The family is the link between corruption of the whole society and the freerider mentality where people leave it to a minority to fight for freedom.
It goes like this:
"I know what my employer does is wrong, but I do what I'm being told because I have an obligation to feed my family.
"I cannot join the freedom fight, because I risk losing my job, which would be a violation of my duties to my family.
"Besides, I know other people fight even if I don't.
"Yes, I know it makes me a freerider...
"I don't want to talk about it...."
***A few months later***
"Why does the world come crashing down around me?"
***
"Why did I lose everything?"
***
"Have you seen my family?" https://image.nostr.build/08f366e42e6103ac2678eb843d02e6746e0a1aa190481685598a7b8e43ea10d6.jpg
Scream about infringements on free speech -> posts goes viral.
Remind people about who's ultimately responsible for defending freedom 👇 -> few care to read it.
This is the cancer we deal with.
And the screaming is mainly about signalling that others must fix things for them.
nostr:nevent1qqsqyxy0f3h3ezy5ujq7uxx04r5w7pfyr09dwzqqpsq0tw9za5xy2lgpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygyr9g4nem6tza2vff6h99j2gndkf5v7ma38a3z30x63n599at5pnypsgqqqqqqsfjlsuw
We have a part of the population called THE YOUTH who I suspect in the future will hate journalists, editors and politicians for what they did:
Stealing the kids' future.
Action needed.
Watch this video about what and who is behind Brazil's criminalization of the X users (the US government and their NGO puppets, no surprise there.)
https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1829630737911595453?t=qgbWuRJd6HZRBUIPbc0qbw&s=19
The globalist political "elite" blob seems desperate.
Therefore, make sure to promote Nostr on X, so that people have an information and communication escape hatch, for instance when the EU ramps up its efforts to stop Elon.
Our 17-year old Olympian Embla Matilde Njerve is an idol and a symbol of hope.
As a pole vaulter she works hard every day to push her limits.
https://image.nostr.build/fbf794a811c417a572a9b311ab328e8fea6e94b24f6691f2ffef42bd48135112.jpg
She constantly must suppress the most destructive sentence that humankind can say:
"This is impossible."
I imagine that the following mental steps are obligatory if she shall succeed:
"I want to do this"
"I believe I can make it"
"Here we go"
Then she lifts the pole and happily starts running.
The youth owns the future.
But we are free to copy their way of thinking.
A note on taxation.
Historically, how much were slaves allowed to keep of the fruits of their labour?
https://image.nostr.build/e763f4309c88e17a7fa904b37ec3edd69cccdbdfaf838df3d4e3dee2cda4f99e.jpg
News came yesterday of an analysis of the average tax burden in Norway, including tax on income, wealth, VAT and more.
Excluding a few other taxes that we must pay, the answer was 67%.
I figure, if you include all of the special taxes and the 19 months of military conscription (which effectively is almost 100% tax), the result should be closer to 80%.
I'll link to it in a comment (it's in Norwegian).
To get a feeling of how that compares to traditional slavery I asked Grok a question and the answer was illuminating:
My question:
Approximately how big a share of the fruits of their labour have masters let slaves keep throughout history. Give 10 examples, beginning with ancient egypt and ending with something from the united states in the 19th century
Grok's answer
"Determining the exact share of the fruits of labor that slaves retained throughout history is challenging due to the variability in slave systems, the nature of records, and the differences in what was considered "fruits of labor" across different cultures and eras. However, based on historical practices and the information available up to 2024, here are approximate insights into how much slaves might have retained from their labor, focusing on examples from Ancient Egypt through to the 19th century United States:
Ancient Egypt: While slaves existed in Ancient Egypt, the concept of "wages" or retained labor fruits was not as straightforward as in later societies. Slaves could be given land, food, or other forms of compensation, but this was more about sustenance than profit-sharing. Some slaves, especially those with skills or in high demand, might have been allowed to keep a small portion of their earnings or goods, but this was likely minimal, perhaps around 5-10% in modern terms if we were to quantify it.
Classical Greece (Athens): Skilled slaves, like those in the Laurion silver mines or domestic slaves, could earn money through their skills. Some were allowed to keep a portion of their earnings, which might have been around 10-20% of their labor's value, especially if they were involved in commerce or skilled crafts.
