohedge highlights the role of debt in solidifying centralization of governance.
In Stunning Admission, Draghi Says A Country Can Leave Eurozone But Must "Settle Its Bill First"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-21/stunning-admission-draghi-says-country-can-leave-eurozone-must-settle-its-bill-first
In Stunning Admission, Draghi Says A Country Can Leave Eurozone But Must "Settle Its Bill First"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-21/stunning-admission-draghi-says-country-can-leave-eurozone-must-settle-its-bill-first
Quote
In a letter to two Italian lawmakers in the European Parliament released on Friday, and first reported by Reuters, Mario Draghi implied that a country could leave the euro zone - so much for "No Plan B" - but first it would need to settle or debts with the bloc's TARGET2 payments system before severing ties.
"If a country were to leave the Eurosystem, its national central bank's claims on or liabilities to the ECB would need to be settled in full," Draghi said in the letter.
As Reuters confirms, the comment by Draghi is "a rare reference by Draghi to the possibility of the currency zone losing members." We would say not just "reference" but admission that a Italexit is all too possible, however the only way the ECB would allow it, would be for Italy first to pay its €357 billion TARGET2 bill (which various confused and clueless tenured economists over the past five years claimed would never be used by the ECB as a bargaining chip in "exit" negotiations and has no political implications; oops).
"If a country were to leave the Eurosystem, its national central bank's claims on or liabilities to the ECB would need to be settled in full," Draghi said in the letter.
As Reuters confirms, the comment by Draghi is "a rare reference by Draghi to the possibility of the currency zone losing members." We would say not just "reference" but admission that a Italexit is all too possible, however the only way the ECB would allow it, would be for Italy first to pay its €357 billion TARGET2 bill (which various confused and clueless tenured economists over the past five years claimed would never be used by the ECB as a bargaining chip in "exit" negotiations and has no political implications; oops).
I wish there was a solution but there isn't.
The solution is for people and humanity to gradually learn from our mistakes ultimately improving our behavior.
The best educator is consequence and the inevitable suffering it brings.
The role of the state is not to protect us from our bad choices.
The role of the state is to protect the innocent from the bad choices of others.
The state is failure personified.
At its best it is a bumbling and inefficient helper.
At its worst it is a bull in a china shop.
The best the state can ever do is to contain and limit fallout to the individual alone.
Most of the time it accomplishes far less.
I would not advocate that the State ignore the crime of sexual abuse, starvation, or physical enslavement of anyone, children or otherwise. I don't understand why you would equate my prior posts with such a ridiculous position. Leftists always use extreme hyperbole to support their failure of logic about why we must have State intervention in dictating morals (and realize then they achieve the indoctrination of immorality yet then you claim immorality is our #1 problem yet then you also follow a leftist stance of supporting State intervention, sigh).
I was writing about the imbalances caused by the State when it for example provides welfare for kids that both the mother and father create irresponsibly. This promotes them to do more of the same. I also pointed out that rewarding the mother and giving her an easy way out of her duty in a relationship, by demanding the father pay for everything when the mother may be taking advantage of the situation (for example if the mother has 3 children with 3 different other men besides the father who is paying support for the 2 kids he made with her)... that this promotes immoral behavior and destroys society. Also these child protective services become gulags against sincere parents, becoming some morality police that enforce morals and compliance with many things that even for example some conservative religions find abhorrent. And any power is ripe for abuse (as you know about my case, in which threat of abuse of that power lead to a very extreme and adverse outcome for a family).
You say you want a certain thing, but you haven't solved the problems with what you claim you want. Just look the other way and imagine the problems don't exist with what you white people want, then you wonder why you have a fucked up society. I am not saying that allowing rampant parental neglect is a solution either.
It is a major quagmire and that is why George Gilder is telling conservatives (see quote I provided upthread) that community and churches need to step up and stop relying on welfare and the State, which is not a solution.
What white middle class people want is for somebody else to handle the problem. They want to delegate it to the State. Then they wonder why the end up in dystopian outcomes.
But sometimes the problem is too complicated and impossible to solve. And so if dump it on the State, then we get all sorts of unintended bad effects also.
That is why I said, it isn't our responsibility. We try to do what we can where we can see we can do some good. Even Jesus couldn't fix all these problems, so certainly the State can't.
Leftists want to think they are God, but sorry to inform them that they are not. We simply can't always solve every social problem. Period.
