Cryptocurrency: The Breaking Point and Death of Keynes

[Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:54:41 +1000
Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:

> 
> As in, what does he care whether his fiat is printed by the Reserve Bank, or whether it happens to be an "old style fiat" or some fangled new "digital fiat"?
> 
> Joe Bloggs does not care one way or the other - he really does, not, care.

	and that's the result of 'education' at the hands of his parents, the 'religious' 'authorities' and the state. 


> Mr Bloggs must first identify that his self sufficiency ("vertical integration" at the household and/or community level) is in his interests.

	problem being, 'adults' who have been mass-producded by the current SCIENTIFIC system are mostly hopeless. 

 
> And to do this he must completely cast out the Marxist lies which lull him into any sense of entitlement or envy.

	and now you've discredited your own reasoning by being a stupid partisan. So a couple of  points : 

	1) by naming the piece of joo shit, herr marks, you're just promoting 'marxism'. You could refer to him as merck for instance. Or better yet, completely ignore him.

	2) central banks are a quintessential RIGHT WING, MONARCHICAL, CONSERVATIVE 'invention'. Look up "bank of sweden' and "bank of england" for starters. Merckists want to control central banks (see merck's 'manifesto') simply because central banks are a key 'institution' in totalitarian social systems. And yes of course right wingers 'invented' central banks to serve their totalitarian ends.

 
> The truth that "plain old" central banking fiats are more than sufficient (and a hell of a lot more energy efficient, not that Mr Bloggs cares anyway), is a truth which the average nechno-anarchist seems strangely oblivious to - "he cannot see what his 'livelihood' depends on his not knowing" perhaps?


	yes, government 'money' is more efficient in a few ways, and cash is more anonymous than most or even all 'cryptocurrencies'. The only distinct advantage that something like BTC has is that the supply isn't directly controlled by govcorp. 


> Once again we appear inescapably drawn to that fundamental - except that a man contributes directly, at least in some small way to his own survival (i.e. unless he cultivates such an intention within himself), then he shall remain enslaved.

	however, division of labor doesn't directly imply slavery. Division of labor does have drawbacks but it can work in a decent fashion given the propper cultural/political outlook.

 

> And "morally" we can say that this is not only the _natural_ way of things, but how they _should_ be (but note that we do not need the moral argument, where the natural or observed pattern of reality suffices as sufficient explanation.
> 
> 
> So where does this leave us?
> 
>    1) Fostering self sufficiency.
> 
>    2) Educating others.
> 
> (And when we say "educating" others, we mean "inculcating those intentions which bring about the better/desired result - as in, awareness of the dependency/slavery dichotomy, and its antidote.)