I asked Grok about "original meaning of the word freedom"
Answer
"The word "freedom" has its roots in Old English, Germanic, and Indo-European languages, and its original meanings have evolved over time but generally revolve around the concept of not being under the control or power of another. Here's a breakdown:
Old English: The term "freedom" comes from the Old English word "frēodōm," which is derived from "frēo" (free) and "-dōm" (state or condition of being). In this context, "frēodōm" meant the state of being free, particularly from slavery or oppression.
Proto-Germanic: Before Old English, the word can be traced back to Proto-Germanic "*frijaz," which meant "beloved" or "free," suggesting a connection between being loved or valued and being free.
Indo-European: Further back, the Proto-Indo-European root "*priyos" might have meant "dear, beloved," indicating an early association of freedom with being cherished or not enslaved.
Historically, the concept of freedom has often been tied to:
Personal Liberty: The ability to act or change without constraint.
Political Freedom: The right to participate in the political process, have a say in governance, or live in a state without oppressive rule.
Economic Freedom: The freedom to produce, trade, and consume without undue restrictions.
Freedom from Slavery or Serfdom: Not being owned or bound to serve another individual or entity.
The original essence of "freedom" thus encapsulates the idea of autonomy, self-determination, and the absence of subjugation, reflecting both personal and societal dimensions. Over centuries, this concept has expanded and deepened, influencing legal, philosophical, and political thought across cultures."
Today, for many freedom means "access to resources."
They don't care that scarce resources cost something, they just need them and feel they aren't "free" if they don't get them.
And when someone else must pay the cost, typically as taxes, then person A's "freedom" equals person B's "enslavement," rendering the word freedom completely without meaning.
It meant being free from coercion, but many now confuse it with access to scarce resources (and if others don't pay for my access to scarce resources, then I'm not free)
Statement of 12 September 2024 from Florida state health authorities on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines:
https://image.nostr.build/f459481ec1bbce664081459fdca3cb6b6e037e8e8ea9d79e430a0a5a1088bf8c.jpg
"Additionally, the federal government has failed to provide sufficient data to support the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 boosters, or acknowledge previously demonstrated safety concerns associated with COVID-19 vaccines and boosters...
Based on the high rate of global immunity and currently available data, the State Surgeon General advises against the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines."
How much do you actually know about intellectual property (IP)?
Did you know, for instance, that nobody has ever proven that IP is a net positive for society?
https://image.nostr.build/41db5a48bf880865404f1a184856ed9a6b9fbb643d184cf0e77a6988a558a6c0.jpg
Logics dictate that this artificially created privilege is a net negative for humankind.
In economics terms, IP blocks many of the positive externalities that comes out of ideas.
To say it in plain language, good ideas are more valuable for society the faster they spread and the cheaper they are to put into use, but IP slows down the speed of dissemination of ideas and forces people to pay before they can use them.
As an author, I think it's extremely sad that the mechanics of society mean that I depend on copyrights.
I clearly see how it corrupts peoples' minds and hearts, just like all other political priveleges do.
Below you get a glimpse of how detrimental IP is to people living in developing countries, and how it corrupts countries once they have been industrialized.
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.
I want an end to all artificial priveleges.
This first and foremost includes monetary monopolies and intellectual property rights.
Monetary monopolies centralize power and wealth.
Intellectual property legislation blocks the decentralizing effect of ideas.
Both corrupt society at high speed.
Abolishing these political instruments dramatically changes society for the better.
In the meantime, I'll just have to live with the fact that copyright is the way an author today earns his money.
But I'm not going to let it corrupt me.
Good authors can, among other things, be paid by benefactors and by those who want first access to the material.
There are a bunch of programmers who create license-free programs, partly voluntarily and often because they receive grants from both companies and benefactors.
Intellectual property is completely unnecessary and leads to enormous resource waste and misallocation of scarce economic resources, including far too many who believe they can get rich by writing books.
The likely intended effect of "you are a conspiracy theorist" type of smearing is to clean the table of players who play for freedom, in the hope that the only players left at the table play each other for power.
