Add your Email here to follow EUbrainwashing

Wednesday, 30 September 2015

Crime and Incarceration In a Stateless Society

At the core of 'the state' is the coercive threat and use of violent force. If 'the state' did not reserve for itself the use of force it would fail. In general people may appear to willingly comply with the requirements of the state but that is either because:

* they would act in that way regardless, (they would generally not want to transgress against other people's property), or
* they would act in a different way to the edicts of 'the state' but do not because of the prospective repercussions, or
* they believe it is moral to comply with the edicts of 'the state'.

'The state' is central to, sets the tone of, modern human society in great part. Because people individually agree that employing the use of force is only moral in defence of self and property and agree that groups of people have no more right to employ force than they do individually, there is an unanswered dichotomy, a dissonance, between the circumstances when an individual can morally use force and when 'the state' makes use of it. There is no moral justification for 'the state' to use force outside of those same perimeters of an individual's moral legitimacy.

When 'the state' employs morally illegitimate violent force it attempts to set itself apart from human morality and instead endows itself with a false morality to break this code. Without violent force at its disposal 'the state' ends. 'The state' is nothing without the use of violent force. 'The state' is nothing but violent force. 'The state' is violence.

This violence, which is 'the state', is the cause of enormous harm that runs through human society as a virus. 'The state' breaks the moral code that is the foundation upon which a harmonious human society should be founded. The overall effect of this violence at the core of 'the state' is that the infection spreads through human society and especially manifests in weak points within the social order.

So how would a stateless society deal with crime? In a fully functional stateless human society crime would be vastly reduced as a result of having taken the use of faux legitimated violence out of the core of society. There would still be crime one can suppose, human nature remains and part of that may be for some to still act immorally, against others and their property, if they can get away with it. So assuming there would remain some crime in a stateless society it would need to be dealt with or the immoral people would simply be unconstrained and encouraged.

The lesson to be understood when accepting the utility of a stateless human society is that: answers to every supposed problem are possible to find and then develop. All the people working toward finding resolutions to the needs of society will develop a plethora of solutions and the best of those will rapidly be widely employed. Further, attempting to predict what these solutions will be is as ridiculous, and likely as inaccurate, as it would have been attempting to describe how society and the economy would appear and function after the abolition of slavery. Slavery was not ceased because a 'slavery-free' future was planed and understood in detail but because the immorality of slavery demanded it was made to end. So it must be demanded that 'the violent state' is made to end too.

I do have many ideas of cause as to how free-market policing and justice would take place in a system offering a level of service and accessibility clearly unobtainable when these functions of human society are usurped and monopolised by 'the state'. I too have ideas for what would replace 'the state' operated penal system. The focus of that would greatly depend on what the free-market demanded and what the free-market judicial system could legitimately find legally sound and therefore moral.

I suppose when people cannot be made, by the threat of violent force, to pay to incarcerate offenders there will be a very different criteria emerge as to what is realistically desirable, such as cost-effective achievable goals for reform, deeper psychoanalytical understanding, life-retraining and so on. People who had to be removed from society because of the danger they presented would need to also be accommodated within a system, but clearly; being faced with an entire population entitled to carry whatsoever means of protection they felt prudent the population of hardened criminals would soon reduce to manageable numbers too.

Friday, 25 September 2015

Is BitCoin a Bit of a Con?

What is interesting about Bitcoin is it has been a 'proof of concept' and the concept is now fundamentally proven. So what is next? As with the emergence of the WWW there was this 'eye of the storm' period when, for a while, the systems were in place and nothing much occurred. Then came the DOTCOM bubble. From the ashes today's enduring players arose: formed and consolidated. It appeared to me that nothing much was initially happening because nobody wanted to deal with companies and brands they had no historical knowledge of in the bricks-and-mortar world. Once these friendly faces emerged people went on-line and started shopping with them and soon also with a few notable internet born exceptions: Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay.  I recall Amazon was 'the one' - the big newcomer ground breaker.

Bitcoin has been victim of its optimistic supporters in so much as people have speculatively invested in Bitcoins whereas that is not its real purpose. It is first and foremost supposed to be a means of exchange - that is its strength. But as a means of exchange it has not started to be truly useful. I cannot see making my larger payments say from UKP to JPY is really helped by using Bitcoin as the mechanism of transfer. It needs me to hold funds as Bitcoin and sellers to want to do the same and that is a long way off. It is an unknown and subject to sharp value fluctuations.

Now if the IMF came up with a son-of-Bitcoin that was indelibly tethered to their SDR basket of currencies the day of the digital coin would happen immediately. And if every major bank offered access to the same service too: people would start doing business. This I predict is what is going to happen.

Now all that is fine and dandy but the Bitcoin has one more feature that I presume could not be the case with an IMF-SDR digital-coin which is: Bitcoin is not a fiat currency - there is a finite volume of possible Bitcoin algorithms - so Bitcoin will tend to grow in value if and when its uptake becomes more prevalent - be pro-rata deflationary with growing usage.

The people who understand this make the bulk of the speculative investors today and they have at least 'keep the wheels on the wagon' to this point in time. Bitcoin's potential growth in value yet to come is roughly (optimistically) equated to the value of all the fiat money in the world today.

Will it happen. I think not. There may be a limited volume of Bitcoin's possible to produce but there is no limit to the introduction of other technically comparable digital-coins that could share the supposed same deflationary quality (limited volume). So the idea of a limited volume is not really correct.

I predict there is a place for Bitcoin as an early market leader, an established brand, but it will be joined by a plethora of digital-coins backed by known brands and entities, including maybe even digital versions of existing national currencies, a PayPalPunt, an AmazonAmericano, an AppleSeed and the soon to be popular RothschildRenminbi. The water could become very muddy.

