They're just trying to apply ancient laws to the digital age. Whenever you've had thoughts outside the norm in Europe, especially post WWII Europe, you better keep them to yourself.
This policy will fail either way though: either they'll succeed in enforcing it then shtf and the WEF's totalitarian shamocracy dreams fail, or they fail to enforce it in the first place. The great thing about the internet and "globalism" is that the ultimate norm is the sum of all the freedoms. The awful thing is that these are tradeoffs and there is no jurisdiction where we can have them all right now. The more awful thing is that politicians and corpos everywhere are now actively working to repress the free internet.
Either way, fuck them. In case the internet gets turned into the regulator's wet dream, I shall see y'all on the darknet. Or bitchat. Or whatever the kids make up to undermine the digital overseers.
The great thing about the internet and "globalism" is that the ultimate norm is the sum of all the freedoms.
I hadn't thought about it this way before. Is this a consequence of the way the control of information is an asymmetric battle (cheap to spread/copy, expensive to delete/hide)?
Feels like the internet got built without statists and people in charge fully comprehending the implications of a many-pathed web over which information can flow. Almost as if they took their control of information for granted. Bitcoiners are hoping something similar happens with money: the system gets built before the people in charge realize how fundamentally it shifts the game.
Yet there are still jurisdictions like N Korea -- which either imply that a state can still effectively control the flow of information or that I'm being more duped than I thought.
Is this a consequence of the way the control of information is an asymmetric battle (cheap to spread/copy, expensive to delete/hide)?
Maybe, but that's not why I think that.
Freedom is the default state - the one we are born with. Thus, the only freedoms we don't have 1 are the ones that others take from us. Because there is no monogovernment 2 covering everyone on the internet, there is a plurality of different freedoms taken. But because the internet connects everyone with everyone, these freedoms 3 become extremely visible, especially when you are confronted with a freedom someone else has but you don't.
This influence, although it may lead to resistance, such as the DSA, ought to ultimately bring a reversal to the mean, and in the case of freedom that means less obstruction to freedom, not more, because we're born free. Especially in democracies, where the feelings of the public do make a difference. I don't think that ultimately we'll all be fully free, because I think the majority is too weak for that, but freedoms can and will be won eventually.
One of the reasons why freedom of speech is not as much appreciated in the EU is because it's always the nazis that pursue it the loudest. As Nazis literally gassed people in Europe, there is virtue in not caring about their freedom of speech. But, the reaction to the whole woke/PC way of forcing new societal rules (and thus less freedom) upon people, and to the Covid stuff of course, is shifting this allergy to restrictions on freedom of speech to a much larger group of people; time will tell if it's enough, or that more misery is needed for Europe to be truly shaken back into reality. I fear the latter but I hope not.
Feels like the internet got built without statists and people in charge fully comprehending the implications of a many-pathed web over which information can flow.
The internet - at least by the time I got involved in the 80s - was built because of the shared belief that with free flow of information we all become more knowledgable, and with that, more powerful 4. For me personally, this has probably been true, though I don't know what I would have been without the internet. However, when I upgraded from library to internet, everything became possible. Before that, knowledge was tedious.
Almost as if they took their control of information for granted. Bitcoiners are hoping something similar happens with money: the system gets built before the people in charge realize how fundamentally it shifts the game.
Absolutely. The internet wasn't regulated in the beginning and governments have probably been the least embracing of it, even for their own services, because it is contra to everything government stands for: it erodes their power when things are simple and easy. Now, they're fighting back. We should pay close attention to this because if we think they're fighting Bitcoin now... we're delusional.
Yet there are still jurisdictions like N Korea -- which either imply that a state can still effectively control the flow of information or that I'm being more duped than I thought.
That's just the narrative. Like the WEF, that's a narrative too. Covid should be a good example of how you too got controlled though. It just didn't last and neither will it in NK.
Footnotes
Important: the freedoms we don't have isn't the same as the freedoms we don't consume. ↩
And other benefits... for example, only after mainstream internet made the benefit known, my US friends started asking me about if there really is universal education in Europe and wanting to discuss whether it's truly beneficial. ↩
Try an LLM with and without search capabilities to see my point being made for me in the fullest modernity. ↩
ought to ultimately bring a reversal to the mean, and in the case of freedom that means less obstruction to freedom, not more, because we're born free.
While I fundamentally agree with the statement that we are born free, I'm not as hopeful about a trend towards less obstruction to freedom.
It seems like the structures we have made to protect freedom (legal, cultural, technical) are mostly abstract in nature. For instance, we have the Fourth Amendment in the US. It's 54 words long and pretty unequivocally says people in the US should be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures...yet there are things like the third party doctrine and civil asset forfeiture.