These players have Machiavelli's Il Principe and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and lots of other books and articles in their curriculum.
Those who would like to play for freedom have next to nothing to study.
Therefore, they even don't understand the rules of the game.
Can you be more specific and point to text that discuss strategies for the people to protect and increase their freedom vis a vis a "political class" that want to coerce and gaslight them. Because that's what I meant when I referred to Hobbes and Machiavelli as having produced strategies for those who have or seek power
Monetary monopolies centralizes power and wealth.
Intellectual Property legislation blocks the decentralizing effect of ideas.
Both policies corrupt society at high speed.
The freerider problem demotivates people to play for freedom.
Result:
Easy play for people who seek power.
How do you solve this enigma?
Gaslighting.
It has never been proven, empirically or logically, that IP is net beneficial for society.
Actually, logics dictate that it's very harmful.
Man acts purposefully, to improve his situation. He doesn't need to be rewarded with a privilege. He fucks around and finds out, and copies other good ideas and behevior automatically. He does it alone and together with others. One man's creativity inspires others. When it happens it feels like magic. Very little gives a dopamin rush like understanding something new. And when to people's ideas melt and turn into a third idea, the magic and dopamin is almost overwhelming. This is why dopamin often is referred to as "the learning hormone."
IP, on the other hand, is nothing but government fiat.
It's sold with a promise that a nothingness consisting of government fiat can produce something we call material wealth.
Government doesn't even attempt to prove its case.
And it rarely ever talks about the costs of blocking free dissemination of ideas.
Only when government profits from talking about it, as the US govt did in the 19th century, they mention it.
If you think otherwise, prove me wrong.
Show me how government fiat creates something from nothing, and explain to me why the cost of fiat is less than the profit.
And show me how IP distributes wealth fairly.
If you don't make any attempt to do this, we're finished talking about IP.
Jeg hadde en skikkelig trivelig og interessant samtale med Arne og Torstein fra Horde i podcasten deres som heter Økonomiamatørene tidligere denne uken. Kan sees på Youtube. Så mens resten av familien ser på Gullrekka, kan du smugkikke på den på mobilen din :-)
https://www.youtube.com/live/B_nWg0PaWgs?si=--RXqfLxZ0UU6mZK
Why should you support monetary freedom, the right to use the money you like best?
Answer:
While evil ideas are the root of evil actions, it's monetary monopoly that makes the most evil ideas actionable.
Nyhet:
Jeg og Martin Thaulow setter opp en fast Spaces sending på onsdagskveldene.
Vi diskuterer diverse tema og nyheter som interesserer oss og inviterer inn andre for å snakke.
Spaces sendinger er som kjent åpne for alle på X, så vi håper mange slenger seg med.
Vi kommer med mer info senere.
Ha en fortsatt fin dag!
R.
The Age of the Enlightenment was The Wold War of Ideas I.
Those who had the best ideas won the war, as they in the 18th and 19th century inspired millions of people to liberate themselves from empires.
Unfortunately they soon lost the peace.
The main reason was that the political elite managed to coordinate their monetary monopolies, by directing this deadly weapon against their own peoples.
Today we are in the beginning of The Wold War of Ideas II.
The odds are IMO favourable for the people with the best ideas.
And Bitcoin makes it difficult for the political class to use the money printers to win the peace.
But they will try hard nonetheless.
I'll give you a few examples of the cost of winning and losing a war of ideas in this thread.
***
In 9 AD the Germanic people dealt the Roman empire a blow that ensured the German peoples a long lasting sovereignty and freedom from the empire's oppression.
Their fight in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was inspired by a wish to not be ruled by foreigners.
The cost for the forces controlled by Arminius the rebel might have been about a thousand men per day in a battle that lasted 3-4 days.
***
The 80 years war was a series of battles that liberated the Dutch from the Habsburg empire, beginning with a rebellion in 1566.
The uprising was triggered by the decision of the emperor of Spain, Philip II, to wipe out the protestants and make catolicism obligatory.
The liberation gave the spark to what became The Dutch Golden Age, which roughly lasted from 1588 to 1672.
This coincided with the beginning of The Age of the Enlightenment.
