This is the second (and final) part of the “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” series which I started writing yesterday.
Part 1 can be found here: Give me Liberty, or give me Death! – Part 1
Introduction:
A quick recap: In Part 1 we saw that Trump, while not a typical politician, is nonetheless turning on Bitcoin in order to protect that which he holds most dear: his horde of fiat money-based wealth. We saw that governments around the world have turned to age-old propaganda strategies to grab and hold onto power – the very same strategies developed and used by Joseph Goebbels to bring the Nazis to power in 1930s Germany, and to keep them there once in office.
We saw that Liberty – our very right to make our own choices such as “I want to use Bitcoin instead of USD” – is under threat. Today I want to elaborate a little on that threat and on how propaganda is being used to turn the population against its own liberties.
As with yesterday, I will not just be using my own words today. Once again I will stand on the shoulders of giants and borrow their words in the form of a series of quotes.
You are being lied to. We all are. America is a great example of this, so I will keep this post American in flavour (or should that be “flavor”? 😄), because the USA is an example which most of us can relate to.
As I have said before, it is disturbing to see that the US is STILL playing the “Russia = Communist = Enemy” card, a good three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The USSR is long gone and Russia has been a democracy for decades; yet the old “Evil Communist Ruskies” narrative – which is ingrained deep into the psyche of the American populus – is still the go-to rhetoric used by politicians over and over again. What did Goebbels teach us in Part 1?
“THE ESSENCE OF PROPAGANDA CONSISTS IN WINNING PEOPLE OVER TO AN IDEA SO SINCERELY, SO VITALLY, THAT IN THE END THEY SUCCUMB TO IT UTTERLY AND CAN NEVER ESCAPE FROM IT.”
“…THE RANK AND FILE ARE USUALLY MUCH MORE PRIMITIVE THAN WE IMAGINE. PROPAGANDA MUST THEREFORE ALWAYS BE ESSENTIALLY SIMPLE AND REPETITIOUS.”
“THIS IS THE SECRET OF PROPAGANDA: THOSE WHO ARE TO BE PERSUADED BY IT SHOULD BE COMPLETELY IMMERSED IN THE IDEAS OF THE PROPAGANDA, WITHOUT EVER NOTICING THAT THEY ARE BEING IMMERSED IN IT.”
“THE ENGLISH FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN ONE LIES, IT SHOULD BE A BIG LIE, AND ONE SHOULD STICK TO IT.”
“IF YOU TELL A LIE LONG ENOUGH, IT BECOMES THE TRUTH.”
This is how the people of the USA continue to be led, or “misled”, if you prefer.
Because there will always be those intelligent enough to question the politicians and their mass media (their tool of manipulation), a defence mechanism has to be put in place. You can’t expect the politicians themselves to run around putting out fires, that sounds too much like hard work, and it could be dangerous if they miss a fire and it grows too big.
No, what they have done is to build a self-defence system into their propaganda; a clever system which is a diabolical as it is ingenious.
As much as the modern Politically Correct Liberals hate to hear this, as nations we tend to differ greatly from one another. We have various physical and mental traits which define us and differentiate us from each other. One of the traits which I admire the most in Americans is their patriotism. The average American is a patriot at heart – someone who loves their country and will readily defend it against attack or ridicule. Perversely, it is this good-intentioned patriotism that the government has re-purposed to serve their evil agenda. By portraying their own interests as “patriotic”, the politicians seek to squash any criticism of them as a ruling class. Therefore, anybody who shouts out against the rulers gets shot down by the crowd, because such a person is obviously “unpatriotic” or “anti-American” – the politicians don’t even have to lift a finger.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Those speaking against the ruling class are those who can see through the lies, they are those who seek to make America better and who seek to preserve the liberty of the common man!
For this reason, today I will be focusing on patriotism and what is REALLY means – NOT what the politicians say it means!
Quotes:
That was a slightly lengthy, but necessary introduction. I hope that you are now in the right frame of mind to read these quotes which I have sourced for you. Let’s now take a look at patriotism, liberty, politics and a few related topics, as seen through the eyes of those who are well qualified to speak on these topics:
350z33 at en.wikipedia [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Let us begin with a stark reminder that we can’t just rest on our laurels and expect freedom to continue as a way of life:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
~Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson remains my favourite US president of all time: a true visionary and a true patriot.
