For one thing, we wouldn't interfere with your ability to grow your own food, which our modern nanny-state governments highly regulate and restrict making it too costly to do.

this is what you say..  so what if i got all my money of mummy and daddy and all i ever done was party
how do i grow a carrot
and i never learned at school because i am stinking rich and i want a slave to do it i throw him a few shillings to clean my pool and grow my veg is this ok in your state

if your trying to make humans lives happy well how will you make mine happy if i got no money to buy land in your eyes i am worthless
so does that not make you the same as most governments your already telling me if i got no money to buzz off

username18333, please do not falsely accuse me of supporting the plutocracy nor of not undertaking actions to realistically remove their power from our lives. The power is granted to TPTB because the people rely on industrial goods and physical protection from those who have access to those industrial goods which can kill. Up until the recent invention of the 3D printer, industrial goods required large fixed capital investments in factories, which thus required large capitalists and large capitalists required protection for their factories against those who had the power to make war. And since aggregation of capital was natural in this system, the oversupply of laborers were at a disadvantage in terms of demand the lion's share of the factories profits and as competition has driven profits down, more and more of the profits necessarily had to go to the capitalist funding the fixed capital investment to produce industrial goods. The people responded by banding together with unions and government to expropriate profits from the capitalists and the capitalists then banded together to capture the control of the governments and unions from behind the curtain. Thus handing the power to make war to the composition of government with capitalists controllers. As the capitalists were able to aggregate much wealth this way, they could not invest in more factories without causing an oversupply, so in order to get a ROI they have to loan their capital but they needed a public back stop so they could loan to any one with a heart beat and be guaranteed to be paid back. Also this situation lead to too much power in the hands of these bankster capitalist TPTB (plutocracy), thus formed new corruptions such as the investment banks Goldman Sachs which do what ever in the fuck they please running amok pleasing Satan greatly.

So then I wrote those 3 seminal essays that CoinCube linked to from the opening post of the Economic Devastation thread, wherein I explained about technology was changing the basis of finance which has the potential to destroy the basis of that morass of the Industrial Age. It was in one of those essays about the fundamental qualities of entropy that I predicted in 2010, the ultimate federalization of Europe was inescapable. And it is your lack of understanding of entropy which causes you to propose an entirely unrealistic (non-)solution of anti-money, which I will explain below. I am not going to get in a long noisy exchange with you and your bizarre noisy way of quoting by butchering content with colorization and inserting people's usernames into text in parenthesis and generally writing in a way that no one can hardly comprehend your sentences. I will explain what is and leave it for the readers to decide if I am correct.

As we move into the Knowledge Age, the relevant capital is the ability to create knowledge and no longer monetary savings because I can go start creating knowledge in my nipa hut or home office and all I need is my brain and a cheap computer. Heck one can build in the USA from newegg.com (which accepts BTC) a very powerful development computer (as powerful per core as an i7) with a dual-core Pentium with a large flat screen monitor for < $400. Even a rudimentary Rasberry Pi 2 costs $75 complete without monitor.

Thus since knowledge is owned and created by the individual (due to the Mythical Man Month not even collaboration competes with individual creation of knowledge), it can not be financed with usury. I explained the reasons in detail in my aforementioned essay. Go read it, if you want to understand.

Thus the greatest ROI will go to the creators of knowledge themselves, there is no way that the usurists will be able to grow their capital fast enough to keep up. Thus the usurists will try as they are to enforce totalitarianism to try to expropriate capital. But all they can do with this is destroy knowledge capital by destroying the knowledge creators. They can never, ever again get back their power from the Industrial Age. It's over for them. They should accept it. They have no choice.

So we knowledge creators mostly want to trade our knowledge. We want to leverage the knowledge creation of others and interopt so as to produce greater and greater knowledge making the world more and more prosperous. So how can we trade our knowledge? We could just share it for free (open source with no business model) but there are two issues to consider:

1. How do we produce/attain the industrial and physical goods we need? How do we attain land to live on? Obtain weapons to protect ourselves?

2. What is our way to incentivize knowledge creation that is worthy, and disincentivize knowledge creation that is wasteful or harmful (e.g. code with lots of bugs or poor quality)?

