3 ms·

> You can't really push that sort of responsibility up. You own it. That is pretty unrealistic. I agree with you about ignoring intent, but I also recognize t

by woodman 12y ago

> You can't really push that sort of responsibility up. You own it. That is pretty unrealistic. I agree with you about ignoring intent, but I also recognize the fact that at present this sort of philosophy would not work in a world dominated by states. > ... the only people that would end up pushing for a fight would be the politicians ... Or defense contractors. In a world where the majority of people believe in ghosts, it is not likely that things will work out in the way you think they would. I'm pretty confident that the US would start exercising its legal authority in drafting military aged males. I can already hear you saying "But they'd refuse!", but that would require you to ignore history. > I'm not sure if we lived in the same world at the time but from a legal perspective... I'm guessing not, because you seem to have forgotten all the games played with UN weapons inspectors and violation of no fly zones. > That's not entirely true either. Flag worshipping... Actually, the same logic that dismantles the moral authority of the state's power to wage war, dismantles the moral authority of every other state power. So obviously this sort of moral analysis is not occurring regularly, because the world is full of states. I have no doubt that there are a lot of countries full of people who are less predisposed to military expeditions than Americans, but my point is that it isn't due to deep moral reflection. > That made all the difference in getting him re-elected in the first place, critical thinking does not enter into it. And yet you are expecting widespread moral reflection from the very same people. > I've decided that the buck stops with me. That is great and all, but not every effective in terms of systemic change. If you really want war to go away, then you need to get rid of the state. That is the reason I got involved with development in the bitcoin ecosystem several years ago, popularization would likely deal a killing stroke to the state.

jacquesm 12y ago
Bitcoin has nothing to do with waging war or the end of the state. As for me being unrealistic: it's my life, I'll be happy to live it without ever having to say that I allowed myself to be used whatever the consequences, and yes, I would refuse. Defense contractors can't wage war without people willing to operate the weapons, the circle of concern/circle of influence nicely overlaps if you simply say 'I refuse'. That's where you exert maximum pressure. Developing bitcoin to stop wars is about as relevant as invading Iraq was as a response to 9/11. As for the no-fly zones and the UN weapon inspectors: (1) the no-fly zone was a unilateral arrangement, how do you think the US would respond if some entity declared a no-fly zone over the US? (2) the UN weapons inspectors were in agreement that Saddam did not possess a credible threat of WMDs. It's all just dumb wars over resources no more, no less.
- woodman 12y ago
  > Bitcoin has nothing to do with waging war or the end of the state. Cash is just as important in war as bodies to throw into the meat grinder. If the state loses its control over the money supply, it isn't going to be able to finance war... or exert much influence otherwise. > As for me being unrealistic: it's my life, I'll be happy... Cool, I thought you were interested in solving a problem outside of yourself - carry on. > Defense contractors can't wage war without people willing to operate the weapons... There will always be people to operate the weapons, offer more money or tell them that their god demands it. > As for the no-fly zones and the UN weapon inspectors: Yeah, I'm not going to argue about facts - first result in google: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspe... > It's all just dumb wars over resources no more, no less. Agreed, but the original point was about legal justification, not actual agenda.

by woodman 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

Bitcoin has nothing to do with waging war or the end of the state. As for me being unrealistic: it's my life, I'll be happy to live it without ever having to say that I allowed myself to be used whatever the consequences, and yes, I would refuse. Defense contractors can't wage war without people willing to operate the weapons, the circle of concern/circle of influence nicely overlaps if you simply say 'I refuse'. That's where you exert maximum pressure. Developing bitcoin to stop wars is about as relevant as invading Iraq was as a response to 9/11. As for the no-fly zones and the UN weapon inspectors: (1) the no-fly zone was a unilateral arrangement, how do you think the US would respond if some entity declared a no-fly zone over the US? (2) the UN weapons inspectors were in agreement that Saddam did not possess a credible threat of WMDs. It's all just dumb wars over resources no more, no less.

woodman 12y ago
> Bitcoin has nothing to do with waging war or the end of the state. Cash is just as important in war as bodies to throw into the meat grinder. If the state loses its control over the money supply, it isn't going to be able to finance war... or exert much influence otherwise. > As for me being unrealistic: it's my life, I'll be happy... Cool, I thought you were interested in solving a problem outside of yourself - carry on. > Defense contractors can't wage war without people willing to operate the weapons... There will always be people to operate the weapons, offer more money or tell them that their god demands it. > As for the no-fly zones and the UN weapon inspectors: Yeah, I'm not going to argue about facts - first result in google: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspe... > It's all just dumb wars over resources no more, no less. Agreed, but the original point was about legal justification, not actual agenda.