RE: Wieso nicht einfach mal entspannt bleiben 🙄
Amazing. I've been waiting for you to write this, or something like it. Not only do you understand, but you speak with complete honesty...no conflict of interest, ever.
As I was reading the end of your blog I was thinking about the Ninja Stake in more general terms, in terms of polity. In the U.S. over the years, we have given (not me, ever) more and more power to the federal government. The selling point has always been that it is for national security. Of course, the assumption underlying this transfer of power from people to government is based on the premise that good actors will be in government. But power is power. Once you've given it, it is possessed by the person in control. That's kind of like the Ninja Stake. There was all that potential power, with a promise that good actors would behave for the benefit of all. But nothing in the system protects against abuse by bad actors.
I hope you don't mind my going on. The math may be beyond me, but the sense of the discussion is not.
There are other parallels to a civic polity, but I won't bore you with them.
Thank you for this analysis.
AG
no please tell me. I´m puzzled by the glorification and support of US citizens towards candidates. I have relatives in the US and was following their evolution from very liberal (in the good sense of liberal) Americans to trumpists who are afraid of the Chinese. Once there is a central entity and once society gets polarized (which is the result of central= fragile politics), there are only two outcomes: far left or far right which is in fact both the same bi-partition into tyrants and losers.
When the US should become "great again" then please tell me what >>great<< is. My feeling is that phrases like "great" are not really leading anywhere. Very similar to the situation in crypto. People demand for decentralization in a system which is de facto centralized.
Thank you for your response. I feared I was out of order.
Personally, I confess ignorance about many things. I don't want government intrusion. However, in an economy controlled by a corporate/government alliance, so many people don't have access to basic services. A safety net is essential. Only government can offer that. So I try to make a distinction between my wallet and my personal liberty: government can touch my wallet but must stay out of my house. Does that work? I don't know.
As for hating the Chinese: They're such convenient targets, as per the principle of a common enemy (outsider/scapegoat) uniting your followers.
I appreciate the clarity of your thought. It helps me to examine my own.
Nearly everybody believes this, it's one of the greatest errors in the last about 150 years since social and welfare states have been established! History and a bunch of theories and logical lines of thought show us the voluntary alternatives:
and more
I think all together is more than enough.
and this is the point, like mundharmonika says you could establish a decentralized and way more effective safety-net.
funds get locked into a smart contract. And the contract executes in the case that there is measurable demand. Directly into your wallet. The community can even elect a redistribution hub for homeless people. Lets say a multi-signature party consisting out of 4 coffee-shops, churches who ever is voluntarily acting as a hub. When 3 out of 4 report plus 1000 homeless people, --> the contract executes and the hubs gets the monetary resources. Right now there is lots of research in this field (mostly on the Ethereum Blockchain), like insurance against hurricanes and floods.
Centralized entities (like Washington, Moscow-Kreml or Brussels) are more efficient but not effective. The bureaucratic apparatus creates a massive overhead.
@mundharmonika and @lauch3d:
I claim no superior wisdom or insight. When I was young (in the 60s) we experimented with communities. And when I was very young (in the 50s) I involuntarily experimented with poverty. So I guess experience is more my guide than theory.
You are both right: government bureaucracy creates massive overhead and an opportunity for corruption. Big pile of money irresistible to some.
I like to think of government as a really large community where the members agree on values and goals. The more connected people feel to that government the more likely they are to participate in its direction. Kind of like Steemit. Few bothered to vote for witnesses because the witnesses seemed irrelevant. But now, we all see that witnesses are the only way we can possibly control the platform. If people felt that way about their connection to government, if they realized that votes are a way to control policy, then maybe they'd vote. And maybe the sense of government as being part of community would become a real thing instead of an apparatus that just gobbles up resources and takes away liberty.
Well, I say again, I have no superior insight and certainly lack your analytic skills. But I will resist a reality where people go hungry (even unworthy people), where they can't get medical care and where they are homeless. These people aren't abstract concepts for me. They're real, and I want to help them now.
Thank you both for taking the time to have a dialogue with me. I really appreciate it.
You are a pretty amazing person. Really inspire community spirit. Thank you. I will try to be equally generous to everyone on Steemit.