Roman Empire: Roman slaves could buy their freedom or were sometimes granted freedom with a portion of their earnings retained. This might equate to around 15-25% of their labor's value, especially for those in urban settings or skilled trades.
Medieval Europe: Serfs, while not slaves in the classical sense, were bound to the land. They might retain around 30-40% of their produce or labor value, but this was more about survival than profit.
Islamic Golden Age (Abbasid Caliphate): Slaves, particularly those with skills or administrative roles, could sometimes retain a portion of their earnings, possibly around 20-30%, especially if they were involved in trade or crafts.
Medieval Islamic World (Mamluks in Egypt): Mamluk slaves, who were military slaves, were not typical in that they could rise to significant power. While not directly applicable to economic fruits, their eventual control over resources might be seen as retaining a significant share, though not in the initial stages of their service.
Renaissance Italy (Venice): Slaves in Venice, often domestic or involved in maritime activities, might retain very little, perhaps 5-10% of their labor's value, as their primary function was service rather than production for profit.
Colonial Latin America: In places like Brazil or the Caribbean, slaves might have been allowed to cultivate their plots or engage in petty trade. This could mean retaining around 10-20% of their labor's value, though this was often more about survival than wealth accumulation.
British Caribbean: Slaves in sugar plantations had harsh conditions with little to no share in the fruits of their labor. However, some could engage in small-scale farming or trade on Sundays, potentially retaining around 5-10% of their labor's value.
19th Century United States: In the U.S., slaves might have been allowed to keep small gardens or engage in minor trade, but their share of the actual labor fruits was minimal, often less than 5%. However, some slaves, especially in urban areas or those with skills like blacksmithing, could earn money on the side, which might be considered as retaining up to 10-15% of their labor's value if we include such earnings.
These percentages are highly speculative and based on general historical practices rather than precise data. The concept of "retaining fruits of labor" varies widely by the type of slavery, the economic system of the time, and the specific roles slaves performed. Moreover, these figures do not account for the inherent exploitation and the fact that slaves were not legally entitled to their labor's value in most systems."
End note from me:
It's not much that separates an average Norwegian tax payer and a slave in terms of how much we are allowed to keep.
Arguing about the difference is IMO largely arguing about semantics.
You may counter that it's more precise to call us serfs.
Whatever floats your boat, I say.
But it still begs the question?
When do the riots start?
"Hate crime" is meaningless, ineffective and counterproductive, the "elite" doesn't use the reverse gear, so they'll move to "thought crime" which will have the same issues, and then in the end comes "clown crime" when people are jailed for making jokes about corrupt, stupid politicians.
"PANIC CONSPIRATION"
You read it first here.
It's what we see around us these days.
"Full gas, rip out the break pedal, nothing else matters than doubling down on what we do best"
What a fakin clown show.
Topic: Bitcoin price discovery
More and more #bitcoin is taken off exchanges, but nonetheless the crab market continues to keep poking bitcoiners in the eye.
I asked Grok:
"If we ignore bitcoin futures trading, is it possible that trading of "paper bitcoin" on crypto exchanges has such volume that it affects the bitcoin spot price?"
Grok's conclusive remarks were:
"The sentiment from posts on X and broader market analysis suggests that while spot ETFs and direct ownership of Bitcoin are significant, the derivatives market's volume and its impact on price cannot be understated. This indicates that even without considering futures, the trading volume of what might be colloquially termed "paper Bitcoin" on crypto exchanges could indeed affect the Bitcoin spot price through mechanisms like sentiment, arbitrage, and leveraged trading. However, the exact extent of this influence would require detailed market data analysis beyond what's typically available in public discussions or general insights from X posts."
Comments?
Excluding futures, can trading of "paper bitcoin" negatively affect bitcoin price discovery in theory or practice?
No 1 is very brave when he stands up.
However...
https://image.nostr.build/666a0e1df9083fefc9e757a4b9dccfa0009ab53b768e4c831ce31a333b207663.jpg
It's No 2, "the copycat" - who by opting for action instead of passivity forces everyone else in the crowd to think that there are two options, action or passivity, and that each individual must take a stand - who is the deciding facto and in my eyes the real hero.
Don't let No 1 stand alone.
Salute him by copying him, and force everyone to think hard about their choice.