We must recognize that knowledge creations are not fungible. Thus how do we incentivize someone to work on a knowledge area that only a few people need? If we argue that reputation and a gift economy will be the substitute for money, then how do we concentrate reputation to incentivize the maximum division-of-labor so that experts will work on very narrow areas of knowledge that only a few people will care to even know about? The maximum division-of-labor is required by the irreversible progression of entropy towards maximum per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

In short, we can not get rid of fungible money and still have an economy that is compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

So thus I realized that the only path forward was to create an anonymous money and network system so the Knowledge Age could flourish unfettered by the old world industrial capitalists who want to expropriate our economy because they can't compete with us any other way.

The Knowledge Age will not eliminate money entirely but it will have some major differences from the Industrial Age:

• Any autodidact can obtain capital simply by doing, no need to seek our vulture capitalists
• Knowledge capital will always be fleeting because those creating will outpace the wealth of those who are not.
• It becomes impossible to finance knowledge creation, thus the monetary capital has to be distributed by investment in those who actually own their knowledge. So the money will turn over very fast (much higher velocity of money) because no one wants to hold it for very long. You as a knowledge creator can't really leverage more knowledge than you can understand, thus utility of money diminishes rapidly the more you have. As industrial goods (and even the cloning of humans) moves towards zero margins, you can have as many physical things as you want nearly for free, so who needs to hoard money?

Thus you see the money I am creating is an anti-money of sorts, but it is done as a realistic transition from the current Industrial Age to the near zero-margin economy of the future.

Whereas the anti-money you are proposing can never get adopted because it is an abrupt assumption that we are already at the end game of a near zero-margin economy of the future.

I urge you to stop wasting your time and throw your support behind my or any other's efforts to create the anonymous money and network system we need. And please stop cluttering the threads with your redundant arguments that we all need to give up on society and becoming foraging nomads surviving on seeds, which effectively what a world without fungible money would be.

Yep, socialism is a collective of lazy thieves that like to steal from more productive others. While thieves take their own risk at stealing and being caught.

Socialists eliminate the risk of theft by using the government as their tool to get what they want.

More welfare? More subsidy? More Pensions? More child subsidy? More unemployment benefits? More free stuff?

No problem there is a taxman, that does all that job for you, and you dont have to worry of beight caught stealing.


It a very horrible upside-down world we live it, but that is where democracy leads. "The People" only want to steal from eachother.


I guess theft is a basic human instinct

“We don't realize we are stealing from each other (and ourself) via failure of fitness when we pool and centralize our capital with debt, bonds, insurance, and centralized governance, then we are astonished that the system steals, express consternation, deny culpability, and thus reach for ‘solutions’ which are more of the same poison.”

Individuals can't do that much bad against a society where citizens can carry guns.

Rather it is the collective organization of individuals that empowers the State to have the might to enact horrific megadeath.

Indeed a human is just an animal with a slightly higher level of reasoning. If you offer the animal unlimited free, addictive food (e.g. sugar or MSG laden), it eats and eats until it dies of obesity. Would you like to McUpSize that.

Mancur Olsen's The Logic of Collective Action explains this well.

In Europe the McUpSize has been on humanism rather than America's fatfood craze ("you are a liberated woman in control of your own body and that is why you can fuck anything you want to including but limited to you another woman's tongue and never bear offspring"). Europeans see themselves as more sophisticated socialist pigs.

The only way I can envision to squelch this phenomenon is to make it economically impossible to form top-down enforced collectives larger than a local community, i.e. remove the capability to form a power vacuum of control that must be filled by power (with corruption being naturally the most powerful mode). Local community reputation (within our Dunbar limit) naturally contain abusive excesses ("you are a fat lardass", "you are a disgusting dyke" says your neighbor). All my work on making anonymous decentralized crypto, is about making it impossible for a collective to exist per Max Weber's canonical definition, "State is a monopoly on the use of force".

The only way I can envision to squelch this phenomenon is to make it economically impossible to form top-down enforced collectives larger than a local community, i.e. remove the capability to form a power vacuum of control that must be filled by power (with corruption being naturally the most powerful mode).