Many years later, Reagan echoed Jefferson’s words:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
~Ronald Reagan
It is clear that if you wish to live free, you must be prepared to continually fight for your freedom, for there will be a continuous stream of tyrants who would like to take it away and enslave you. The next two men quoted knew all too well what I’m talking about:
There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountaintop of our desires.
~Nelson Mandela
Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.
~Malcolm X
Lincoln was another one of the great American Presidents. Like Jefferson (and Bit Brain) he was a visionary who could see the path of the future long before it actually happened:
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
~Abraham Lincoln
The government does not seek to protect your liberty through its laws, it seeks to limit and restrain you. Just look at Bitcoin and crypto regulations in the US! Do those regulations really help you as a crypto investor, or do they hinder you? Is your government for you, or against you? Is it infringing on your liberties?
Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.
~Woodrow Wilson
I speak out against representative democracies all the time, for they are “democracies” only in name. Since the majority of people have no actual say in the running of their countries, most modern democracies have decayed into socialism in democratic clothing. They preach “democracy” yet display socialism. Look at the quote below, then decide which you think America is today: Democratic or Socialist.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
~Alexis de Tocqueville
Once again, Jefferson hits the nail right on the head:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
~Thomas Jefferson
CLEARLY something is VERY wrong with our modern “democracies”! For starters: they are no longer democratic!
You have no say in government. They do not listen to you! Voting is a voting designed to placate you through the illusion that you have a say. Try to change a law. Try to ignore a rule. See how much say you really have! Politicians dominate your life and make you live according to their rules! Is that how America was supposed to be?
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
~Abraham Lincoln
George Orwell criticised government hypocrisy when he spoke about the same topic in “Animal Farm”. In his book, the pigs (a parody of the ruling class) stated the following:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
~George Orwell
So do I have a point, or am I just some trouble-stirring, anti-American, unpatriotic communist? Let’s look at a few more quotes to find out:
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
~Mark Twain
You’re not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.
~Malcolm X
Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.
~James Bryce
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
~George Washington
Who are the real patriots when government is corrupt: those speaking against them, or the brainwashed masses who have good intentions which have been horribly manipulated? He probably didn’t intend to, but modern day politician Joe Biden gave us the answer:
Fighting corruption is not just good governance. It’s self-defense. It’s patriotism.
~Joe Biden
But let’s steer away from modern politicians, they’re all far too much a part of the broken system. Let’s get back to the good old guys and the non-politicians:
I do this real moron thing, and it’s called thinking. And apparently I’m not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions.
~George Carlin
Remember, these are not internet bloggers, these words come from an American President!
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.
~Theodore Roosevelt
Perhaps James Baldwin gave the best description of what patriotism really is:
I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.
~James Baldwin
… and Arthur Schopenhauer gave the best description of what it is not:
Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.
~Arthur Schopenhauer
Indeed, I think that some of the more famous thinkers of their time misunderstood the issue of patriotism and how politicians manipulate it. They grew so bitter because of this that they sadly turned against patriotism altogether. They thought that the misguided masses were the patriots, missing the truth that the real patriots were not the masses supporting government, but rather the intelligent few opposing it:
You’ll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.
~George Bernard Shaw
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
~Samuel Johnson
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
~Oscar Wilde
It’s very sad to see the level of frustration that those men were driven to.
So as not to end of a negative note, let’s look at two more quotes of those who properly understood patriotism:
The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously.
~Julian Barnes
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
~Edward Abbey
Conclusion
I hope that I have sufficiently illustrated the difference between patriotism and “patriotism”. I hope I have shown the difference between being against your government and being against your country. I hope I have shown that to best serve your country, you need to oppose those who seek to oppress you. I hope that I have shown that governments seek to remove your liberties and control you.
It is up to us: (you, me and all the other common folk) to stand up for what is right. Nobody is going to fight this fight for us! Government is Definitely not going to fight For us – they are the main problem!
It would be nice if we had a modern visionary to guide us: somebody who understands Liberty, Patriotism, Politics, Money and even Crypto; luckily for you, you have just such a mentor – you’re reading his blog right now. Mr Mentor tells you this with the utmost certainty: through cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology we can render governments obsolete. We can remove their power and the money supply which enables them. They can’t stop us unless we let them.
The time has come to fight. The time has come to fight for what is right, to fight for our rights!
