(also need to clarify a structural issue which is variable...)
If you are evaluating economic issues in systematic terms, as this
relates to cryptocurrency et al, this evaluation is dependent on how
it is observed and in what terms and parameters, beginning with the
identity of the observer and the framework of the observation. Thus a
person sees or observes a certain scenario in part based on their own
conceptualization of what is going on and a threshold of what can be
perceived in those specific parameters.
And thus an issue of limits and boundary for what is perceptible, say
with alternative currency, in relation with the existing economy and
how this is considered, in popular terms of groups and mainstream
discussions say, which then format or solidify these views,
parameters, structures, "beliefs."
So people can readily enter into abstractions like capitalism,
capital, markets, public, private, profit, equality, inequality,
exploitation, communal, etc; though these terms and frameworks are
/variable/, depending on how they are being perceived, in what
framework and consideration. The views could be only partially true,
or of limited truth, versus assumed true in a binary black&white
mindset, because it is an agreed upon shared belief or POV, as if this
equates with accurate observation (relativism feigning empiricism
while never addressing issue of errors or falsifiability of beliefs;
"absolutism".)
Thus observations of Bitcoin or crypto for that matter _begin in such
a condition of observation, and communications and viewpoints operate
within such an unchecked domain as /ideas/ that if agreed upon have
the appearance or semblance of truth, though in a psychological realm
of beliefs, which is not grounded truth in a material framework with
everything figured out and errors removed, panoptically validated,
error checked and corrected.
Taking this structural issue of observation into consideration, which
would be required for accurate empirical observations that remove
falsity from views as a requirement for modeling of ideas, then leads
to addressing warps and imbalances based upon these falsities that
persist in common models, that function as if they are true or real,
yet which can be ungrounded and faith-based viewpoints or beliefs that
are not based on external verifiable truth, and even can be falsified
as views/beliefs, though oftentimes observers precisely do not want to
acknowledge their own fallibility in these binary viewpoints based on
ideology or answered questions, in which too simple solutions then
offer up the world as if an issue only of sharing opinions, where the
more powerful the viewpoint the more true it is, in some sense.
For instance, the poor and people on welfare do not want to work, from
the logic* of private mankind. If evaluating the psychology of the
observer in this standpoint, it is a self-beneficial approach in
certain parameters, because if there the economic system is based on
capitalism, it is precisely this gap or shortage that is structurally
required in order for some to profit more than others due to this
imbalance. In that for someone to win then someone has to lose, and
the poor are the losers. Some may not want to work, though some may
and have become trapped in structural poverty. And some may work and
not get paid for what they do and others may volunteer, which could be
the same or different things depending on view. Yet the extension of
this belief or prejudice within these terms are that the poor are
morally inferior and the rich morally superior in this system of
value, as success and failure is pegged to monetary wealth. What this
leads to is a type of cannibalistic moralism of the rich who seek to
gain absolute profit from within this system, by taking away services
to the poor and middle-class, such as health-care or jeopardize mere
survival (with views that people should not even be allowed to live or
be supported by the private state if monetarily unsuccessful, how
fascist is that), and surveillance plays a large role in this,
auditing and accounting for dollars that are *theirs*, the basis for
further profiting, maximal economy of the poor to allow for the
maximal excess and surplus of wealth for the upperclass and rich. In
other words, millionaires, billionaires, and middle-class new royalty
require homelessness, poverty, lack of survives, to sustain and grown
the imbalance, the gap that separates one citizen from another, as
divided population.
So quality-of-life is viewed criminal if on Social Security and-or
Disability or public welfare by the ruling class and they use
surveillance and monitoring and actively punish people who try to move
out of these scenarios, censoring actions and ruining work tools to
disallow work, because the whole system is based on not having people
work. That is the big lie involved. And these systems are set up so
that you cannot work your way out of it, once on the inside, unless
having wealth or connections to get out. There is massive top-down
pressure to subjugate people within these systems, not least through
taxes that have no data fields to report situations that exist, thus
entrapping people for doing their taxes wrong or else requiring a
politically-biased tax representative to mediate tax issues in
exploitative terms. Also, bureaucracy shuts down, so that paperwork is
lost needed to make a claim or phones are not answered, at the same
time systems and functioning predictably go awry, and stop functioning
correctly. It is dirty warfare at the level of bureaucracy against the
citizenry on the inside of these systems, where political bias favors
the rich, with state and federal systems supporting and serving this
oppression and concentration of power of private wealth of mankind
over the public and private citizen.