I am not against churches organizing to go out and try to help children and families in distress. If the parents refuse, then there is a problem of needing force of child protective services to try to force some rescue. If the parents aren't feeding the child, are physically abusing the child, or are imprisoning the child, then I think that is criminal act, so the State can step in. But then problem is this becomes expanded to forcing the parents to send their kids to school (with schools indoctrinating kids with immorality and lies such as global warming), forcing the parents to immunize their kids (something like 20+ vaccines now given to youth these days), considering taking the kids away from the parents if one of the parents is using drugs, etc.. The child is nothing without parents, so even though that is an unfortunate fate, that is beyond the role of the State and only community (peer influence) can possibly do something about that which isn't more destructive than doing nothing.
Generally speaking, this is why white middle class conservatives move away from poverty stricken neighborhoods, to congregate with those who parents who take care of their kids.
I wish there was a solution but there isn't.
Any way societies are going to choose to let the State deal with the problem, so it is rather irrelevant what ever we say here.
That is too simpleton. The State is the proxy we use to fight over our disagreements in society. The State is for organizing mutual self-defense. The State is how we organized labor and fixed capital in the usury regime for the Industrial Age. Etc..
Society is a very complex phenomenon.
The State rarely provides justice (so many who were also victims are also maimed). It provides the illusions that keep society going for a while until the illusions crash into reality.
P.S. Minanarchist Libertarians believe the State should be minimized and not try to take on duties which the private sector can provide outcomes for which are no worse. I thought at some times you have claimed you are a Libertarian. Any way, I don't really care what politics people choose. Nothing I say will make any difference.
I was writing about the imbalances caused by the State when it for example provides welfare for kids that both the mother and father create irresponsibly. This promotes them to do more of the same. I also pointed out that rewarding the mother and giving her an easy way out of her duty in a relationship, by demanding the father pay for everything when the mother may be taking advantage of the situation (for example if the mother has 3 children with 3 different other men besides the father who is paying support for the 2 kids he made with her)... that this promotes immoral behavior and destroys society. Also these child protective services become gulags against sincere parents, becoming some morality police that enforce morals and compliance with many things that even for example some conservative religions find abhorrent. And any power is ripe for abuse (as you know about my case, in which threat of abuse of that power lead to a very extreme and adverse outcome for a family).
You say you want a certain thing, but you haven't solved the problems with what you claim you want. Just look the other way and imagine the problems don't exist with what you white people want, then you wonder why you have a fucked up society. I am not saying that allowing rampant parental neglect is a solution either.
It is a major quagmire and that is why George Gilder is telling conservatives (see quote I provided upthread) that community and churches need to step up and stop relying on welfare and the State, which is not a solution.
What white middle class people want is for somebody else to handle the problem. They want to delegate it to the State. Then they wonder why the end up in dystopian outcomes.
But sometimes the problem is too complicated and impossible to solve. And so if dump it on the State, then we get all sorts of unintended bad effects also.
That is why I said, it isn't our responsibility. We try to do what we can where we can see we can do some good. Even Jesus couldn't fix all these problems, so certainly the State can't.
Leftists want to think they are God, but sorry to inform them that they are not. We simply can't always solve every social problem. Period.
I am not against churches organizing to go out and try to help children and families in distress. If the parents refuse, then there is a problem of needing force of child protective services to try to force some rescue. If the parents aren't feeding the child, are physically abusing the child, or are imprisoning the child, then I think that is criminal act, so the State can step in. But then problem is this becomes expanded to forcing the parents to send their kids to school (with schools indoctrinating kids with immorality and lies such as global warming), forcing the parents to immunize their kids (something like 20+ vaccines now given to youth these days), considering taking the kids away from the parents if one of the parents is using drugs, etc.. The child is nothing without parents, so even though that is an unfortunate fate, that is beyond the role of the State and only community (peer influence) can possibly do something about that which isn't more destructive than doing nothing.
Generally speaking, this is why white middle class conservatives move away from poverty stricken neighborhoods, to congregate with those who parents who take care of their kids.
I wish there was a solution but there isn't.
Any way societies are going to choose to let the State deal with the problem, so it is rather irrelevant what ever we say here.
The ultimate role of the state is to restrain and mitigate destructive behavior. This is the states only purpose for existing.
That is too simpleton. The State is the proxy we use to fight over our disagreements in society. The State is for organizing mutual self-defense. The State is how we organized labor and fixed capital in the usury regime for the Industrial Age. Etc..