The only survivor could be the 'block-chain' which manages the Bitcoin records amongst other tasks too. But since the block chain is the keys to recording every financial transaction conducted I am very doubtful of its continued independence. I think the UN will claim that crown as the corner-stone to its new global tax regime. Then we can start to understand what may lay behind this anonymous experiment as has been similarly suspected of apparent 'new start' IT providers throughout the history of the digital revolution.

See also: Forming the SDR Global Monitary & Political Union

Thursday, 24 September 2015

If Freedom is Nature, the State is Tillage

Here is a patch of ground - how does it get along? With a natural order each organism appears to struggle for success against others, the worm is eaten by the bird, the trees take light from the ground. Soon a more stable, infinity flexible, order becomes prevalent; one that is optimal for the situation and for the life that can best flourish there. It needs no maintenance, the system is self-correcting. If rabbits boom the fox population grows too and counters that occurrence.

And it is deeper than that. It appears that each organism is an actor in this process but it is not entirely because each organism is a conglomeration of individual cells that are all acting individually in their best interest; which is to work in an ordered but highly complicated system of cooperation to form the organism they comprise.

This patch of ground needs no central planning and nor could that be achieved so supremely as it organises itself just fine. The systems are so intensely complicated it would be imposable to manage 'top-down' but left to operate as it naturally does, ground-upwards, it always produces a harmonious balanced and optimised environment.

Now the alternative is to attempt to work against that natural order and impose some apparently unified mono-culture on the patch - a lawn. It is going to take a lot of work, it is going to require force and resources. It is going to be unsustainable without constant attention and even then it is only going to look like a lawn when its is still just endlessly a natural environment struggling to return to its proper balance.

For what. Why does it need to be a lawn? Human society is not the sum of blades of grass to be unified and simplified, forced and controlled. That is not necessary if the idea is to see life flourish on this patch. Humans are as diverse as they individually wish to be and, acting as individuals, will make the vast plethora of decisions they need to work in their own best interests which then, as parts of a whole, adapt and develop to allow a balance order to flourish.

Friday, 11 September 2015

The 9/11 Epiphany

It was through realising the 'US government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory' is clearly an outright lie, that, searching for solutions, I came to the conclusion, the understanding, that those who believe in the religion of 'the state' form the most dangerous cult in the history of humanity. 

It is the belief in the legitimacy and necessity of 'the state' that empowers it, that makes it appear to be real.  It is not real, 'the state' only exists because people believe it is real and act as if it is real.  You think it is real?  show it to me, not its actors, not its buildings, its papers, its tanks, its schools, its violence.  Show it to me if it is real.

The world may always have bad people who want to cause and profit from harm.  The vast number of them, the psychopathic, gravitate to make use of the power this belief in 'the state' enables.  There is no possibility of restraining 'the state' to prevent its abuse (the USA is proof of this - the most liberally conceived nation in the history of humanity has turned into the most massive war machine in the history of humanity).  There is no modification of the model possible to prevent it from becoming a monster for, for no matter how great or small, it is always, and only can ever be, a monster (or a baby monster in the making).

The great thing about 9/11 - the one 'good' thing - is that: to those who are capable of opening their eyes, their minds, of doing the work, of undoing and setting aside a lifetime of indoctrination, to those capable, they can see that 9/11 was a colossal lie.   Once this is truly realised, really accepted, it is then evident that no other persons, properly informed and who examine the facts, can be of any other conclusion.  It is then logical that not only the US government but the governments of the whole world must also realise this evident truth too. 

So how can the governments of the world's nations continue to operate with such a colossal falsehood in their midsts and yet still be trusted, still be believed in?  They cannot.

How many more lies have been dealt to humanity, before and since, by governments?  How much harm?  How much stolen prosperity?  How much squandered happiness?  How many lives?  Plenty I say. 

Once the paradigm is shattered, once one truly breaks free from the indoctrination that 'the state' is real and valuable, once one learns to see that, far from struggle, without the belief in 'the state' humanity will thrive, one learns to see that 'the state' has caused humanity's progress to be wickedly thwarted and perverted.

When free from the belief one can see: whilst humanity has the propensity for good - that people are intrinsically humane, the opposite is true of 'the state'.  Without the use of force, the coercive threat of violence, with that faux legitimacy denied from 'the state' the state collapses, ineffectual.  The power that 'the state' is dependent upon does not legitimately exist for any individual, does not exist for any group of individuals, majority or not.  'The state' only exerts the power of violent force because it has, granted to itself, that monopoly.  That is, at its centre and fundamental to it, outright evil.

So not only is the religious belief in 'the state' a cult belief, it is a cult based in evil to its very core.  And the only reason why the world is not an even bigger mess, than it clearly is, is because that evil, the evil of 'the state', is moderated by the fundamental good inherent in humanity.

Wednesday, 9 September 2015

The One Certain Truth of 9/11

Whilst I am well informed of a broad range of suggestions I am highly resistant to advancing any alternative ideas with certainty as to how the events of 9/11 came about, none of them are based in solid, indisputable, factual evidence. None of them stack-up as unquestionable. And that includes the, so called, official theory. The official theory is full of inconsistencies that defy belief too.

There is just one thing I am certain of as regards 9/11 and that is we do not know, beyond any reasonable doubt, the truth of the events of the day. And we certainly do not understand the mechanisms by which any of the WTC towers structurally collapsed and how then so much of their residue had greatly disappeared. It defies logic and science.

Basing ones confidence just on the indisputably of the word of the US government and the main-stream media is not enough to 'hang your hat' on that as being fact. Take that notion out of the equation and the house of cards upon which the narrative is built collapses to the ground in a moment leaving nothing but dust blowing in the wind.