Through crypto we can let liberty prevail – not governments.
I will be fighting this fight either until we are victorious, or until I draw my final breath. I hope to see you there fighting beside me.
Yours in crypto
Bit Brain
Attribution: Featured Image (Statue of Liberty) by Ana Paula Nardini from Pexels
"The secret to success: find out where people are going and get there first"
~ Mark Twain
"Crypto does not require institutional investment to succeed; institutions require crypto investments to remain successful"
~ Bit Brain
Bit Brain recommends:
Crypto Exchanges:
How bad would government really need to be before it gets to the point where crypto becomes a necessity?
In classic understanding, governments power is tied to its money. But America's status as a super power is partly tied to the direct control of the dollar but I would argue more so that our strength comes from law. Our laws, in large, are equal and everyone is held to the same standard. To that effect, we all trust that laws keeps things fair. And fair means equal opportunity.
Although none of this would be possible without control the world reserve currency (the usd) , the reality is that we could be an equally powerful nation if the monetary standard throughout the world shifted to a decentralized currency.
My only fear is the unknown. What power does anyone weild to control prices? We would have no power to adjust interest rates or anything of that sort.
Hmmm. I think you stumbled across the real reason with your "fear of the unknown" - I strongly suspect that Americans are in a comfort zone, one which they fear to venture out of.
The reality is already that the American government is shocking in the treatment of it's citizens. I strongly dispute that the legal system is "fair to all", the rich get great lawyers and get away with murder, while the poor are bullied by police in false confessions or slapped into jail based on faked evidence. America jails about 10000 people a year WRONGFULLY, and exonerates only 200 or so. That's a TERRIBLE legal system, and I would not put my faith in that.
This is the country which is after Assange for publishing the truth, the country which is after Snowden for letting Americans know that their government is spying on each and every one of them. No my friend, the USA is already WAY past the point where it needs to be stopped. The governmental machine is druk with power and feels nothing for the rights of the individual.
Crypto is already a necessity, but I have news for you: even if crypto didn't exist, the days of the dollar remaining king would still be numbered.
I predict that we will increasingly see power shift from West to East within our own lifetimes. The West is tied up in bureaucracy, inefficiency, political correctness, anti-military sentiment and general corruption, while the East is going about it's business of growing in size and power.
I don't fear the unknown, I embrace it. I fear that the status quo remains - in which case the tyrants will become increasingly worse. Nobody wants a violent revolution - but that is a possibility if things remain as they are. America fought the Brits for independence, they fought themselves too. Never be afraid of fighting for what is right.
Waiting for my lunch to come at the moment, so I've got until my food comes to finish this post!
Yes, we have a lot of bad actors that manipulate the law to favor themselves. But the reality is that common law generally applies to everyone. There are people beyond the avg that are disenfranchised and treated differently when the same law is applied. But again, it's less the norm, and more the outlier. The rule of law remains the strongest point here. And it's important to seperate the types of laws. Civil laws here are unbalanced, but the economy isn't based on civil law. Instead the laws that govern economics (property rights ans intellectual rights for example) are the ones that help push America forward.
When I speak of the unknown, I look at the society's that have collapsed. I haven't studied it, but there are really only two ways to collapse a society. Either it occurs forcefully through a take up of arms, or fiscally.
In the past, as in before fiat, economy was tied closely to gold and gold reserves. It's silly that economy has to be tied to a precious metal. When your out of it, people who are willing to work can't work because you can't pay them?
The willingness for humanity to work transcends currency, for that reason a fiat currency is the only system that will allow humanity to grow.
Part of theunknown thing I mentioned is that crypto) also fiat) has no way to be controled. It's both good and bad.
For example, if there is a relaxation in an economy, and less money being moved around (ie velocity of money) you will have less economic activity and unhappy people. In order to spur economic activity, you need to reduce prices so people start spending more, or lower the cost of borrowing.... So people can spend more. This ofcourse is economics 101.
Without that tool (and reality the power of centralization) then you will have wild swings when you price things in one currency.
In real terms, a steady inflation is the way fiat currency needs to grow and how that inflation occurs is imperative to controlling economics.
That's how I see it atleast and I've been constantly trying to find another way to view it because there must be more than one way to have honest money without a centralized system (not that the US acts honestly with their money anyway).