The cost in terms of Dutch men that died in these battles was about on average one man per day over these 80 years.
***
The American revolutionary wars against the British empire lasted for about six years, followed by a peace treaty signed in 1783.
About 6,800 soldiers fighting for independence died in these battles, which equals about four men per day.
***
The Argentine War of Independence against the Spanish empire lasted from about 1810 to 1816.
It's hard to come by data on casualties, but I've read that on the rebels side, 1,200 either died, were imprisoned or wounded.
When I ask Grok, it says it doesn't know but estimates it was "several thousands."
I would assume it can have been on average 1 to 4 men per day over this six year period.
***
The casualties on the rebels' side in these major successful wars of independence are surprisingly low.
We can compare this with a couple of examples from how many men died in major battles motivated by the rulers' ambitions to expand their empires.
***
When the Roman empire was defeated by the Germanic tribes in the Teutoburg Forest, something between 25,000 to 30,000 of their men died in three to four days.
This means that the Roman empire sacrificed 6,000 to 10,000 men, to achieve nothing but a major setback.
***
When the Norwegian inflationist king Harald Hardrada in 1066 AD attempted to take over England, he and some 5-7,000 thousand men died in one day.
***
Although these examples are anecdotes, they tell us that the cost of fighting to reclaim freedom in the most successful acts of liberation sometimes have been much lower than the cost of being subjected to ruler's expansionary wars.
***
This doesn't mean that I in general support physical uprisings.
On the contrary.
We must understand that we risk losing the battle of ideas if someone resorts to violence without acting out of a situation where physical self defence is required.
This insight partly grows out of historical events were rulers have staged coups against themselves and clamped down hard on them, in an attempt to show the people how risky it is to question the legitimacy of their power.
Therefore, if you want to win The World War of Ideas II, choose your means wisely and timely.
Focus on identifying superior ideas and practice how you communicate and defend them.
***
In conclusion:
If we play our game wisely, we can win both The World War of Ideas II as well as the peace.
Call me a mad tin-foil hatter if you like 😁
But it must fit the US and Israel like a glove if they have an ally in the Norwegian government that just pretends to be a Palestine supporter and a stupidly naive friend of Hamas.
Just imagine, for instance, how much easier it must have been to have included in the Oslo accord that Israel shall have complete monopoly over several political and economic subjects in Palestine with Norwegian peace brokers who looked like they had a Palestine bias.
https://image.nostr.build/1be1c7ee7db636bb9da39eba64b9f85ed792108c4aa2769a9c5ec65f81a8d99b.jpg
You see, the Oslo Accords, signed in the 1990s, granted Israel significant financial and political control over Palestine.
https://image.nostr.build/708e52ce45a83d8efaf0be5017a2440771886a70384e86e18728a5a45e2d9db0.jpg
A currency monopoly was one of them, allowing the Israeli government to export its inflation to the people of Palestine.
But this was only a fundament for the rest of the control that the peace agreemenr gave Israel:
Despite the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to manage certain aspects of Palestinian life, Israel retained control over key resources and economic mechanisms.
This included control over electricity, and energy resources, as well as full control over external borders, affecting Palestinian trade and market access.
Financially, Israel maintained control over the PA's fiscal revenues through a clearance revenue system.
Israel collected taxes on imports to the Palestinian market, indirect taxes on Israeli goods exported to the territories, and income taxes from Palestinians working in Israel or Israeli settlements.
These taxes were then transferred to the PA, with a 3% administration fee retained by Israel.
Additionally, the Oslo Accords allowed Israel to maintain control over water resources, with the PA having limited authority over water and sewage systems. .
Overall, the Oslo Accords institutionalized a power imbalance, allowing Israel to maintain significant control over Palestinian territories and resources.
Add that Palestinians leader, Yassir Arafat, was a crook who probably took in huge amounts in bribes.
https://image.nostr.build/e51e1a79caa615a382b071e17dcae5bc1ba798c856ce1765c1cef679cf17b3cd.jpghttps://image.nostr.build/ff93466920360194ab2ede4ec031b5f91717b878db305e45d65ccc121f9b85a4.jpghttps://image.nostr.build/5dde4709229c823c6ad2e06b5c92fb5965e329315761c9e7dd1b1bd0eca5069a.jpg
And that Norwegian top bureaucrat, Terje Rød-Larsen, played a fundamental role in these negotiations.