In this way, money itself functions as the mediary of this condition,
on behalf of warped private politics providing advantage to some over
others, and this is normalized as the everyday situation, one person
in competition with another for survival, while some have vastly more
than is needed to survive while others are starving, and many cannot
maintain even basic survival due to pressures for wealth to occur at
the cost of health, food, etc.
This is the classic win-lose situation, the proverbial zero-sum game
seemingly, and yet it is by default perceived within an 18th century
framework as defined and legally allowed by the US constitution, where
'common' relations are defined in *private* terms, of relations
between private men, where 'the public' is the shared set of these men
in their common interest. Some this logic of private man allows some
group of private citizens (wo|men) to represent the public, and those
'not-them' are then /the competition/, other citizens, where profit is
gained at their loss. This is the basic model for the economic,
political, and social system in exploitative aristocratic if not
despotic terms, the more it is refined over the last many _centuries.
Thus mainly private men profit from the losses of other men, said to
be equally citizens, as well as and especially women (pre-suffrage and
beyond). At some point it would not be unimaginable that for others to
profit, newborns should just be killed except for the offspring of the
wealthy and whatever number of worker children are needed to support
them. That is the ugly political ideology underneath these same
everyday dynamics.
This is not a human viewpoint. Nor can a human viewpoint be allowed
within the US constitution- it is *banned* from being reasoned this
way, due to authority over its interpretation, as institutionalized
and operational within the privatized state, government, education,
workplaces, communities. You will be censored for trying to say or
speak or reason beyond the default 'shared views of man' as the
supreme value and 'shared (private) interest.' If stubborn enough you
will be medicated and your physiology changed if not destroyed by
psychiatrists so you cannot continue to reason anymore, these tactics
in cybernetic defense of the status quo, to keep the ideological
machinery running as smoothly and friction-free as possible, for
profit.
This is the default, where things begin. Someone says- "i want to do
[xyz]", and that occurs within this context, framework, realm of
communication. These are the dynamics, pressures and forces at work,
and the more they are adapted to, the easier it is to succeed _within
the existing system. The easier it it to gain money, livelihood,
status, ego reward via success not failure, etc. Which all-in-all
tends towards mediocrity, at its peak. To a monocultural sameness of
only a limited interest and focus, which then the entire population is
supporting and serving through their participation.
The monetary system of US dollars supports all of these dynamics as
the basis for exchange. Entropic flows of power and wealth move from
those who are being exploited to those exploiting, structural
expropriation is the rule, it is a physical law and psychological
framework of believed rightness which then maps to morals and power as
if equated with truth, brute force engineering of reality, at the cost
of others lives, and reality itself. And so the Internet is squarely
situated within this condition, also mediating these dynamics, as if
its nervous system and communications backbone that allows for the
fluid exchange of this as ideology, where we are little neurons blip
and bleep our views within this framework yet that a more massive and
over-dominating informational model operates which is not part of this
communication, and yet determines what is being said and how, in what
acceptable terms. So the shared body (and mind or -capital-) of the
state is at war with itself, because only part of it is allowed to
live and this is at the expense of the other parts, the whole is
divided and then uses the majority of its resources to support only a
few of its citizens, while others suffer miserably and die miserable
deaths or exist in poverty or struggle to meet basic needs, while a
few have friction-free hedonist lifestyles, that maps down into their
family tree at local levels as royal or aristocratic hierarchy grounds
in the unshared community. Its their body, their mind, yet our bodies,
our minds supporting their survival while they seek to eliminate ours
for their selfish benefit. That is not against a person, that is the
way the state is configured and has destroyed itself via biased and
limiting parameters, and how money can serve some people moreso than
others.
The thing is, first, the idea of capital today is ideological. It is
marxist bullshit repeated to allow these dynamics to continue and is
not at a resolution to allow those conversations and analysis to
accurately deal with this situation in the terms necessary. It views
'wealth' in primarily material terms and does have distinguish to the
degree needed to coherently model what is occurring in the dimensions
that exist. Consider the idea of capital in relation to architecture,
for instance. The human body and the human mind (the duality of
thought versus action, or material and 'immaterial' or information, or
matter and information) as this relates to an architectural column and
and a capital atop it (per the Classical Orders of Western
architecture, Doric, Ionic, etc.) This is a conceptual model of the
individual and the state, the column is the body and the capital is
the mind, and when in a larger structure, the spanning of these
columns (via entablature) such as in Greek temple architecture, then
allows a larger shared condition to be supported by these individuals
(a roof or ceiling, though also, in terms of the Parthenon, Pantheon
and oculus of shared interiority). This same conceptualization is on
the back of the dollar bill as pyramid, with the pyramid capstone
representing an empirical 'eye' of shared identity.