I disagree strongly on the need for fiat, I also disagree with government interference in economics. The state has entangled itself in all things money, to the degree that it is commonly believed that it must be that way. It must not.
The state exists to serve the people. The state was created BY the people as a way of making life simpler, cheaper and easier. We didn't all want to take our own trash to the dump every week, we wanted a service to put out home fires, we wanted a few centralised entities that we could pay to deal with this things on our behalf. What we did NOT want was a monster entity that rules over us with an iron fist, something which sucks funds faster than anything else and which is extremely inefficient. No, the state has grown into an evil behemoth, and to a large degree it's done so on the back of fiat currency.
What Economics 101 often gets wrong is that GDP growth is not real when it forgets the effect of inflation. What Economics 101 blatantly ignores is that inflation hits the poor the hardest, while simultaneously enriching the rich. You can't take a market average for something like this, that "average" hardly represents anybody!
Fiat is VERY simple: it enriches the rich and keeps the poor poor. That's it. End of story. Only a scarce resource like Gold or Bitcoin can prevent this, because such a thing prevents the rich from literally printing themselves more wealth.
Here is where it gets complicated. Societies that have used gold to measure wealth, went in conquest to destroy other nations in order to aquire the wealth.
One could argue that with gold, you would never be able to run deficits since your paper currency would be backed by equal gold.
The problem here is that when money is needed, it would be very difficult to get since you have to go and find ways to aquire more gold. If I was Microsoft and needed to grow to the next level but I didn't have 20 billion to fund a new project, then I would need to wage war, or spend an extraordinary amount of time to find investors.
This is where fiat shines.
When it comes to full scale governments, their abuse of fiat is what causes inflation.
It is possible that if bad actors did not exist, then fiat could expand the money supply as needed and reduced as needed to avoid inflation. But this is not the case because government spends more than they can generate. That's what throws the balance off.
While you are 100% correct that inflation makes the rich richer, it isn't any different with gold. The real difference is in who the actors are. Those who had gold alway acted to get more. And they will go to great lengths to source it, even if it means traveling across the ocean to destroy another civilization. Again not that fiat hasn't also caused this, it's just the actors taking advantage of the system.
You make a good point. I guess my counter-point is that fiat makes it easier for the bad actors to manipulate the system to their advantage. Also it enables inflation - which is (quite literally) a killer.
Microsoft could always take out a $20 billion loan of gold backed currency, and if they can't - well then maybe avoiding that sort of debt is a good thing. Current debt levels are going to sink our economies.
Sadly you have a good point about people fighting to grab what they need. We are still rather vicious and primitive beast by nature. This is partly why blockchains are so great - the transparency of transactions and the difficulty in generating endless funds ensures some sort of accountability - even for bad actors.
I think a lot about how a company could borrow in a gold backed economy.
The bank would have to have a large gold reserve in order to back the loan up. If the paper currency was backed 1:1 with gold (ignoring the $/oz or whatever it comes out to be), then the only way for the bank to issue the loan would be to practice fractional reserve banking.
If the bank litterally did not have enough gold, then Microsoft would need to go to multiple banks and receive multiple rates. It makes it difficult to do business in this manner, but you could then perform a swap with another firm to normalize your rate if you wished to.
At the end of the day, there is a time and place for fiat and I think fiat has allowed our economy to boom. By the same account, the abuse with fiat is absolutely real, and the downfall from too much debt is also extremely real.
I do not doubt that the next fall will be a result of debt, as it almost always has been.
One thing about todays society that I think we all discount is that every government runs on an inflationary fiat model and nearlly all governments have the same debt problem. In fact all debts are intertwined with each other to the point that if one fails, others will be equally damage or fail too. For that reason, there is robustness in the system since there is a common goal to not fail. Perhaps the only way out of this mess would be global debt forgiveness.
I say this because there is no way that we can continue to leverage future value for present gain without paying for it eventually.
On another note, cxo or ksc coins? I'm looking to add a other alt coin to my portfolio.
I'm going to assume that you mean KCS - since I've never heard of KSC before and investigation reveals that it is a relatively unknown ICO. Please let me know if I have assumed incorrectly.
That depends on your tastes: I love them both, I really love those coins.