Rød-Larsen is today better known for having visited Jeffrey Epstein several times, borrowed 130,000 USD from him, and running the NGO International Peace Institute (IPI), which received 375,000 USD from Epstein's NGO, Gratitude America (GA).
https://image.nostr.build/0b2219d36c222a23f2e2045030179343227a9f2eacc89066f2523ad97d523b70.jpg
It's a total shitshow, that's for sure, and I don't at all trust what I see when our current foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, an PM Jonas Gahr Støre cosy up with Hamas leaders and they make the Norwegian government recognizing Palestine as a state.
I don't trust it at all.
What are their plans this time?
Another Oslo accord?
How will the US and Israel play their Scandinavian pawn this time?
Now, just throw your best conspi-smearing on me, or have fun doing your own research, or cry, or come up with better explanations, or do whatever you like.
😁
I don't care - this is something journalists should look into.
Meaning - real journalists, not the kind of scribblers who piss in their pants of thinking about what the editor will say about such an idea.
Tapeworm news coming in (from Grok):
"The IMF is reportedly pushing for a faster devaluation of the Ukrainian currency and an increase in tax-raising efforts."
Nostr and Amethyst works fantastically well!
And X is probably the platform where we recruit the most new Nostrians from.
Therefore, I think it's worthwhile to publish high quality posts both places.
I perceive X as a nuclear-powered and hyperadvanced antenna that non-stop receives and transmits information and ideas to people all over the world.
A part of this data, of course not all of it, is both sound and important to us.
https://image.nostr.build/ae2a159ca941b80e8d85366ee4a44f80725455780c427ea6ac54b93ba1428927.jpg
This kind of iformation bounces freely on the gaslighting noise that the transmitters run by the political class emit non-stop.
Since we are an advanced species, we have receivers that easily catch and deciphre data that carry the sort of information and ideas that we need.
"The elite" tries to increase the power of their transmitters, but since they only transmit gaslighting, the signal-to-noise for data that contains the slightest amount of truth just increases, making it easier for us to separate truth from rubbish.
Just imagine how angry this makes our rulers, when they realize that increasing the supply of nonsense they push through their channels works as an amplifier of signal that contains the good stuff 😂
You see, the clowns in power want the signal you and I receive to be pure, undisturbed noise!
In consequence, the desperate Ministry of Truth sees no other option than attacking Elon, just like they did with Durov.
It might be that you disagree with Elon on some of his policies.
But if you support him in his defence against Big Brother, it's actually your own antenna you protect.
Today we celebrate Arminius, the rebel.
https://image.nostr.build/f0c6c8470dcc9552ef8ff69d7868f50e5bc53fbc6a4d8e1247b8b0f388f0b8c1.jpg
On the 9th of September in 9 AD, he led a coalition of Germanic tribes in the Battle of the Teutoburg ForestTeutoburg Forest against three Roman legions.
It was David's fight against Goliath, and in just three or four days, Arminius and his men dealt the Romans such a blow that the empire was forced to give up its ambitions to rule the Germanic people.
Arminius was born around 18 BC into the Cherusci tribe.
The Cherusci were an early Germanic tribe inhabiting northwestern Germany during the first centuries BC and AD.
They are noted for their strong inclination towards peace, which, as described by Roman sources, sometimes led to their downfall.
This was viewed as self-deception in a region populated by more aggressive neighbors, resulting in the Cherusci being labeled as cowards by their adversaries, like the Chatti, who were more martial in nature.
Arminius' family was part of the tribal nobility.
At this time, it was common that the Roman empire held young nobles from conquered or allied territories hostage to serve as leverage against their home tribes.
Arminius was therefore sent to Rome to serve as a hostage during his youth.
He received a thorough education.
This was part of the empire's strategy to integrate and assimilate elites from conquered regions.