What ideological capitalism does with this, when only privatized, is
take all the effort of the base supporting structure, all the bodies
and minds, and using that in an exploitative way to support the
eyesight and interests of only a few, who sit at the top of the
pyramid that everyone else supports. Thus some men are at the top of
humanity and other men and women and children support this condition,
where they are seemingly superior for being 'placed' in such a
situation, as if by divine providence and not absolute corruption. And
likewise, their vision is limited to themselves and their own
interests, which are based on exploitation of others (who are not
viewed of the shared set). This is what money has become and
effectively is.
In contrast, capitalism that is recognized in terms of truth (versus
material stuff), where the mind governs over the body and its
primitive instincts and
base animalistic interests then would have 'reason' be the safeguard
to mediate this condition, where governance (democracy, otherwise)
vote or tally other views of the group (as potential shared set) to
configure these interactions. Yet again, if limited to private mankind
and private interests where material profit are first, and external
truth can be ignored as a constitutional *right*, then censoring of
other human views and the common condition and interest can be ignored
and managed away, to sustain the same pyramid scheme as if highest
activity, while requiring suppression of others and falsification of
beliefs, to enable these dynamics to continue. Which occurs in
materialistic terms, where money functions as proof or the truth of
this situation, as agreed to by a group of private citizens
systematically benefiting from these exploitative terms. The state
cannibalizes itself in order to continue its growth, where humans are
ground up to enable supermen to have their fantasy lifestyles of the
rich and famous reality shows.
So money or legal tender or currency then snaps-to-fit (photoshop
term, akin to lines of force influence) into this situation and serves
it by default, and functions essentially as electrons -- or currency
as /current/ -- which has a material dimension in terms of physical
stuff or related-thingness yet also an informational dimension, data
is entangled with how this money flows and is processed, literally
represented by RFID tracking dots and threads though moreso, or prior
to this and foundationally, 'the shared truth' that was once agreed
upon when defining the standard, that never was upgraded/transformed
beyond the original limiting intent of private men as the public
(mankind), when since has humankind serving private citizens, to
support their private state at public expense. In other words humanity
has been disenfranchised by their own state, and its not being
addressed or addressable (especially in surveillance crackdown of
other thinking, and loss of reasoning within society beyond
oppositional binary absolute views) then leads to civil collapse, the
commons evaporates between people, and only some people matter within
the shared state, retain value as citizens. Or they have more value,
and others less. Which is not the original intent, idea or otherwise,
which supposedly 'common rights' were supposed to protect, except they
were defined in what today are obviously private terms; of man, not of
humans.
So the idea of currency, is that it allows a fair exchange between
people. And for this to occur, a standard of trust needs to exist,
truth that is shared between them, about what constitutes and
legitimates this as a win-win exchange. In that one person just does
not give another their money and get nothing in return, because it
would need to balance over all, and be an equitable exchange or trade.
(And yet more and more this subversion tactic is occurring via
deterioration of production, selling of junk, etc). And thus when
'truth went missing' from exchange, due to one binary viewpoint over
another, the common interest in the exchange vanished, and legal
protection, where one group has more power and another is
disenfranchised yet using the same money. Lawyers best represent the
areas this involves and is mediated within, or police, yet gaps exist
where nothing is or can be done, and instead a system of
institutionalized exploitation and subversive leveraging occurs within
and through money, as standardized/normalized which allows win-lose
interactions, and the increase in the gap between the exchange becomes
the basis for profit. (Paying for something and not receiving it, yet
having no recourse, common in e-commerce as business model, 2nd-hand
items, selling damaged/subverted goods as new, etc.)
In a human monetary system, the same money would be helping everyone.
The swindle would be against the group, devaluing the shared currency.
People who systematically cheat or exploit others to profit would meet
communal justice, whether by police or otherwise. The difference is
that the basis for money would include /truth/ as its basis for shared
value, a moral condition that is agreed upon for the exchange and
transfer. The money itself is not the truth (which is the view today,
the physical thing is material truth) and instead what is *represents*
is this condition of shared truth, and the ability of one person to
trust another and relate in a win-win scenario of combined
interaction. In this way, when human beings interact in economic,
social, and governing terms, the columns and capitals (minds/truth)
spanned in the larger construction leads to a grounding of empirical
truth where the collective insight of all people become that 'shared
identity' of humanity at the top of the pyramid, that transcendent
group condition where many function as one, and work together on
behalf of one another and not divided, functioning against or in
opposition to one another.
