Oddbean

https://image.nostr.build/67ef9e57da0df16614dfc61d899cf74e73bef98f3d0b0543097f3262edd1e716.jpg Most people believe it's lack of information and understanding of the situation that is why things get worse in society. I think this isn't correct. First, history demonstrates that you don't need many people to change society for the better. Second, most of those who are able to change society already know why it's necessary, they are on the other hand sick and tired of the constant whining. And third, it's all about believing in the best actionable ideas, and making sure that these ideas are put into action by enough people. I'll write a note today or next week where I present some of my thoughts. The note first targets the freerider problem, why it corresponds directly with corruption and how deep this corruption runs in modern day's civilization. These are issues that are extremely unpopular with people, because they see that these ideas force them to confront themselves with their own weaknesses. Therefore, whenever I mention for instance freeriding in my posts, readers ignore them, don't hit the like or share buttons, and do what they can to avoid being seen as someone who contribute to distributing bad news. So, how to deal with this challenge? The answer is to becoming adept at communicating a superior idea. An idea that strengthens people and motivates them to take positive action. This has to be an idea which convinces them to connect with likeminded individuals who are prepared to cooperate and disseminate tried and tested methods that promote positive social change. I call the idea "Sound Rebellion," which also will be the headline of most of my talks in the near future. Stay tuned - and enjoy your Sunday.

GM☕️☕️💜✝️Sounds good. Looking forward to it. Sometimes something that sounds good is perceived as cool and people willingly fall in line and adopt it. An action or idea is much more likely to spread and be acted upon if it just works or is seen as cool. The opposite is sadly tue when a good idea is perceived as uncool or square even though it works. I’m sure you will present a more eloquent case.🤝

How to make freedom cool? How to make figting for freedom cool? I think it's a question of competing ideas and cooperation in developing ideas. Meaning, one idea, one man isn't enough. Therefore, making competing for and cooperating in developing cool ideas about freedom and freedom fighting is essential. Furthermore, what can we learn from how Bitcoin developed. I think all of this is truly essential. And I'm not afraid to take a swing and miss. Because, people will see that the main thing is that I try again. And again. And again, with a FAFO attitude and the following philosophy: I think I can do this. I want to do this. Here we go - now I do it. Again and again. That's also how Bitcoin came about. It involved many people working over time, many together with others and some perhaps mainly alone. But Satoshi's superpower was persistence. And persistence is something I and many others have. What about you? What will your contribution be? I'm all ears.

Well… success is cool but how to get there? Displaying individual sovereignty by how you walk and talk about the things going on in “the news”. Showing how you have regained hope and control by adopting a different world view in regards to money, politics and communications. When you speak with even a little knowledge about money and censorship people cock their heads and stroke their chins. They may not agree or go along but they tend to pay more attention and respect to you and observe you even closer as days go by. Those with a curious mind or openness to ideas that differ from theirs will soon not oppose you and may even warm up to you and try your idea on for size. If they do and your ideas work for them or help them make sense of the world they might say to themselves “cool”! I guess it is a variation of evangelizing. Walk the walk talk the talk. Some times with words always with actions. In baseball if your batting 300 you’re doing pretty good. Even the good lord didn’t bat 1000!

Yes, I think ideas need to be backed by humans who show they are humans, with all that involves, and prove that the ideas are actionable. After that it's mainly a question of how to speed up the copying process. But, there is a key challenge here that I'm struggling with: How plain must or can the idea be, for both having the quality that - it is efficient in terms of enabling freedom - actionable for someone who are capable of demonstrating it's actionability and - facilitating fast copying among a great number of people? It's sort of identifying the core of something which is hugely important

Rune, looking up for your thoughts. One thing; I have seen this argument (" First, history demonstrates that you don't need many people to change society for the better.") often and in fact I like it on first glance. But. It's mostly about violent change, one or the other way. What one could ask is: if our stateship / political system was mostly given birth via a Constituent Assembly, it needed more than a few people. So, if it's done peacefully and in due process you will need more than a few. And, yes, it's naive to expect anything from the masses. And, yes the freerider 40% are a real problem for any progress. They will "defect" when they have nothing left to lose. Again, what's needed on the societal layer is a "sly, roundabout way".

Thx, that's insightful. Yes, it has to be sly and roundabout. And in the beginning, there are always just a few people, over time they gradually need more support. Therefore, time and smart use of time is what's most important. There have been many revolutions, some peaceful, some violent. They say the success rate of peaceful revolutions is highest. The narrative builders exaggerate the violence involved in some of the revolutions. Why? Because the winners of the revolutions themselves become rulers and begin to form a new narrative that aims at scaring others from attempting to overthrow them. I often ask, how many people think were killed in battles in the American revolution. People have no idea. The answer is an average of 3-4 men per day over six years. In the 80 years war which gave the Dutch freedom from the Habsburg empire, it was on average about one per day. Compare that with for instance The Battle of Stamford Bridge, which was a result of one man's insanity - Harald Hardråde, who ventured on the quest of putting England under his thumb in 1066. He took power in Norway in 1047, but in reality was powerless until 1050. He became the inflation king of the North, and invested his inflation profits in conquest. In just one single day, about 5000 men died at Stamford Bridge, including himself. Looking into the American and Dutcj revolutions again, you realize that the major component of these upheavals must have been a peaceful one.

In this context, it occurs to me that I find the French word avant-garde very well fitting. The goal must be a political system that is flat and decentralized in its structures, but at the same time defensible, based on a new money. The big question is how the transition should be structured. If it is not planned, there is the old danger: old wine in new bottles, or the (old) wolf in sheep's clothing. no gain very curious how and when all this will play out

I don't see it as creating a new system. That's a typical engineer way of thinking. I just want more positive behavior and less centralization/more decentralization. What this means in terms of structures and institutions, I'm in noe place to plan or foresee. And someone who say they are, IMO cannot be taken seriously. I also look differently at Bitcoin than most people. To me, Bitcoin is a bridge to something new and better. We don't know what this "better" thing is going to be, apart from that to me it seems to give us more positive behavior and less centralization/more decentralization. What Bitcoin rapidly is growing into at the monetary layer, we also need at the base layer - which are the ideas people subscribe to, and which makes up the people's belief system, broadly speaking. We need ideas that can bridge the gap from where we are to something better, with more positive behavior and less centralization/more decentralization. In the age of the enlightenment, some 2-300 years ago positive ideas spread across the world like wildfire. We had seen something akin to a religiois world war prior to this. But what the philosophers from France and Scotland did was to light the spark of the first world war of ideas. Unfortunately those ideas were soon drowned in the destructive thing we know as monetary monopoly. Armed with central banks that could corrupt the peoeple at a faster rate that anyone has ever seen, printing presses running hot made it possible for "the elite" to fight back and win the war. Bitcoin evens things out, making it much more difficult for the political class to exploit their money-weapon. And that's partly what makes me optimistic. I welcome the start of the second world war of ideas.

Your opinion on Max Planck when regarding change? "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Louis Pasteur too: "Science [society] advances one funeral at a time."