Arminius was granted Roman citizenship, a significant honor.
He was also given the equestrian rank, which was a social class just below the senatorial order, indicating his high status within the Roman system.
Upon reaching adulthood, Arminius received a thorough military training and became an officer in the auxiliary forces.
Auxiliaries were non-citizen troops from the provinces who served alongside Roman legions.
These units were often used for frontier defense and were crucial in Roman military strategy due to their local knowledge and combat skills.
Arminius's service likely included campaigns against other Germanic tribes or other threats to the Roman Empire's northern borders.
His role would have given him firsthand experience with Roman military tactics, organization, and discipline.
Around 7 AD, Arminius returned to Germania, serving under Publius Quinctilius Varus, the Roman governor of Germania.
His position allowed him to gain Varus's trust.
While serving Rome, Arminius secretly began to organize a coalition of Germanic tribes.
His skills in organizing and leading the Germanic tribes were remarkable.
They were often at odds with each other, but Arminius, who was a charismatic leader, managed to forge a coalition.
He had to handle the egos and ambitions of various tribal leaders, and his diplomatic skills were essential in maintaining unity among tribes like the Cherusci, Marsi, Chatti, and Bructeri.
His own background as a Cheruscan noble who had served in the Roman military gave him credibility both among his own people and with other tribes.
Arminus effectively communicated the common threat posed by Roman expansion, rallying the tribes under the banner of freedom from Roman rule.
This shared goal was crucial in overcoming tribal rivalries.
Organizing a large-scale attack on the Romans required foresight and patience.
Arminius spent time building alliances and planning the logistics, ensuring that the tribes could strike when the Romans were least prepared.
He chose the battlefield wisely.
The Romans typically fought in organized formations like the testudo (tortoise) or in legionary lines.
The dense forest and marshy terrain of the Teutoburg Forest negated the Roman advantages in open battle formations and heavy infantry.
Under the pretense of leading Varus to quell a local uprising, Arminius lured Varus and his three legions (Legio XVII, Legio XVIII, and Legio XIX) into the Teutoburg Forest.
The route was narrow, with dense woods and marshes.
The weather was awful, with rain and storms.
The Romans were totally unprepared for battle, when the attacks started around September 9.
The first assault came suddenly, with Germanic warriors attacking from all directions.
The combination of terrain and terrible weather conditions made it almost impossible for the them to maintain anything resembling their preferred formations.
Over the next few days, the Romans attempted to march through the forest, but they were continuously harassed by Germanic warriors.
The Germans used hit-and-run tactics, attacking, then retreating into the forest.
They attacked from cover, using javelins, arrows, and engaged in close combat when advantageous.
As the Romans tried to push through, they were funneled into even narrower paths where they were easier targets.
The Germans also blocked paths with felled trees.
The continuous attacks, combined with the depressing weather conditions, led to exhaustion and demoralization among the Romans.
Constant harassment and the inability of the Romans to form effective battle lines, wore down the Roman's morale.
On what is believed to be the third or fourth day, on the September 11 or 12, the Romans attempted to fortify a position, but they were overwhelmed.
Varus, seeing the inevitable defeat, took his own life.
Around 15,000 to 20,000 Roman legionaries were killed.
Additionally, there were significant losses among auxiliaries and camp followers, possibly bringing the total Roman and allied casualties to around 25,000 to 30,000.
It's generally believed that the Germanic losses only were in the range of a few thousand.
The legions' eagles, symbols of Roman military honor, were captured.
The defeat shocked Rome.
Emperor Augustus is said to have wandered around his palace, banging his head against the walls, crying "Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
The loss was not just military but also a significant blow to Roman morale and expansionist ambitions in Germania.
Rome abandoned its plans to conquer and directly administer the Germanic territories east of the Rhine.
The frontier was stabilized along the Rhine and Danube rivers, marking a significant shift in Roman imperial policy.
The victory boosted the morale and unity among various Germanic tribes.
Arminius's success in organizing the tribes wasn't just about military strategy; it was a blend of political acumen, cultural understanding, and personal charisma.
