What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer
inclined to call Lord and God? “Thou-shalt,” is the great
dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, “I will.” – F. Nietzsche (‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’)
What is a government? It is a group of people who claim the exclusive right to initiate the use of force over other people (citizens) in a certain geographical area.
What are parents? They are people who had sex and had children, and claim the exclusive right to “take care” of them.
Is there a difference between a situation where you feel obliged by people such as “the government” to do certain things for them (say, pay your taxes), and a situation where you feel obliged to do certain things for children? No. They are both obligations that have no rational justification whatsoever.
You may baulk and be very offended at this claim. But the truth is that you cannot explain why it is that you should take care of your biological children (or pay your taxes). You just feel is “bad” not to…
Perhaps I have not written enough about the obligation to take care of the children – within the family – as being the most fundamental and source of all other obligations: the mother of all obligations. It is what “justifies” the universally-valued obligation towards the parents (“honour thy parents”), which the child assumes as a developmental consequence of the first. But it’s all in the words anyway, and easily understood that way.
The word “mother” is one of those, of course, used by children to refer to certain primary female caregiver. You probably refer to your own mother this way most often. But what about her? Does she call you “child”, “son” or “daughter”, or does she use your name – a name she gave you?
When the evil of violent monopolies, called governments, is pointed out, people usually respond with things such as: “but what about human rights?”. As if it wasn’t enough that today even the cat requests his own rights, now a UN report says freedom of expression depends on the use of encryption. How interesting… I bet cryptography and the internet are glad that international law is coming to the rescue. Our dear hash functions must be rejoicing in the news that they won’t be inverted by government decree…
Let’s see. Since when has freedom of expression been an issue in secret communications? It’s an issue in public, open communications. Do people really worry that they cannot “freely” express stuff that is impossible to decipher, or that they can safely say in the privacy of their home? Of course not. This is just a quarrel between politicians and geeks turned politicians that does not concern freedom – let alone rational sense – in the slightest, but the complete opposite.
From the pages of the Nakamoto Institute, we can find some of the most accurate forecasts about the world wide adoption of Bitcoin, but these predictions are based on a not entirely true assumption. People do not tend to make rational decisions. The root of this phenomenon is well represented in the mathematical theory of games and how its predictions are disrupted by the action of non-rational players, who often choose to cooperate on a basis of politics or other false morals. The homo œconomicus does not seem to actually exist and so it happens that throughout history we’ve always witnessed a tug of war between leaders and the populace, just as we witness a tug of war between parents and children, ideas and reality… or the psychological cycles of idealization and discontent. Continue reading
Why is Bitcoin better off without anonymity? Why is it best to know who the owners of the Bitcoin addresses are and where the money goes?
In this world there are only two ways to get resources: A) by force, or B) by offering something in return. If Bitcoins are a valuable resource, then everyone will know what to adjust to, in terms of this moral dichotomy.
Today, some people – who call themselves “government” – invest time and effort investigating rich people’s accounts and transactions because they want to get their resources via method A. At the same time, another very different group of people are trying to work out how to obtain resources by means of the B method. The first group care about their own anonymity, but not about the anonymity of those whom they rob through taxation or currency devaluation; while the latter group care about their own anonymity, to avoid being robbed, but they don’t care about their rulers’ anonymity.
I remember when I opened my first bank account. I felt a kind of a privilege, just as a child feels when doing “grown-up” things for the first time, mixed with an uncomfortable feeling of mistrust and surrender to a controlled from “above” world. Whilst my civil servant parents were comfortably indebted – which I didn’t know – I was keenly saving what little money I had – I thought it was a lot – every decision concerning it brought huge emotional burden and confusion. A visit to the bank meant blindly signing papers in the same way players’ place bets at a casino. Until very recently, making a internet bank transfer sometimes caused me to compulsively and repeatedly check the numbers until I lost confidence in my own eye sight… Like most people, I was a slave to money and I was destined to be poor – which is independent of the amount of wealth. This is what happens when money mixes with blood.
O my brethren, am I then cruel? But I say: What falleth, that shall one also push!
Everything of to-day—it falleth, it decayeth; who would preserve it! But I—I wish also to push it!
Know ye the delight which rolleth stones into precipitous depths?—Those men of to-day, see just how they roll into my depths!
A prelude am I to better players, O my brethren! An example! DO according to mine example! And him whom ye do not teach to fly, teach I pray you—TO FALL FASTER!—
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra
What are political ideologies but mere brutality disguised as reason; and what is brutality but mere self-destruction. In this article Daniel Krawisz carefully explains why there is a certain ethical duty to act so that the altcoin ideologues desist and sink into their lie. For each parasite we feed, less sap we have left for our own survival and ultimate success, which is guaranteed. With each parasite we harbour, and towards whom we funnel our blood, we relive the drama of believing that everything could be lost; we relive the self deception – stemming from a childhood behind bars – that perhaps the parasite could prevail and the unreason triumph. Anyone who thinks so has not yet freed themselves of that subjective prison: unreason never prevailed on this earth, and never will!
A regrettable necessity
How do you feel about anonymity? To me it is all very stressing, and not the kind of stress with which we sacrifice the present moment for a future peace. Any effort in the direction of anonymity seems to encounter an equal force in the opposite direction – perhaps more newtonian than governmental – that puts us right back where we came from, in the open, and that confirms our inevitable condition both in the economy and in life: we want to be.
One cannot “want to be” and “want not to be” at the same time; just like one cannot have property rights without identity, nor an identity without property rights. It is not difficult to imagine how looking to die we can end up achieving “eternal life”. The same happens with anonymity and possessions. Even if you were an incorporeal entity, you would go about trying to satisfy your needs, and sooner or later society would draw a real profile of you, just like Google takes your digital fingerprint.
Four arguments against government
Two objections constantly recur whenever the subject of dissolving the State arises. The first is that a free society is only possible if people are perfectly good or rational. In other words, citizens need a centralized State because there are evil people in the world.
The first and most obvious problem with this position is that if evil people exist in society, they will also exist within the State — and be far more dangerous thereby. Citizens are able to protect themselves against evil individuals, but stand no chance against an aggressive State armed to the teeth with police and military might. Thus the argument that we need the State because evil people exist is false. If evil people exist, the State must be dismantled, since evil people will be drawn to use its power for their own ends — and, unlike private thugs, evil people in government have the police and military to inflict their whims on a helpless (and usually disarmed!) population. Continue reading