This I agree with, from what I understand. But because the foundational texts are nonetheless written by subjective and partial parties, they would seem to necessarily contain avenues for bias and the self-interest of the more enfranchised to be codified into law, which I think you would obviously agree with.all states have some element of separation from business, as well as systems to protect them from founders' whims (ie succession), they can act as checks on wealth, but only if they make the effort
I believe the value is still primarily speculative, and substantiated to no small degree by illicit markets which are benefiting from the public sector's ostensibly limited understanding of this tech.
Sources Say World's Largest Darknet Empire Market Exit Scammed, $30 Million in Bitcoin Stolen – Bitcoin NewsOne of the world’s largest darknet markets (DNM) Empire Market allegedly exit scammed after the marketplace was taken offline.news.bitcoin.com
ETH was the main coin for Empire. It was worth very little when it started up
I have in mind Gary Gensler, current head of the SEC, and Jonathan Ehrenfeld of SWIFT. Both of those bodies I have an insufficient understanding of to elaborate how blockchain may be specifically utilized, but at the very least it will allow T-0 settlement with transaction fees that can be relatively negligible, depending on the sophistication of the algorithms.That said, there are major public sector and public-sector-adjacent figures who are themselves big believers in the tech, namely in how it can systemically remove friction, the cost of which is usually handed off to end users.
https://ophi.org.uk/policy/gross-national-happiness-index/Who among us would say that monarchal systems are more just than capitalist democratic systems? Seeing as monarchal systems is yet another topic I lack sufficient familiarity with to speak of with certainly, I am instead working on another assumption, based on what understanding I do have.
That is, I could be wrong. There could be instances of equitable monarchies where the peasants somehow managed to practice oversight over the ruler, but rightly or wrongly that strikes me as farcical.
We did experience some discursive friction in that thread about the dialectic, nothing apparently substantive, but I think enemies are liabilities so I will opt for diplomacy.other_life is definitely going to be your forum nemesis,
well shit ok since no one seems to give a shit about this i'll try something looser, nonspecific. the barbarian ideal in your life. communists are barbarians. civilisation presupposes a much longer history of high culture. it all goes in here... discuss.dissensus.com
as soon as you mention "introduce avenues for financially incentivizing more just practices," the tech stops being a neutral impersonal tool, I'm not sure what it becomes thoughI believe the value is still primarily speculative, and substantiated to no small degree by illicit markets which are benefiting from the public sector's ostensibly limited understanding of this tech.
But, to state a trite sentiment in the culture of crypto, I believe in the tech, and I believe it can introduce avenues for financially incentivizing more just practices, i.e. potentially insurance issued on a blockchain supported by pertinent sensor data (which we can go into if you want).
We are still at the point where nations qua national economies are flirting with the notion of blockchain, and are learning about the current state of the tech as well as its potential development.
That said, there are major public sector and public-sector-adjacent figures who are themselves big believers in the tech, namely in how it can systemically remove friction, the cost of which is usually handed off to end users.
Which isn't to say that the only costs that can be shaved off are the ones that the major institutions cannot otherwise avoid, but also some of the ones that they exploitatively place on the helpless, i.e. certain debt arrangements.
it would be a wonderful jubilee of reconciliation and moral justice that would restore humanityI'm currently of the notion that eating the rich is not only an untenable course of action, but that even if it were tenable it would have a net-negative impact on humanity in relatively short order, i.e. barbarism.
I fear what would happen if our leashes disintegrate too abruptly, which frankly I don't think is possible at this point, but I agree that a public beheading of a lineup of wall st. executives would likely yield a considerable release on behalf of the 99%, in a bipartisan manner no doubt.it would be a wonderful jubilee of reconciliation and moral justice that would restore humanity