KCS is undoubtedly the safer of the two coins: that's not to say that the team and company behind CXO are bad - just that their coin is far more unknown. I believe KCS to be strongly undervalued and that it will climb significantly. I believe that CXO has even greater potential ROI - the market cap of KCS is about 100x greater. I suggest that you dig into both a bit, since there is much to learn about each token. The CXO whitepaper is fairly simple to read and explains the token economics rather well. KCS is going to be a bit tricker because the platform is constantly developing - but I've been with them since the early days and should be able to help you with any specific questions which you may have.
For what it's worth, I own a greater percentage of CXO than I do of any other coin. I work that out using this method: https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@bitbrain/how-much-to-invest-in-a-crypto
But I also tend to have a more risky appetite than most and I'm prepared to take chances, so as a major investment CXO probably suits me more, you may be different. At the end of the day, there is nothing stopping you from buying both. KCS starts to have benefits as soon as you have 6 tokens - an investment of less than $10. CXO has no real minimum limit. I believe strongly in diversification, so if you are sitting on the fence, perhaps that is the best option.
Replied to this on Trybe, but apparently forgot to on TIMM.
First of all, GREAT READ! This topic is becoming more important and relevant with each passing day. I completely agree with your sentiment and most of your article. Government is the problem and has been for a long time. It’s a necessary evil that must always be kept on a short leash…something America’s founders understood. Something Americans seem to have forgotten. That said, I do have to disagree with your view of a REPRESENTATIVE democracy -vs- PURE democracy.
Historically, it’s PURE democracies that have led to socialism/communism. This is why Karl Marx constantly argued for a pure democracy. Like countless other communists, Marx preached the following tried and true, age old method. In order to destroy a prosperous nation and usher in socialism/communism, you must first demand a pure democracy. As Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
We’ve seen countless dictators rise to power who were initially elected within a PURE democracy system. They followed the same predictable 3 step formula.
The pitch goes something like this…
“My fellow citizens, you've been treated unfairly for far too long! You live under a system that protects the evil (insert minority group) who have caused all your problems. I say NO MORE! If you elect me, I’ll make sure you get your fair share! The evil (insert minority group) have profited off you for far too long. If you’ll simply give up those pesky individual liberties, which so unfairly protect those evil (insert minority group), I’ll make them pay for oppressing you! I’ll take from 'them' and return to you what’s rightfully yours! Of course you will no longer have any individual rights…but fear not! Trust me...I only want the ability to punish 'them'. I’d never do anything to harm you, the righteous majority!”
How many times have we heard a new dictator utter those exact words? We all know how that ends...and yet, people fall for it over and over again.
A direct democracy is 3 wolves and 2 sheep sitting around a table, voting on what to eat for dinner. It NEVER works out well for the sheep. Mob rule is not the answer. We’ve seen its disastrous results in countless societies all throughout history. Surprisingly, Hollywood even created a blockbuster film (based on the novel, The Hunger Games) displaying the predictable outcome of a society governed by mob rule (direct democracy). Basically, you end up enslaving the few to the will of the mob…and anyone can become a slave if you dare speak out against the mob.
This is why America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights is NOT made up of things the government will do for the people. Instead, it outlines things the government can NOT do to the people. It’s also why the constitution can NOT be changed by a simple majority vote. It requires a 2/3 majority. It actually gives the little guy a real voice. It actually prevents the 3 wolves from eating the 2 sheep…even if the will of the majority is to eat the sheep.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m NOT saying a representative democracy is perfect. Not by a long shot. But it is the best system man kind has created to date IMO. Can we do better? YES…and that’s where your many excellent points on crypto’s ability to change the world comes in. I completely agree Crypto can make the current system better…or even obsolete. I agree America has gone down hill. You're right, it has been operating more and more like a socialist country for decades. The federal government was NEVER meant to hold this much power.
You know there's a problem when a guy living a thousand miles away in Washington D.C has more effect on the local community than the Mayor of the city. You know there's a problem when elected government officials are no longer subject to the laws they themselves create. You know there's a problem when one side labels you a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot for simply disagreeing with them politically. I could go on and on.
The problem is not a representative democracy. The problem is we no longer operate as a real representative democracy. My Mayor has no real power...it's all channeled through the federal government. The answer isn't mob rule, nor is it consolidating power into the hands of a few. The answer has to be something in the middle. Something transparent and immune to corruption. Something like...blockchain.
OK, rant over. Sorry to get off on a tangent. Your article is very compelling and well written BB. I hope you keep it up!
