Twetch ·
Welcome back brother @2284
we all missed you bro, all the fools multiplied
you never insulted back last time, i felt like you had quit and given up,
great to see you have not!
https://twetch.app/t/b5749863028bab43480e7f7b6de8f8d79920d8d4bcca0f904b0a0e5906cf4d34
Replies
Twetch ·
It's probably not helpful in the long run for crypto to be seen as an exclusively right wing thing. Wouldn't people who want wider adoption for these technologies want to double the audience of people potentially interested?
Twetch ·
The language here reflects the present I think. "to be seen" and "double audience". These are passive activities. Speculators etc-need such things. To be useful transcends ideology. No one cares what anyone else thinks about water. we drink not make show!
Twetch ·
Different ideologies, different crypto.
I guess a central bank controlled crypto like the one visa is developing should be fine for those who follow the communist manifesto.
Or Ripple. Or BTC, for that matter.
Twetch ·
Yeah, I mean left wing and right wing ecosystems sort of develop, and maybe one day they'll really be left and right social media platforms even more than now. But just to be clear, I think the assosciation of authoritarianism with leftism here is bizzare.
Twetch ·
Personally, I'm perfectly moderate between anarchocommunism (eg wikipedia) and anarchocapatalism (bitcoin) and fuck all the worlds Dear Leaders. Plus we all have the same enemies.
Twetch ·
Bizarre? I wish I could agree.
I just can't see a way of abolishing private property without a state-like entity CONTROLLING it.
With one exception: the voluntary giving up of private property in a post-scarcity world.
Twetch ·
Anarcho-communism...
Frankly, i don't think Marx was serious about communism. It was just the lure to get freedom-minded people into radical statism (socialism).
If marxism was a religion, its commandment would be to sin till sin withers away.
Twetch ·
Yeah, well private property doesn't really exist. It's just a network of contracts about who agrees who has the right to use what, and like anything else, the state messes it up by making the contracts non voluntary. Some examples make this very obvious:
Twetch ·
How much IP should there be? Which natural resources need to be privatized? How do you really decide without authority?
Twetch ·
If there was a blockchain that tracked who is supposed to own what, it should still be voluntary whether or not you believe in what that blockchain says just as it is voluntary whether or not you believe bitcoin is money or agree to accept it as currency.
Twetch ·
At the end of the day, if you and I are in a room, and you have a slice of choclate cake, what it means that you own it is that you and I have a contract. Becuase one day it might be me who has a slice of choclate cake when were alone.
Twetch ·
So it really makes more sense to say that contracts should be voluntary, after that the market should sort out networks contracts of who gets to use what exist. The market comes to a set of agreements that may or not match your ideas of how property works.
Twetch ·
Also, I really wonder about how the people on twetch feel about intellectual property. Love all of it? Love seeing genes patented? Hate it? Hate how they keep extending copyrights for works already done? Love you all!
Twetch ·
Without private property there is a war going on about all resources, unless there is an authoritarian entity controlling it - with all that implies.
We are so used private property that we forget that fact.
Private property does exist.
You own your body.
Twetch ·
You own your body and the fruits of its labor.
If you dont, you are a slave.
About IP: Difficult topic.
CSW and Kinsella had a discussion about it.
I tend to agree with Kinsella.
Twetchers probably disagree...
Twetch ·
Yeah for sure there's some property everyone agree on - that's why I chose the example of food - even animals show evidence of belief in private property for food, and you are right that only the most totalitarian regime could take that basic precept way.
Twetch ·
As for owning fruits of your labor? Yeah, sure, but how much is the result of labour rather than capital? Should you pay $0.10 a follow but receive only $0.08? Is that $0.02 the unpaid fruits of your labour? Should it be $0.09? Or $0.07?
Twetch ·
The point of all these questions is simply that what contracts network of contracts of right to use arise should be decided through voluntary contracts, rather than a centralized idelological conception of which things are and are not property.
Twetch ·
The irony is that when it’s voluntary even @2284 likes monetizing his words, and even the anarchocapitalists love the fixed price set at zero on Wikipedia.
Twetch ·
you probably won't believe me but honestly
i just followed you before seeing this message as i was still reading the last one and what is a conspiracy?? 👿💔
i almost deserve a return 🤤
Twetch ·
I'd gladly pay for a wikipedia that is more transparent, balanced and less ideological.
Micropayments will hopefully get us there.
Completely agree about voluntary contracts.
In fact, if it's not voluntary it's not a contract.
Like the social 'contract'.
Twetch ·
i'll buy that for 10c thank you very much! 😋
Twetch ·
I hope you get there whether I find such a resource useful or not. You probably can't blame the lack of such a service on the government that easily though. So anarchocapitalism has more communism in it than people expect - not tons, but some. No biggie.
Twetch ·
Well, anarchism and communism have in common that they want a stateless society... Communists intend to get there by more centralization of power (more state, socialism), anarchists by decentralization of power (less and less state).
Twetch ·
I don't blame the absence of a neutral wikipedia on the state at all. Rather on the fact that before bitcoin it was impossible to monetize information directly on the internet via micropayments, instead indirectly via advertising, data-mining or donations.
Twetch ·
Yeah, its tech that's the key, that's what I think. Just like the printing press had way more effect than probably anything else in promoting freedom. Specifically, the internet should allow us to replace the "social contract" with 10^100 actual contracts.