Living in the US, I do not feel that my papers are secure from unreasonable search. My tax dollars pay for cameras at intersections all over town that track my movements, they pay the salaries for people who work at OFAC and at the US Treasury who might decide that they don't like my financial activities. The pay
It feels like we have guarantees of freedom in the abstract which are regularly violated in the particular and the vast majority of the people are more or less fine with it as long as it doesn't pose too much of an inconvenience. As long as the violations of our freedom seem to only occur around the fringes, we can still believe that we have much more freedom than we actually do.
And then the freedom that gets talked about, that we hear about, becomes small and withered and the mean to which we revert is farther away from our natural state than we hoped.
I look at things like religion and monarchies and it seems to me that we are very easily convinced to embrace our own subjugation. If our natural state is freedom, how did we come to this? I put up with these systems I know to be depriving me of freedom for some reason, don't I?I feel like I probably need to read The Dispossessed again.
You still fail to understand that a citizen do not have rights and freedom, but only privileges and liberties.
Liberty is not freedom, is just a privilege.
Citizen is not a sovereign individual, is just a slave by consent.
When you put yourself under the "US constitution" that doesn't give you any "protection" or right. You simply give away your freedom and rights and became a shitizen.
Is there a place, on land, where individual sovereigns are recognized by the surrounding non-sovereign individuals? Or is it simply a matter of not being worth the effort of enforcing one's non-sovereignty? Like economic deterrence?
The most important step is to realize that you live in a cage, what is that cage and how to get out from it. After that is just a matter of having commercial contracts with other fellow individuals, and all these contracts follow the UCC.
The whole world function based on contracts but people still don't want to see it.
I think that from that declaration linked there, the most important part that negates my question fully, in combination with your assertion of applicability, is:
ARTICLE 3. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity ...
If our natural state is freedom, how did we come to this? I put up with these systems I know to be depriving me of freedom for some reason, don't I?
It's good that you challenge this because it forced me to go back over my steps how I got to this, and I neglected to specify the tradeoff I mentioned originally. The main tradeoff to freedom is security. Unfortunately we need deterrence, also against organized aggression, from within and without and this comes at a cost to freedom. However, us ceding freedom always puts us in a system where we get abused and this won't hold; I can't think of a single example where the abuser ultimately wins - worst case they just die and we move on without their reign of terror. I feel that the overall historic trendline moves towards increasing freedom, not away from it; it's a very subjective observation though and at a very high level: I'm talking centuries, maybe now decennia because things move faster now.
The reason why I think it tips in favor of freedom this time around is because solutions are now truly globally shareable 1 and self-sufficiency potential is through the roof. We can collaborate without incorporation, and without governance on a global scale now 2; basically what 40 years ago you could maybe achieve with only your neighbors/friends/relatives, today you can achieve with anyone anywhere, if both parties want to or have a need.
This is the role of the internet that we imo must maintain, in some form - even if we drop the existing one in favor of another networking protocol - at all cost.
For instance, we have the Fourth Amendment in the US. It's 54 words long and pretty unequivocally says people in the US should be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures...yet there are things like the third party doctrine and civil asset forfeiture.
The third party doctrine is a blessing in disguise for a Bitcoiner, tho? It underlines not your keys, not your coin. It codifies what bullies can do if relied on third parties and incentivizes solving self-custody and developing other self-sovereign tech. Decentralization is a necessity because of this and "become ungovernable" is more than just a catchy slogan.
Footnotes
and given a bit (or a lot) of resistance to the current consolidation phase most governments are finding themselves in, solutions will stay globally accessible. ↩
we're doing the collaboration without governance right this moment; Thinking of it, the biggest enabler of free speech in my life is SN, not X. SN > X when it comes to freedom, in its current form and usage. Could have similar results on nostr if there would be acceptable UI without centralization. ↩
Is very simple how to fix this, but people keep debating with politicians.
Just stop using fiat money and stop giving attention to politicians.
Don't feed the beast anymore.
totalitarian shamocracydreams fail, or they fail to enforce it in the first place. The great thing about the internet and "globalism" is that the ultimate norm is the sum of all the freedoms. The awful thing is that these are tradeoffs and there is no jurisdiction where we can have them all right now. The more awful thing is that politicians and corpos everywhere are now actively working to repress the free internet.Footnotes
Footnotes
SN > Xwhen it comes to freedom, in its current form and usage. Could have similar results on nostr if there would be acceptable UI without centralization. ↩