"Replied to this on Trybe, but apparently forgot to on TIMM." - I only ever reply on one or the other, my internet is slow just replying on one as it is!
Wow Workin, what a reply, thanks!
I have to start by saying that any system in which a centralised entity is directing the mob - such as in Nazi Germany - is representative by nature. But yes, I do hear your concerns.
It was interesting hearing you speak about the American Constitution (which I hold in very high regard); earlier to day I read an article (I think it was on Zerohedge) where the author suggested that the kind of things written in the constitution could probably get you locked up if you were shouting them out in public today! He made a compelling argument - very sad to see how far America has strayed from it's origins.
Back to the topic - I do believe that direct democracy is the way to go - but with caveats; specifically to address situations like Franklin's wolves and sheep scenario. I wrote about them in this post from over a year ago: https://steemit.com/government/@bitbrain/the-details-of-a-blockchain-based-electronic-direct-democracy
Done in the right way, a direct democracy on a blockchain has the potential to surpass any current systems in terms of sustained fairness and efficiency.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply BB. Don’t mean to ambush your post here. I’m under no illusion that you want or care about my opinion on this matter. The topic just really strikes a cord. Before I respond, know I’m happy to take down these and my prior comments if you’d like. This is your post...just say the word.
It seems we agree on many things. I’m just not sure we agree on the definition of certain terms.
If you're labeling Nazi Germany a representative democracy, then we have VERY different definitions of what constitutes a representative democracy. The majority of Germans voted Hitler into office, but were opposed to what Hitler did with that power. The problem was, they didn't realize what he intended to do until it was too late. Only after individual rights were stripped, did Hitler start revealing his true intentions. Shortly after, Germany became a dictatorship. At that point, no one could say anything negative about Hitler, or his thugs, for fear being tortured and/or killed. Elected officials were not able to represent their constituents for fear of death. It was actually the polar opposite of a representative democracy and a classic example of a direct democracy morphing into a dictatorship.
Thank you for sharing your post from a year ago. It’s very interesting and well written. That said, I strongly disagree with some of it...at least I think. Again, depends on if we’re defining terms the same way.
If I understand your post correctly, you’re saying those with higher IQ’s should be given more voting power. Basically consolidating power in the hands of a few, but those few would be the most “intelligent”. Of course your idea is more complex, but that’s the end result, correct?
If so, what would stop the few intelligent citizens from just overtly or covertly enslaving the rest?
I think your answer to that is (correct me if I’m wrong), you feel the smartest people will realize the eventual outcome of corruption and choose not to be corrupt. To quote your post,
“...there won't be any government officials who can grab power. The selfish geniuses will be outnumbered by the good ones or outweighed by the even smarter ones. Sufficiently intelligent people won't vote against the interests of the community and they won't forget about the interests of minorities. Why? Because they're clever enough to figure out what will happen if they do. They will be aware that previous and current systems have failed/are failing for that very reason. On a more personal level; they won't want to become the next King Louis XVI or Marie Antoinette”.
Unfortunately, I think history has proven that false. Assuming the majority of intelligent people are also good, moral people (huge assumption), it still doesn’t address the problem of power.
Even the most pure, intelligent, good hearted leaders are inevitably blinded and corrupt by power. It’s as predictable as the sun rise. Even those initially with the best of intentions, inevitably are corrupted if left in power long enough...and no one voluntarily gives up power. Well, almost no one. George Washington did, but only because he knew if he accepted the position of king, he'd be seduced by the same power he'd just fought so hard to be free of.
It’s the very same reason socialism never works. It can be created with the best of intentions, but will ALWAYS fail due to imperfect human nature and centralized power’s unfailing ability to corrupt.
Putting all that aside, the definition of a direct democracy is simply, majority rule. It seems like your definition of a direct democracy is not at all a democracy (as defined traditionally). So again, maybe we’re just defining terms differently?
I certainly don’t have all the answers. While imperfect, it seems a representative democracy (as defined by America’s founders) is the best system humans have created to date. The further away America gets from that, the worse it gets. Blockchain gives us the ability to get America back to a true representative democracy. A place where the feds do not yield more power over my personal life than my local mayor. A place where backroom deals can not take place without the public knowing. A place where lobbyists are irrelevant because the feds no longer have the power to make or break private industry. A place where blockchain allows a true free market to exist and all to be treated equal under the law. "I have a dream....", just joking. I'll leave MLK out of this. 😉
Anyway...I’ve rambled on long enough. Here’s to blockchain ushering in a better system than what we have today. Enjoy your weekend my friend!