Luv it
nostr:nevent1qqs0tk6vxf0ynsc8cyj07mkyte6tznvg24caz6nm738gezxwwdpv2ncppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsdw5mzvzugeal9eslu5nuzys8ng27qnpmzeuac2h2awe083j2amjcrqsqqqqqph063t6
Veldig bra av Alexander
#Norge
#Ytringsfrihet
nostr:nevent1qqs8dydjarvfkq2uk6aeu2mzpk00pfp8hsq83nvuufsedm674czt9ggppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsf88lmfe2ja4wqlfuqnpdtw93lgstessy6ulkcr33vq7kydqa5ygsrqsqqqqqplna3kc
Great note on Nostr and Bitcoin, highly recommended!
nostr:nevent1qqszyhhj276ctx30f9tamjrjgaf6vftq4t5nk9vegyhaxssrc3erhmspzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtczyq57paf84ku3k8uj6n08sp43qqr9yqfq3ppv6zcya9lhruj0fzvn2qcyqqqqqqg5u8xzh
YUVAL HARARI'S FLAWED PRESENTATION OF THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND
https://image.nostr.build/c91434b521fa2e4da3e17affade02542c163e94f3d4ff1821633a38d3a14418d.jpg
1. Introduction
In December 2023, Tucker Carlson and Dan Bongino discussed why Professor Yuval Harari and the World Economic Forum (WEF) pose a threat to our lives.
Klaus Schwab, who is the founder of WEF, seems to rely on some of Harari’s teaching when he formulates his policy recommendations to leaders around the world.
Harari knows a lot of historical facts, is good at storytelling and masters the art of rhetoric.
Commentators and academics therefore find it difficult to show exactly where Harari goes wrong in his analysis.
What I want to bring to everyone’s’ attention, is that Harari and Schwab base their policy recommendation on a narrative about the history of our civilization that simply isn’t correct.
It’s probably the repetition of this narrative that makes Schwab’s communication so effective when he talks to intellectuals, policymakers, journalists and leaders of giant corporations who firmly believe in “leadership” and the idea of technocratic global governance.
However, when we point out the flaws in Harari’s analysis of humankind and our history, it becomes a lot easier to shoot down his and Schwab’s ideas.
Therefore, I hope you will join me in this thread, as it in about ten minutes enables you to understand where Harari went so terribly wrong.
2. Harari’s background and some of his ideas:
Wikipedia gives us the following introduction to him:
«Yuval Noah Harari, born 1976 is an Israeli author, public intellectual, historian and professor in the Department of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of the popular science bestsellers Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2014), Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (2016), and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (2018). His writings examine free will, consciousness, intelligence, happiness, and suffering.»
Harari, who is married to a man and describes himself as an atheist and a vegan, promotes such ideas as:
- people don’t have free will, and human rights are a fiction,
- we are witnessing a natural development of a technocratic two-tier society where a «useless class» of consumers is guided or ruled by an elite class of «human gods. »
In short, Harari suggests that what we use to refer to as the foundation of liberal society is imagination, while the development of an apartheid-like dystopia is natural.
3. Harari’s understanding of the history of civilization
Harari’s analysis of the history is affected by his lack of understanding of the service that money renders to humankind and how different monetary systems dictate the development of very different forms of society.
He writes in Sapiens that:
«Money is the most universal and most efficient system of mutual trust ever devised.»
This and other statements he has made about money tell us that he has understood that money is a cornerstone of our civilization, something which definitely is true.
From there on, it unfortunately goes all south for him.
Harari’s problem is that he doesn’t seem to understand that we get a very different society when people have monetary freedom (the right to use which money they like best, also sometimes inadequately referred to as «currency competition») compared to when a group of people has a monopoly in money production.
In the former, everyone must work to get money.
In the latter, a small elite can extract wealth from everyone else because they can produce money instead of working for it.
Harari, for his part, doesn’t make any such distinction at all.
4. Monetary freedom in a historical context
Monetary freedom has most likely been the dominant system throughout the more than 5000 years that we have had civilizations.
It’s the monopoly in money production that is the anomaly.
Here are some examples:
We had monetary freedom in Norway until 1050 AD.
The Dutch reintroduced it in the Netherlands after the rebellion in 1566 and they had it for about 150 years.
The Irish in practice held on to monetary freedom much longer, unclear how long, but it was all gone when the British crown finally managed to put Ireland under its thumb in the early 17th century.
