7 ms·

Yes our viewpoints do diverge greatly. I believe that people should be free to choose which society to contribute towards not based on arbitrary geographical bo

by Xdes 13y ago

Yes our viewpoints do diverge greatly. I believe that people should be free to choose which society to contribute towards not based on arbitrary geographical bounds. However, this will never be possible if there is no separation of government and society (which there is no concept in mainstream politics). To that end mainstream cryptocurrency adoption is the next step to this goal.

pron 13y ago
I don't understand what you mean. "Government" simply means the system by which a society is governed. If there's no government, there's no governing. Now, I wouldn't mind anarchy, but we must adopt it, if we choose to, with our eyes open: it does mean an end to collectively putting our resources together towards common goals (and you can't say that you can collectively organize without government because that's an oxymoron, as government means the way in which a society chooses to organize). I do think, though, that almost any imaginable form of society has been thought of at one point or another, and I would suggest that you learn about those atecedents and how they played out. A "society... not based on arbitrary geographical bounds" was the slogan of communism, a beautiful ideal that didn't quite live up to expectations. Also, I would suggest that if you have revolution in mind, get out more and learn what people really want. I'm not saying that you'll change your mind, but that's how revolutions happen: by organizing lots and lots (and lots) of people. Please, please learn more about the system you're trying to topple and how it came to be this way (trace the whole process). Not that that would mean success, necessarily. When the communists wanted to established their own world order, not based on national borders, they actually thought about this problem a lot: how the world came to be this way. They even came up with the right answer: all human conflict is a result of an unequal distribution of resources. The only thing they missed (which turned out to be crucial), is that humans, by virtue of their evolutionary wiring, probably, like it that way. So conflict is a result of inequality, but we want inequality. Illogical, but that's what we are. Also, conflict, while brutal, does tend to bring out the creativity in people, which is another thing they missed. As an observer, I'd love to see a revolution take place ('cause that's cool), but I'd hate it to bring about something worse. So please, think it through, preferably with the help of some history.
- Xdes 13y ago
  Revolution is thoroughly overrated. There is very little point in trying to force change upon an existing system. A system that will replace the current one has to be backwards compatible with the status quo while being forwards compatible with the ideal. The communists made one additional mistake: they wanted to breakdown the existing system and force people to change. That kind of change takes generations to accomplish while the cryptocurrency system is feasible within my lifetime.
  - pron 13y ago
    But at least the communists laid down a detailed system, at least seemingly feasible, that they wanted to achieve. I don't understand what the "cryptocurrency system" is and how it proposes to address the issues that face humanity. Well, I've heard some notions, but all, unlike communism's, are quite juvenile, and when you get right down to the bottom of them, you get the exact same system we have now. Even look at the comments on this page. Someone suggests a loan system; another suggests insurance. And when asked, well, how will the different interests and values of people be managed, you get something like "we'll figure out a way". Well, that's a legitimate answer, but you can't say "we'll figure out a way" and at the same time call it a "cryptocurrency system". Either you have a system or an outline of one (it can be general, but it must be forward-thinking, and it can't discard politics just like communism couldn't discard psychology – politics is a part of us) or you can play the wingnut game like Glen Beck and talk about FEMA takeovers and other conspiracies, but you can't have it both ways.

by Xdes 13y ago

pron 13y ago

I don't understand what you mean. "Government" simply means the system by which a society is governed. If there's no government, there's no governing. Now, I wouldn't mind anarchy, but we must adopt it, if we choose to, with our eyes open: it does mean an end to collectively putting our resources together towards common goals (and you can't say that you can collectively organize without government because that's an oxymoron, as government means the way in which a society chooses to organize). I do think, though, that almost any imaginable form of society has been thought of at one point or another, and I would suggest that you learn about those atecedents and how they played out. A "society... not based on arbitrary geographical bounds" was the slogan of communism, a beautiful ideal that didn't quite live up to expectations. Also, I would suggest that if you have revolution in mind, get out more and learn what people really want. I'm not saying that you'll change your mind, but that's how revolutions happen: by organizing lots and lots (and lots) of people. Please, please learn more about the system you're trying to topple and how it came to be this way (trace the whole process). Not that that would mean success, necessarily. When the communists wanted to established their own world order, not based on national borders, they actually thought about this problem a lot: how the world came to be this way. They even came up with the right answer: all human conflict is a result of an unequal distribution of resources. The only thing they missed (which turned out to be crucial), is that humans, by virtue of their evolutionary wiring, probably, like it that way. So conflict is a result of inequality, but we want inequality. Illogical, but that's what we are. Also, conflict, while brutal, does tend to bring out the creativity in people, which is another thing they missed. As an observer, I'd love to see a revolution take place ('cause that's cool), but I'd hate it to bring about something worse. So please, think it through, preferably with the help of some history.

Xdes 13y ago
Revolution is thoroughly overrated. There is very little point in trying to force change upon an existing system. A system that will replace the current one has to be backwards compatible with the status quo while being forwards compatible with the ideal. The communists made one additional mistake: they wanted to breakdown the existing system and force people to change. That kind of change takes generations to accomplish while the cryptocurrency system is feasible within my lifetime.
- pron 13y ago
  But at least the communists laid down a detailed system, at least seemingly feasible, that they wanted to achieve. I don't understand what the "cryptocurrency system" is and how it proposes to address the issues that face humanity. Well, I've heard some notions, but all, unlike communism's, are quite juvenile, and when you get right down to the bottom of them, you get the exact same system we have now. Even look at the comments on this page. Someone suggests a loan system; another suggests insurance. And when asked, well, how will the different interests and values of people be managed, you get something like "we'll figure out a way". Well, that's a legitimate answer, but you can't say "we'll figure out a way" and at the same time call it a "cryptocurrency system". Either you have a system or an outline of one (it can be general, but it must be forward-thinking, and it can't discard politics just like communism couldn't discard psychology – politics is a part of us) or you can play the wingnut game like Glen Beck and talk about FEMA takeovers and other conspiracies, but you can't have it both ways.