Speak your mind freely Workin! I would never censor an alternative view - decentralisation is an important part of building strength and trust!
I don't want to fall into the trap of getting lost in semantics, but I have always defined a representative democracy as one where politicians represent the people at government level. To the best of my knowledge - this is the system that brought Hitler and his Nazi party into power, so yes, I view that case as a representative democracy.
As you said
I did indeed say that those with higher IQ’s should be given more voting power and I still stand by that. Like a Direct Democracy, the idea of having the voting weighted in favour of the intelligent has also never been tried. I believe it will work.
I absolutely agree that power corrupts, but I also agree with my statement that those with the brains to see the outcomes of their decisions will realise that it is in their own best interests to look after everybody - not just themselves. Casual observation and interaction with the ultra-intelligent has led me to believe that this is a correct assumption to make.
In a worst case scenario (if I am wrong), then we end up back where we are now, but at least our rulers will be clever (not like now). One revolution later and we can begin again.
I believe that the inevitable long-term outcome of any system of governance is either:
The only way I can see of avoiding "2" is to give everybody a real and direct say in things. I think that representative democracies have tried and failed. I realise that blockchains may help, but why have a middleman in the system? Work life has taught me that the middlemen are leeches: productivity and money siphoning parasites who add no value.
Look, I'm not totally against some sort of "man in charge", and I support the noble vision of America's founding fathers. I just think that the modern world is too different and too greedy for that to remain a sustainable system.
I don't expect this all to change within my lifetime, and I doubt I'll ever live to see my dream come to fruition - but right now I'd take even 10% of that dream as a major win.
Thanks a lot for making the effort and taking the time to discuss these ever-so-important topics. I don't care that we may not see eye to eye, I care that we both want what is best for the future. We have time, I'm sure we can work out the details later :)
Re censorship, I was hoping you’d feel that way. I think we're much more like minded than not. That said, I could never back a centralized system. It always ends in disaster. All throughout history, regardless of intelligence or wealth, absolute power ALWAYS corrupts. What's the definition of insanity? We’ve got to get out of that mindset.
On another note, I’m still confused as to how you’re classifying your proposed system as a “direct democracy”. You're proposing minority rule with a high IQ caveat. Regardless of right or wrong, how is that (by any definition) a direct democracy? I'm truly curious as to how/why you're classifying it that way.
It sounds like many of the same centralized systems we’ve seen, just with "intelligent" rulers and a hope the people running it have “good” moral character. There have been countless societies lasting centuries where the intelligent ruling class live like kings, while the rest are basically slaves. Yes that system usually falls, but may last hundreds of years before it does. The ruling class couldn’t care less what happens centuries later. Wise rulers of poor moral character would be happy to just live like kings in the here and now if given the opportunity.
Even if you assume they’d have “good” moral character to start, we know they’ll eventually be corrupted by power.
Your hope that the “intelligent” among us will also understand they should not be corrupt is a great thought. Unfortunately, I’d argue it’s been proven wrong over and over again throughout history. The second those intelligent people are in power, they become a ticking time bomb. Power is like heroin. The wisest among us know they’ll become addicted. Like heroin, power blinds rational thought over time. Intelligent or not, eventually the user will do anything for their next fix.
What has been proven to work is a representative democracy. Here's where our words/definitions may be getting mixed up again.
As I said earlier, I defined a “representative democracy” the same way America’s founders did. A.K.A...a “Republic”. This isn't just electing people to represent and legislate. That’s what all democracies have been doing for years. America was different.
America was based on dividing power into equal branches...each with checks and balances. NOT in name only, but actually backed by a constitution and bill of rights. For many years, America proved that is FAR AND AWAY the best system the world has ever seen.
Today however, we’re seeing revisionist history in full force. Far left judges are completely rewriting/reinterpreting history to fit an ideological goal. They’re re-interpreting the constitution in ways that distort it’s actually meaning. When that doesn’t work, ideological politicians say it’s “outdated”. The checks and balances are ignored or abused when convenient.
This would be fine if we adhered to the literal meaning of the Constitution. It was after all written with the expectation of corruption. The problem is, we don’t adhere to its meaning.