The Americans established de facto monetary freedom in the US after the revolution in 1783, and it lasted until 1857.
And, finally, Argentina followed the same path as the US from the revolution in 1816 and kept it at least to 1880.
(It’s this system, that the new president of Argentina, Javier Milei, now wants to reestablish.)
5. Institutions in a society with monetary freedom
Societies with monetary freedom typically have no or very weak central governments.
Instead, families, relatives and clans have strong bonds.
Furthermore, private property is almost sacred, and one rarely sees large scale wars in this type of societies.
The reason is that without a monopoly in money creation it becomes difficult to set up an apparatus that can extract wealth from the people to finance this type of aggression.
However, the decentralized structure and a strong will to defend against intruders mean that they can be very capable of defending their freedom, as was the case in the region of Norway, where I live, until 1050 AD.
You can say that a society that has monetary freedom and little or no state primarily is rigged for defense and production, while a society with a monopoly in monetary production is rigged for expansionary war and destruction.
6. Why compound interest is of paramount importance
In order to understand why civilizations develop so differently with different monetary systems, one needs to understand the effect of compound interest.
A typical rate of monetary inflation (expansion of the money supply) in societies with monopolies in money production, has been 7-8% per year.
In a society where money makes up half of all economic transactions, an annual expansion of 7% means that the ones who control the monopoly can extract and take control of 7% of the society’s production each year.
Due to the effect of positive compound interest, constantly increasing the money supply by 7% each year can theoretically result in an accumulated wealth extraction that has doubled in as little as 10 years, tripled within 16 years and quadrupled in 20 years.
The rest of the society experiences the exact opposite, as people see that their money loses value at a negative compounding rate of 7% each year.
Therefore, those who are far away from the money spigot may have to double their productivity in 10 years, triple it in 16 years and quadruple it in 20 years if they want to preserve their share of wealth, their standard of living and keep their means of production, compared to a situation with no manipulation of the money supply.
This is of course nigh on impossible.
Therefore, establishing a monopoly in money production can easily transform a society from being fundamentally decentralized into becoming a two tier system in less than a generation.
It typically ends up with a small wealthy class of creditors with a lot of political power on one hand, and a large poor and indebted class of people with no or little political power on the other hand.
It all sounds so familiar, doesn’t it?
The combined effect of the compound positive interest rates for the «elite» and the compound negative interest rates for the rest explains how enormous effect a monopoly in money production has on society.
The gargantuan redistribution of wealth that takes place in such a society should be compared with what happens in a society without this system, where the distribution of wealth (and power) will be much more evenly spread.
This also helps explaining why families and kinship can remain a lot stronger in societies with monetary freedom.
Once a group of powerful men begins to fuel its influence with a monopoly in money production, the emerging state apparatus basically outcompetes the family and the clan as social institutions.
7. Why countries with monetary freedom become powerful magnets
When you set up a system with monetary freedom in one country, it quickly attracts talent and capital from countries with monopolies in money production.
It’s almost as if monetary freedom is a nuclear-powered magnet.
The explanation for this effect is that it’s much more profitable to work and invest in a country with money that doesn’t steal from you.
Therefore, people “vote” with their feet and their savings.
Harari doesn’t seem to be sufficiently aware of these mechanisms.
For instance, in Sapiens, he explains the Golden Age of the Netherlands with a boom in bank credit.
The reality, however, is that it was monetary freedom, sound money and full reserve banking that served as the foundation for the fantastic growth that the Dutch experienced in the 16th and 17th Century.
Because the other countries had kings and emperors who extracted wealth from their citizens via aggressive monetary policies, the very opposite system in the Netherlands caused it to attract capital and talent from the other countries at an extreme pace.
Harari also fails to recognize that it was the same mechanisms that played out after the American and Argentinian revolutions.
European rulers stuck with their monopolies in money production and continued to pillage their underlings.
As a result, Europe literally became drained of talent and capital that fled to America.
8. Conclusion
Harari’s Sapiens is supposed to be an exposition of the history of humankind.
However, due to the defects that I have shed light on above, the book cannot at all serve this purpose.
Perhaps Harari doesn’t understand it himself, but his narrative of humankind and the history of civilization draws squarely on the type of society we get when a ruling class is allowed to have a monopoly in money creation.
But as you now realize, this version of civilization is neither natural, nor has it been the dominant way of how we organize our activities.