His ability to turn a collection of often-warring tribes into a cohesive force against a formidable enemy like Rome makes his achievement particularly noteworthy.
But it was Arminius' rebellion against a state that held him as hostage from he was a young boy and which tried to brainwash him and turn him against his own people, that should impress us the most.
U'r welcome.
Neither did I. It's all about curiousity, I guess, and currently I'm deep into the idea of how we generate and disseminate the best knowledge about actionable ideas for freedom fighting. Because we need this type of understansing more than ever, it's just as important, if not more important than Bitcoin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Considering that most of my fellow Norwegians have such intimate relationship with the state, many of the complaints I read about the wrong things bureaucrats and politicians do and don't feel much like someone bitchin' to their friends on Friday night about what their partners are like.
If you go to bed with satan - should you be surprised that you wake up one morning and feel a littlebit sore behind?
I want to see more ideas - fewer complaints, please!
Give me signal please!
My fellow Norwegians, including our economists it seems, perceive the transfer from the oil fund (Norway's pensiom fund), which makes up 21.8% of the Norwegian state's budget, as some sort of gift from the government or a gift from the nature to the citizens.
https://image.nostr.build/de80adfa7ee2dad5ea3f13d08c90253af854e683b4bbfb6adab5d33e5b7b8ca4.jpg
However, considering that the state is just an institution that manages the pension fund on our behalf, meaning - the fund is the citizens' wealth, the transfer from the fund to the public budget in reality is a wealth tax, just like any other wealth tax.
I've got big fish to fry, so thx for sharing.
The laws of economics dictate that
- what you tax, you get less of
- what you subsidize, you get more of
Experience and logics tell us that people get fewer children in urban areas than in the countryside.
Furthermore, families are the only institutions that produce children.
Do you agree with me so far?
Grok estimates that the EU's average fertility rate in 1960 was approximately 2.59 births per woman.
The EU’s average fertility rate is now 1.46
https://image.nostr.build/2ebd5d7d2cd690fd0d38618e9fda9a9dc54fb6425f2166b603bce6c7ac441315.jpg
This is a reduction of 77 per cent.
Grok estimates that the public sector's spending as a share of GDP for the five major EU economies between 1960 and 2022 likely has grown by at least 50% to 100%.
By other words, in this period we have seen a shift of economic wealth from the private sector to the public sector comparable to the average reduction in the birth rates.
My best guess is that it's here we find the main explanation.
Shifting of wealth from the private to the public sector is shifting of wealth from those who produce kids to institutions which produce bureaucracies.
What you tax (people), you get less of.
What you subsidize (public sector), you get more of.
And bureaucracies typically grow the most in urban areas, where people traditionally prefer to have fewer children than in the countryside.
In conclusion, less production of kids is a result of the growth of the public sector, which mainly consists of institutions in urban areas that produce bureaucracies instead of kids.
A socialist society is parasitic of nature, and the parasite in the end always runs out of hosts.
Grok estimates that the EU's average fertility rate in 1960 was approximately 2.59 births per woman.
The EU’s average fertility rate is now 1.46
This is a reduction of 77 per cent.
Grok estimates that the public sector's spending as a share of GDP for the five major EU economies between 1960 and 2022 likely has grown by at least 50% to 100%.
By other words, in this period we have seen a shift of economic wealth from the private sector to the public sector comparable to the average reduction in the birth rates.
My best guess is that it's here we find the main explanation.
Shifting of wealth from the private to the public sector is shifting of wealth from those produce kids to those who produce bureaucracies.
The result is production of more bureacracy and less production of kids.
Question I want to explore together with Nostrians:
What happens with my life if I implement
- Deutsch' explanatory creativity concept
- Mises' praxeology concept
as guidelines for how I live?
The shocking truth about the favorite reading of the political class.
nostr:nevent1qqsfws76gz7fasyfwdtj2tdmxmrzh3c6wf7pekf77whd9a02ru6xrqcpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsygz474emv5007dgak4asvqwjxq3d33fjlxp9mvg22ue7huumuj4zrvpsgqqqqqqsmdln7f
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by Rune Østgård | export