3 ms·
Maybe. But this doesn't apply here since taking control of money from the state is obviously problematic and will result in us devolving into neofeudalism.
by malermeister 5y ago
Maybe. But this doesn't apply here since taking control of money from the state is obviously problematic and will result in us devolving into neofeudalism.
- int_19h 5y agoIt's not obviously problematic to me, and I don't see why it's a dichotomy between nation-states and neo-feudalism. The states haven't had that much power over monetary policy for most of human history - and there were many different forms of social organization in said history, of which feudalism is a fairly small subset. Nor is it obvious at all that there are no other forms that have yet to be tried. Or are being tried - I mean, the Zapatistas are crazy decentralized, but it's not a feudal society, either.
- malermeister 5y agoThe logical outcome of giving any and all control over money to market mechanisms is anarcho-capitalism, where the market is the only thing that matters. The logical outcome of anarcho-capitalism is feudalism, as people with more money concentrate more and more power with no state to stand in the way. Sooner or later you either do what Jeff Bezos wants or his Prime Forces will see that you are punished. Who's gonna stop them?
- deputydoofy 5y agoSo adjusting the law to ensure we don't stifle innovation in a new industry with regulations that were designed for technology before it's time is going right to feudalism. And it's the government who is going to save us. This has got to be a troll.
- deputydoofy 5y agoNeither of these things are obvious or a fact.
- malermeister 5y agoI can't comment on your other post, but just wanted to point out that all you did was resort to an ad-hominem attack without addressing any of the points raised. Seems to me you are the troll.