On the contrary, the normal and, above all, much more human situation has been a civilization with monetary freedom, a significantly smaller state apparatus and a decentralized society where strong institutions such as family, kinship and respect of private property keep it all together.
People should therefore be very skeptical to Harari’s and Schwab’s visions for humankind and how we should organize us in the future.
***
Thank you for reading.
If you want to join forces in the battle of ideas, I would appreciate it if you follow me, like and share this note.
You may also want to go to our web page at UNDOQO dot com and check out UNBAR, where I discuss Harari's understanding of money in more detail, with a focus on the relationship between the monetary system and globalization.
UNBAR is amazingly illustrated by designer viz Mattis Storhaug, and it aims to open up the eyes of people from all walks of life, especially those who are critical to globalization but don't understand the importance of monetary policy.
Harari promotes the idea of a small group of human gods who govern useless consumers.
I promote the idea of an infinitely growing group of super humans who doesn't govern anyone.
We're different.
nostr:nevent1qqsy5yg69zsh48e85agj2qmf5azwawj2v0nwhm0pppsm8hsje0vc86spzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygyr9g4nem6tza2vff6h99j2gndkf5v7ma38a3z30x63n599at5pnypsgqqqqqqsv4rzus
Short note on intellectual property (IP) policy:
Up until the 20th century, the U.S. government had lax enforcement of IP, particularly concerning foreign creators.
The legal framework allowed for the widespread piracy of foreign works, as the 1790 Copyright Act explicitly excluded protections for non-US authors.
This led to rampant appropriation of foreign designs and publications, with little consequence for infringers, as the government prioritized domestic interests over foreign IP rights.
Officials believed that strong IP protections would mainly benefit foreign creators, raising costs for domestic consumers and hindering local innovation.
The prevailing view was that the U.S. economy needed to develop its own capabilities through imitation before it could afford to protect foreign IP rights.
This perspective was influenced by a "frontier culture" that prioritized individualism and innovation over strict adherence to IP laws.
Calls for better protection from figures like Charles Dickens largely went unheeded, reflecting a broader culture of IP violation during this period.
The US changed its position dramatically in the 20th century, when itself became the strongest economic nation in the world.
While many developing nations, including India, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, resisted stringent IP standards, and argued IP favored developed countries at the expense developing countries, Uncle Sam, the former pirate protector, became the world's most aggressive enforcer of IP, pressuring developing countries with the use of trade sanctions.
Layer two etc: Everything else
Layer one: The monetary system
Layer zero: People's belief system
nostr:nevent1qqsxznttqqk3xcfx37ln93c7vm5yn48n494v8edjwlfts3mtzaz303cpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsygpfjpxurhp3q9vp4p7v62ewxh06q7ljhwh79c07agusj9hlzvefzqpsgqqqqqqssvymx0
Criminal legislation in more advanced societies than ours:
1. In some ancient Germanic tribes, chieftains who betrayed their people could face ritual execution, while ordinary tribesmen might only be exiled for similar offenses.
2. Some Native American tribes, like the Iroquois, had systems where chiefs could be deposed and severely punished by clan mothers for serious transgressions, while regular tribe members faced less severe consequences.
3. In medieval Iceland's decentralized legal system, powerful chieftains (goðar) could face harsher social and economic sanctions for abusing their authority compared to ordinary free men.
4. Among the Nuer people of South Sudan, tribal leaders found guilty of serious crimes could be ritually cursed and ostracized, a fate considered worse than death, while commoners might only face compensation payments.
5. In some Polynesian societies, high-ranking individuals who violated taboos could face execution, while lower-status individuals might only be temporarily banished for similar offenses.
6. Among the Maori of New Zealand, chiefs who seriously violated tribal norms could be stripped of their mana (spiritual power/prestige) and position, a harsher punishment than what commoners typically faced.
7. In some African tribal societies, village elders found guilty of corruption or abuse of power could be publicly shamed and permanently lose their status, while ordinary villagers might only face temporary sanctions.
8. Among the Inuit, respected elders who committed serious offenses could be exiled from the community, effectively a death sentence in harsh Arctic conditions, while younger offenders might face less severe punishments.
9. In some Amazonian tribal groups, shamans who abused their spiritual authority could face execution, while ordinary tribe members might only be subjected to physical punishment or temporary exile for similar offenses.