Society is a very complex phenomenon.
The State rarely provides justice (so many who were also victims are also maimed). It provides the illusions that keep society going for a while until the illusions crash into reality.
P.S. Minanarchist Libertarians believe the State should be minimized and not try to take on duties which the private sector can provide outcomes for which are no worse. I thought at some times you have claimed you are a Libertarian. Any way, I don't really care what politics people choose. Nothing I say will make any difference.
Btw, I didn't intend to imply we shouldn't protect women and children. If we see them in distress or in harm's way, we protect them.
My issue is about elevating that to a legal responsibility which then implies we are obligated to build a State apparatus with power to intervene in the parental issues, which has some very bad negative downsides.
I do not get along well with people who think we can fix things with the State, which can't be fixed with the State. But it doesn't mean I don't believe we should protect on a community and individual basis.
I hope that distinction is clear based on my prior points.
My issue is about elevating that to a legal responsibility which then implies we are obligated to build a State apparatus with power to intervene in the parental issues, which has some very bad negative downsides.
I do not get along well with people who think we can fix things with the State, which can't be fixed with the State. But it doesn't mean I don't believe we should protect on a community and individual basis.
I hope that distinction is clear based on my prior points.
We agree that political power originates in top-down processes that attempts to quell human diversity and impose order. Power always seeks centralization.
We agree that issues are best solved at the level of the individual. Should that fail issues are best solved at the level of family then the local neighborhood. It is only after failure to contain destructive variance at the neighborhood level that we differ.
You argue that state interventions should be opposed on principle as power naturally grows beyond its intended purpose. In the case of child protective services you envision a progressive encroachment of the state into the family. In Orwell's 1984 children were encouraged to spy on their parents watching them for disloyalty. Parents were afraid of their children.
I acknowledge that state interventions have major downsides including the tendency to insidiously grow. However, I view such interventions as a necessary mechanism to temporarily contain the worst forms of human evil. Behavior that forces harm upon another against their will cannot be allowed to operate unchecked without damaging the fabric of society. In the the extreme example of a father who starves, sexually abuses, or mutates his children the state must intervene.
The ultimate role of the state is to restrain and mitigate destructive behavior. This is the states only purpose for existing. You might counter that the dangers of state power are too great that the cure is worse than the disease and that evil behavior should be addressed by the neighborhood or written off as nature in action.
You would cite the "Iron Law of Economics" highlighting the dangers inherent in state power. I would counter that we are not all slaves to Pharaoh so the "Iron Law" cannot be the dominant vector in society.
You would argue that nature cannot be top-down controlled and attempts to do so must ultimately fail. I would counter that nature can be temporarily restrained and then ultimately transformed via grassroots transformation of its character.
You would cite Natural Law is the ultimate arbiter of truth. I would counter that Divine Law supersedes Natural Law and compels us to a higher calling.
I understand your position and believe you understand mine. I do not believe we are going to reach consensus at this time.
Humans have emotions and instincts from their tribal heritage that in many cases can be Frankenstein outcomes when applied to the State-wide scope. And humans aren't very good at rationalizing this and realizing this, thus small scale failure is superior to large scale group think.
When increasing the scale of systems, we should also increase their decentralization. That is the only way phenomenon can scale.
When increasing the scale of systems, we should also increase their decentralization. That is the only way phenomenon can scale.
These are amazing insights!
Now, how to apply this to bitcoin, specifically the "scaling" issue?
My point is that nothing is a permanent fix and there is no absolute truth. There are competing strategies.
There isn't one order, ever.
There isn't one order, ever.
Isn't the objective of competition to determine the optimal route?
Agreed. If we could know the absolute truth, there would be no point in life. Everything would already be predetermined and static. There couldn't exist any uncertainty.
And this is why community and individual based diversity of strategies for dealing with for example defection of parents, is more optimum. It allows for humanity to not entire fall into a Dark Age because of some incorrect strategy, such as I how I argued upthread that enabling a State-wide apparatus for inferring with the contract between parents and children is highly destructive.
Humans have emotions and instincts from their tribal heritage that in many cases can be Frankenstein outcomes when applied to the State-wide scope. And humans aren't very good at rationalizing this and realizing this, thus small scale failure is superior to large scale group think.
When increasing the scale of systems, we should also increase their decentralization. That is the only way phenomenon can scale.
Jump to: