Topic: United we stand, divided we fall - the coming rise of cryptofiat - page 3. (Read 16512 times)

The vast majority do not understand what money is. You can see that in a five page slice of any internet forum dealing with anything remotely related to commerce. This is deliberate social engineering that has become progressively more aggressive since 1913, and will continue apace until either broken or replaced with another form of money. Crypto has the potential to be that, but it also has the potential to be subjugated. Never underestimate the power of manipulation by rulers, and more importantly, never underestimate their ability to harness the power of millions of stupid people.

To those that understand what money is: cryptofiat is as useful as a crotchless chastity belt, some fuckery is going to go on... GUARANTEED!

cryptofiat... I must say it does make me chuckle.

It's like constructing the ultimate massive safe matrix out of 6 inch hardened steel plate, each user has their own little safe cell and key, a tremendous feat of engineering! And then someone ( a banker of course ) has the smart idea of putting a little hinged wooden back door in each safe cell that get's locked with a bike combination lock, you gotta laugh!

That's what the people would be doing... entrusting their labor, their resources and their time, to a few that knew the combo.

Of course it would be trivial to crack the combos or break the little wooden doors, that is if you could gain access to the back of the safe past the armed guard needed to watch over such shitty locks.

Love it, will add to the the addendum

LOL. The law of unintended consequence. I meant it as an example. Have fun off grid. You'll come back to a detailed response. I think we may have gone off topic, so if it gets as long as I suspect, I'll start a new thread and PM you. I did not mean to paint you as a hypocrite, just that it can appear so if one is not rather careful of their actions.

I intend to at least try to persuade you, or others. It's what I do. My tagline, Anarchy is not chaos, is much more than a slogan to me. I'm relatively new to cryptos, but I've been an anarchist for a long while. I can back my position, and will enjoy the opportunity. Whether I convince you or not? Well, that's the question, isn't it?

Have a good day.

Not a problem. I've been around, and will continue to be. We can pick it up when you have time. I'll be going off-grid in a couple days myself, but will return about 10 days later.


Thanks. Tip o' the hat to you as well.

Though I guess I'm most interested in defending my position, rather than to change your mind or anything. After all, I'd hate to be continue to be viewed as a hypocrite

@ jbreher, I currently don't have time to answer point by point (and I will even concede a couple of yours when I get back to it) but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring this. I'll get back to you, in detail, as soon as I'm able. This has gotten rather involved, and I cannot properly answer you without going even more in depth.

I must say you debate quite well. I'm not easily impressed

And as long as I am within the geographical confines of 'The United States' (or any other governmental construct for that matter), I am subject to their edicts. Again, no choice.


What 'franchise' are you talking about here? I am unaware of any stated law that states 'if one votes, one promises to abide by the decision', and if you don't vote, then you need not abide. Can you cite it for me? Indeed, the enforcers will enforce without even considering whether or not you voted - it matters not to them. I certainly deny that there is any such implication. You may believe that there is, which says something about what _you_ think it implies. You are not able to enforce your opinions upon me.


Your statement that the very act of voting is an endorsement is an unsupported assertion. I disagree. Again - show me something authoritative that states such.


Sorry. False. Don't misunderstand - I am directly aware of electoral fraud, and am convinced that it is way more extensive than reported. But there are elections, and to the greater extent, they do reflect the will of the voters. More germane, however, most elections have a choice which is less bad than the others. While some may say 'the lesser of two evils is still evil', not voting certainly does absolutely nothing to eliminate -- nor even reduce -- the evil. Further, the selection thereof can make a measurable difference in quality of life.


By and large, the members of the electoral college respect the will of the voters whom they each represent. So as a practical matter, I would term your 'literally' assertion as false. Further, most states bind their delegates -- by law -- to vote according to the will as expressed by the general election. So your 'legally' assertion seems also on loose soil.


You are correct. It is not the only mechanism.


So are you asserting that it need be either/or, and that the two are mutually exclusive? I think many would find Martin Luther King Jr as an example of someone who did much outside the system in order to reform it. Voter.


This may be true. I must say however that the track record isn't very good. Either there has not been enough generations born and buried since the internet gave the power of the press to each of us, or we need to change tactics, or _something_. The US has been sliding ever-further into tyranny each passing year despite more people discussing more injustice. Yes, I realize this example could also be used to point to the failure of the idea of voting.

And I am involved with all of the above. As an additional increment, I vote.


Can you explain to me exactly what you mean by control of the votes? I know something of the processes and procedures by which at least one of our major political parties operates. But I am unaware of any such control - at least in any manner that seems consistent with the context of your statement.


I don't mind appearing a hypocrite to people I believe are acting the fool. Probably not any more than you may be concerned appearing a fool to those you think are being hypocrites.


'This farcical ritual' does nothing to keep me quiet. Again, you seem to be seeing this as an either/or, mutually-exclusive mode of operation. It is not.

While I do not consider this a deliberate logical fallacy, I think you are conflating two different things. And that is apparent in your own words. As you noted, we have almost no choice in the use of the fiat currency. The overlords have decreed it legal currency, and for the most part you cannot legally refuse dollars. A lack of choice is not an endorsement. In truth, I'd rather not sleep, as it interrupts my busy life. But I must, or I will eventually die.

The franchise, by contrast, is directly participating in the system, not merely being subject to it. It is a claim on the right of accession, and by implication (and stated law) a promist to abide by the decision. this would be true even if the money were gold or other things like blockchain based coins that they could not control. It is by the very act of voting an endorsement of the system if not the outcome. If the system could be reformed (I would argue that it works precisely as intended), then this might be valid. But in the actual facts that we must live with, you actually have NO say in the policy, NO say in the choices presented, nor in the most hyped election, NO say in the outcome. In the presidential election, you're vote literally and legally don't count.

Participation in a rigged system will never lead to it's demise or it's reform. I completely disagree with this:
If you look to the history of the United States completely in a vacuum, without refernce to it's roots or any other nations, this still rings false. Those who have made the most impact and had the most influence never did so via the franchise, but via the pulpit. Education, Indoctrination, rallies, leaflets, pamphlets, Youtube videos, always taking a public stand against what you're opposed to ,and more importantly FOR what you believe in. These things wil gain far more traction on anything you have to say or want to change than changing the face of your kings.

This is a democracy. It was once a republic, but that was fatally shot with the 17th amendment. The loudest and most persuasive voices sway the mob, and that is where change occurs. Not the franchise itself, but CONTROL of those votes. This is the currency of the "elite" and why they truly don't care about the fate of the dollar so long as they control the electorate.

Principled resistance, and gathering sufficient numbers to sufficiently resist the edicts spewing from the legislature is far more effective. And it does not lead you to look like a hypocrite, even when you are not intentionally being one. Thus the last time I voted (I once believed as you) was in 2000. I will never do so again, but I will continue to do anything I can within and without the framework of their paradigm to subvert and trivialize their involvement. The emperor has no clothes but those he stole. But he also stole all the money, and claims all the power. This cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and you cannot challenge it by participating in a farcical ritual designed to keep you quiet.

OP's got some good thoughts on this 'industry'....wow.

You may not be amongst the 'we'. I am.

While I think I understand (and respect) your position, I disagree with it completely. I have even had this debate with Larken, face-to-face, and we both came away from it with a begrudging respect for each other's position. Allow me to explain. But first a question:

By employing the use of Federal Reserve Notes -- in whatever limited manner -- are you necessarily making the statement that you fully approve of the FED, central banking, and all that it entails? I say no - you can be completely against these things, and still use the 'dollar' for some things. What other choice is there? Is 'opting out' completely a viable option? Not that I can see.

By the same token, by voting, you are not necessarily advocating the legitimacy of the entire concept of 'government'. One need not _believe_ in The Most Dangerous Superstition in order to attempt to ease the concordant suffering, even if a near-negligible amount.

At this point in time, there is essentially an equivalent-to-zero chance that 'government' of the form currently practiced in the USA will be cast off. Some day, perhaps. But the near future? Absolutely not.

In the meantime, voting is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

...and who's this "we"? I stepped out of the system almost 2 decades ago, when I realized what a horrible lie they have perpetuated. As Emma Goldman said, if voting could effect a change, it would be made illegal.

Note how much they focus (In The United States at least) on the presidential election! The one federal election that the masses have zero influence on. I cringe every time I hear some braindead milch cow saying "I voted for the other president" or some such. NO YOU DIDN'T! A shadow group of influence peddlers called an electoral college did that.

Yet there's no focus on the House of Representatives, which is elected by direct ballot, or the Senate, which only exists in name according to it's orignal function, but nevertheless by direct ballot. If the voters were serious about reform, and the media serious about elections, THESE would be the focus. If it ever happens, you'll see the truth of Ms. Goldman's words.

The truth, the ugly, horrible truth, is that the franchise is the alloy our chains are made of. By casting your vote you are accepting the system and the results. By any valid logic, you cannot bitch if you vote.

I love Larkin Rose. He and I started doing videos on anarchism about the same time on YT. Difference being, his are good and mine were not Well, I had a decent following, but I thought I could do far better.

At any rate, the only disagreement I have with your reply is that I don't see that much competition between religion and government. They tend to be symbiotes, though who is dominant changes.

Disagree. In elections, all we can choose is the particular set of power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us. There is never an electoral option to abolish the entire system.

There will be a day when crypto will achieve total independence from fiat benchmark. For example, if one day you are buying a car, you don't quote the price in dollar or offered the amount in btc and then cross check the price in dollar, you straight away measure that in BTC. That day my friend will arrive

But we elected them to represent us! They are us!


In that case why would you call it a "parasite" rather than a symbiot, or a "less parasitic symbiotic system"?

Yes, I've also thought of governments and religions as competing organisms. Surviving and evolving over millenia, passing on memetic information instead of genetic. Using every trick in the book to survive, multiply and kill competitors.

I still carry a little faith that a more symbiotic ( to humans and environment ) parasite may become the winning one some day. Maybe technology like bitcoin will help us with that.

Reminded me of this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs

Yes, it does seem illogical. On it's surface, it is, because you're proceeding from the axiom that a greater degree of liberty is a good thing. They are NOT proceeding from that axiom. Govenments are parasites. They produce nothing, steal everything they have, and distribute it by whim (seemingly). A good parasite does not too quickly kill the host.

I've said for years that governents are organisms. Free men are their food. Thus, when the food gets smart or lucky, they have to work harder or change direction.