10. Among the Bedouin of the Arabian Peninsula, tribal sheiks who violated important customs could face loss of leadership and exile, while regular tribesmen might only face fines or temporary ostracism.
In many traditional societies without centralized authority, social sanctions, loss of status, and community disapproval frequently played a more significant role than codified punishments.
Whether official or unofficial, political motives don't matter, only results matter.
The short version of the results of politics:
1. The one percent wealthiest own almost half of the global wealth
2. Most of the rest the state takes
3. In return they make people's lives miserable
#RebelUp
https://image.nostr.build/6aa8f0c877cc962cb67e2fe84aa065eef31d4b7f888b7d8e155d709ddb4e982e.jpg
In view of the French police arresting Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, I thought it might be interesting for you to read this part of my conversation with Perplexity AI on cencorship and monopolization attempts after the invention of the printing press.
Me
I guess it didn't take much time after Gutenberg launched the printing press in 1440 before rulers understood that they had to censor, monopolize or give privileges related to the use of the printing press and distribution of printed texts.
Answer
The introduction of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg around 1440 indeed led to significant reactions from rulers and authorities across Europe and beyond, primarily due to its potential to disseminate information widely, which could challenge established powers, religious doctrines, and societal norms.
Here's how rulers and authorities responded:
Censorship:
One of the immediate responses was censorship.
Authorities, particularly religious ones, were concerned about the spread of heretical or subversive ideas.
For instance, the Catholic Church, during the Counter-Reformation, established the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) in 1559, which listed books that Catholics were forbidden to read or possess due to their content being deemed heretical or contrary to Church doctrine.
This was an attempt to control the spread of Protestant ideas and other unwanted knowledge.
Monopolization and Privileges:
Rulers also sought to control the printing press through monopolies or by granting privileges.
In Venice, for example, the government issued printing privileges to specific printers, giving them exclusive rights to print certain texts.
This not only controlled what was printed but also who could print, effectively creating a form of monopoly.
These privileges were often granted in exchange for loyalty or financial benefits to the state.
Regulation and Licensing:
Beyond outright censorship, many states implemented systems of licensing where printers had to obtain permission to operate or to print specific works.
This allowed authorities to keep tabs on what was being produced and distributed.
In England, for instance, the Crown established the Stationers' Company in 1557, which had the power to regulate printing, including the right to search for and seize illicit presses.
Ottoman Empire's Response: Interestingly, the Ottoman Empire initially resisted the adoption of the printing press, fearing it would lead to the spread of ideas that could challenge Islamic orthodoxy or Ottoman rule.
Printing in Turkish with movable type was only allowed in 1727, significantly later than in Europe, which some historians argue contributed to the Empire's relative decline in intellectual and technological advancements.
Public Burning of Books:
In some instances, particularly during periods of religious fervor or political upheaval, books deemed heretical or seditious were publicly burned.
This was not just censorship but also a public spectacle meant to deter others from similar activities.
Control Over Content:
Beyond outright banning, there was a push to control content through pre-publication censorship.
Manuscripts had to be reviewed by ecclesiastical or secular authorities before they could be printed, ensuring that only approved ideas reached the public.
The response to the printing press was multifaceted, reflecting a broader anxiety about the loss of control over information.
While some rulers saw the economic and cultural benefits of printing, leading to a more nuanced approach of regulation rather than outright suppression, others viewed it as a direct threat to their authority.
This tension between control and the free flow of information has been a recurring theme throughout history, with the printing press as one of the earliest technologies to bring this conflict to the forefront.
When analyzing power vs. freedom, people's belief system matter the most, while the monetary system comes in at second place.
We can call the belief system layer zero, and the monetary system layer one.
All the other layers of society; education, consumption, politics, infrastructure, security, trade, laws, taxes, and so forth, build on top of the belief system and the monetary system.
If you don't analyze the two foundational layers thoroughly, you will understand very, very little of what goes on in the other layers, especially when it comes to how power vs freedom is affected.
Great note on Nostr and Bitcoin, highly recommended!
nostr:nevent1qqszyhhj276ctx30f9tamjrjgaf6vftq4t5nk9vegyhaxssrc3erhmspzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtczyq57paf84ku3k8uj6n08sp43qqr9yqfq3ppv6zcya9lhruj0fzvn2qcyqqqqqqg5u8xzh
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by Rune Østgård | export