A Selection of Posts Related to Bitcoin


Simple consistent message. Tech yes, assuming improvements. Money No.

























1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need.
2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution.
3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons.
4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption.
5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption.
6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation.
7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive.

X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property).
Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers.

That’s all the axes we have to work with.
That’s all there is to do.


On Self Ownership

–“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”—

by Bill Joslin:
What about possession?

In fact : Possession – what you can defend is yours
Agreement : Property– what others agree is yours is yours
Legal : 3rd party insurance of ownership agreement

In fact : (de facto) soverienty – hold monopoly of violence over a domain
Agreement (De jur): recognition of soverienty by other soveriegns (example Israel)
Legal – (and currently non-existent) 3rd party ensurance of agreement of soverienty (no world power to enforce)

The notion of possessing the volition of another can not exist ‘in fact’ only in agreement. (a slave agrees to be a slave when given this choice: “be a slave or die”)

In other words ownership of a human can not be demonstrated ‘in fact’, only in agreement and in law.

The simple act of raising one’s arm or scratching one’s ass demonstrates possession of volition which, in fact, can only be the person doing the scratching.

The only type of human ownership which remains coherent across all three domains (physical – in fact, social-agreement, legal-3rd party ensurance) is self ownership were by we agree to self ownership (ownership coheres to possession) and the law ensures it. Any other form of human ownership can only cohere to 2 of the 3 (agreement and law)

To clarify further.

Human volition remains bound by biology and thus can not be transferred, in fact, to another. One human’s volition bent to the will of another can only occur via agreement between the slave and master. The slave always retains possession and control.

So the quote follows the same structure as libertarian arguments which rally for liberty while ignoring the physical necessity of soverienty for liberty’s existence.

Liberty can only exist in agreement with the soveriegn and law by the soveriegn.

Human ownership can only exist in agreement with the slave bolstered by the law of the masters.

Just as libertarians seek liberty while avoiding the costs of soverienty, this argument seeks slavery without the requirement of reciprocity (slave’s agreement).

I can only think of one reason to promote the idea – the wish to justify coercion.”—


Animal Language?

—“What do believe is the qualitative difference between human and animal language?”—Bob Robertson 

As far as I know animals do not possess language, it only exists within humans. All other creatures merely manage to communicate.

Charles Hockett (1967) introduced a generally accepted check list for language, a set of features that all human languages possess. His seven key properties are:
– productivity (the ability to create and understand new utterances): system which makes it possible to construct an unlimited number of sentences from a limited set of rules.
2 – arbitrariness (when signs/words do not resemble the things they represent),
3 – displacement (the ability to refer to the past and to things not present), and
4 – duality of pattern (the combination of a phonological system and a grammatical system),
5 – interchangeability (the ability to transmit and to receive messages by exchanging roles),
6 – specialization (when the only function of speech is communication and the speaker does not act out his message),
7 – cultural transmission (the ability to teach/learn from other individuals, e.g. by imitation).

As far as I know the reason humans can speak is simply brain size and complexity (long chains). But I won’t go into all of it here. But the ability to imagine futures, imagine stories, ‘self-observe’ and describe those stories in a series of symbols, using a series of rules’ takes a great deal of processing power.

While we can see elements of these patterns in parrots, corvids, dolphins, and the apes, we must teach them, and they say very simple things – because they only think very simple things.

Assuming we selected and trained enough chimpanzees to use sign language to build a self sustaining community of them, and assuming we could leave them on an island for a few centuries, it’s possible that sign language would persist. I suspect the problem is that it’s hard to produce a community of chimps with the intelligence necessary for perpetuation.


Power And Voice

Laconic speech is a luxury of power. The spartans could speak as such because they mastered and made universal, martial epistemology. Most speech is either political or deceptive. The spartans needed neither. Seek power for the freedom to speak laconically.

Laconic speech requires deep knowledge of the subject, extraordinary honesty, extraordinary insight, and an audience of nearly equal ability, whose experience and sentiments mirror the speaker’s. It’s wisdom is lost on the idiots. Seek the wise, so you have others to speak to.

I think the modern version of laconic speech is the aphorism – which nietzsche mastered (and I try to). It allows us to speak of that which others may not yet comprehend, where the laconic merely cuts through dishonesty and posturing.

It is *extremely difficult* to speak in laconic voice or aphoristic prose and it is probably, other than poetic rhyme, and poetic song, our greatest intellectual art.