As my Navy friend likes to say, "The problem is NOT the system our Founding Father left us. The problem is, we no longer adhere to that system."
I think he's spot on. This is the problem blockchain could solve. It’s not a middle man. It’s a tool that insures transparency and, by extension, true liberty.
Hitler was initially elected within an essential pure democracy. Yes, citizens had people elected to represent them, but it was basically mob rule. No electoral college. No constitution preventing the wolves from eating the sheep. No REAL separation of powers...simply in name only. That said, even their system wouldn't have allowed for Hitler to become the mass murderer he became. But Germany gave up that system because they believed Hitler and his nazis would fix all their problems. They had no idea what the nazis actually had in mind.
It was only AFTER the mob agreed to suspend individual rights, declare an emergency and give absolute power to the perceived "masterminds” (or most intelligent among them), that Hitler was able to fulfill his perverted fantasy. As much as I'm opposed to the system Germany had before Hitler and the nazis, it was the demolishing of that system and replacing it with a dictatorship which enabled Hitler and the nazis to grab power.
A Representative Democracy (as defined by America’s founders) would NEVER allow that to happen. How do we know? Because we’ve had sick, twisted, power hungry presidents elected in America. Woodrow Wilson attempted to grab power and change the constitution. He actually tried to persuade lawmakers to get “beyond the Declaration of Independence”, going on to say, “it’s of no consequence to us”. He embraced and argued for eugenics. He was, by every measure, a mental tyrant.
Fortunately, America’s founders prepared for that possibility. Wilson (the POTUS) was denied the power he sought to grab by America’s constitutional Republic. There are countless other examples in America’s history.
So we have a tried and true system of government that actually works. It’s not perfect, and can be GREATLY improved on, but it has been battle tested time and again. As long as it’s adhered to, it will work. The second it’s not (as we’ve seen over the past 50 years), the country starts to suffer.
When it does suffer, you can’t blame a system that’s no longer being followed. Instead, we should ask how to get back on track and stay on track, while always trying to improve our imperfections. For that, I believe blockchain is arriving just in time.
Wow...I have no idea why I felt so compelled to respond to your post. Thanks for allowing me to vent BB.
Ha ha, glad you're getting a chance to vent! I think it's healthy to air our views. Even if you or I don't convince one another of everything, others may learn from our exchange.
To respond to your question, my "direct democracy" is not minority rule per se. In my system EVERYBODY gets to vote - directly. But the system is weighted so as to prevent the less intelligent or more uneducated opinions from carrying the decisions in a negative direction as opposed to ensuring a favourable long-term outcome for all.
It is self evident that if you ask a poor person with no education if they would like to pay no taxes at all, they would probably reply in the affirmative. In a country such as e.g. India, these people would greatly outnumber the educated few, and the long-term effects of their self-centred, short-term thinking would be disastrous - even for themselves. Similarly, if you have a history of anti-social behaviour, e.g. if you are a mass murderer, then you are obviously not interested in acting in the best interests of the collective and your ability to decide for everyone else should be penalised accordingly.
Intelligent people are not politicians. They don't all belong to one race, party, social class, gender etc. They are not some sort of pre-assembled cabal who have unified preferences, they are a representative sample of the population. You need not fear them as a group, simply because they are NOT a group. They are those most capable of making good decisions for the rest, so they get a chance to do that - thereby assuring the best outcome for the greatest number. Everyone still votes, but those who can help the most get the chance to do so.
Or let me put it another way: When you let everybody have an equal power vote - you end up with the current mess that most of our Western nations are in.
My take on 1930s Germany was that it was a representative democracy - a multi-party state until Hitler's famous "Night of the Long Knives", where he killed his opposition and then instantly transformed Germany into an autocratic single-party state.
Yeah...We're never going to agree on that system you propose for all the reasons I've listed. Politicians , non-politicians...we have endless examples of power corrupting even the most intelligent and pure at heart.
Your system is not a democracy, but I get your point that everyone has a vote...just not everyone's vote means that much.
Regardless, I remain convinced a Constitutional Republic, representative democracy (as America's founders gave us) is the best form of government BY FAR...again, for all the reasons I outline above.
Anyway...Glad we had a chance to chat. As I said, I think we have a lot more in-common than it may seem. Take care my friend!