So the value of money, often claimed to be defined as CAPITAL, if
viewed in base materialistic terms, would be currency itself as a
physical object or stuff, that people need to get hold of so as to
attain their reality and function in the world as real beings who can
actualize their ideas, dreams. As if /truth/ is the material stuff.
The cars, the excess, the showcasing of accumulation, wealth, riches,
in a superficial if not insecure way that defines the purpose of life
and operates within these parameters and not beyond them. The private
mind and mindset all powerful, with the illusion that in attaining
such material wealth and power, in comparison to others, equates to
godliness or god-status, though this is only virtual or a mirage. Its
not actual or real power when dealt with in terms beyond or outside or
even hidden inside this condition.
The idea is that money is privatized by default of its past limiting
interpretation to mankind or private citizenry as the shared communal
set, which then is made legal as a form of interaction by the state,
and propelled into the present unsustainable and hostile condition,
set against life itself. In this limiting, materialism answers all
questions ideologically, stuff equates with truth, with visible
evidence to the limited biased observer where the senses indicate more
success and more power equals greater truth, if not divine agency (in
backwards terms, including morally, ethically, etc.)
This is the opposite way money is supposed to function. The shared set
if accurate would serve everyone, if designed and structured correctly
and with adequate modeling of the common condition. In that human
beings in their public capacity should be the basis for fair exchange
and not the private individual, as this pertains to rights and
responsibilities, including to others. This transforms issues of
property, rights, freedom of speech, censorship, surveillance,
tracking, education, law, everything. And what it involves is moving
from a private logic* of mankind, to a public and private logic of
humanity, where in its private capacity can deal with demographic
difference or details (men, women, ethnicity, income, etc). It is this
level of capacity that needs first to be secured to equitably address
most any ongoing structural issues between or within people and the
combined state. It is an issue of mathematics, not of agreed upon
opinions about what limited views are possible to share in warped
frameworks of private observers, and yet that is the default condition
for discourse in this same condition, a realm of ungrounded
communication and observation that is unshared and cannot be combined
into a larger shared framework precisely because of these limits,
related to binary evaluations and false-limits and views that need to
be corrected, reconfigured, and then structurally related in accurate
terms to get a group view that is coherent, in terms of humanity.
This is what is required to establish equitable currency. In this way,
truth itself is the guarantee for data in its capacity as shared value
for exchange. And in this particular detail is the secret to the
mystery of money, because this is its very essence, that then becomes
the basis for the economy, to institute a system of fair exchange and
trade backed by law, rules, and rights, where it is win-win by default
and enforced within these terms. It is *truth* which is at the center
of things and defines reality, not stuff as perceived by
overly-simplistic evaluation of biased and limited interest. Instead
it is about a comprehensive accounting for ideas and material
conditions that then allows a concept like capital to operate beyond
dogma and the instituted realms of ideology, and engage reality in its
truth (where value originates) versus substitute this for the sign (of
"capital" as this truth, and in this way replace it with a
false-viewpoint that can be manipulated for political benefit to
engineer conditions that support limited conceptualization.)
In this regard it seems unlikely any new currency could function in
terms other than benefiting private citizenry at the cost of the human
public, without first revising the US Constitution and other
frameworks that define money in these terms, whereby the legal system
itself would need to be reframed and grounded to this empirical
condition, required to serve it (truth, not money), as with police,
educators, institutions, and others. That this standard of measure,
where truth is the rule, is what is held in common between people,
versus the allowance for lying if of private benefit, as today.
It is very possible that a merging of capitalism and communal dynamics
are structurally essential and necessary, (what would humanity be if
not to distinguish the shared condition of being human, with the
subset differences between men and women, for instance as this relates
to public/private.) and thus perhaps also there could be currencies
that co-exist in multiple ways that mediate different dynamics, where
profit and no-profit coexist in the same model for when the wiring is
optimal and equitable in those terms. Somewhat like analog and digital
circuits, one or the other versus both, which coincidentally is the
model of the human nervous system, and the state itself as global
nervous system noosphere, though now with a stupid digital brain of a
false-computational god seeking to oppress populations as if 'higher
mind' when a base motivation of power, serving death & falsity.
*logical reasoning.
