Anarchism does not belong to the socialists. Anarchism is as old as Lao-Tzu & Christ. There a many anarchist schools of thought, my favorite being individualist anarchism. The following is an adaptation from Anselm Bellegarrigue's 1850's Anarchist Manifesto.
The sacrifice of the individual and their property has always been justified as a virtuous act for the preservation of society, the collective, and the State. This justification, this dogma, upheld by philosophy and politics, has served as a basis for power.
It has never been true, it will never be true. it cannot be true, that there is on earth an interest to which I owe the sacrifice. On earth there are only individuals; I am an individual; my interest is equal to that of any other; I owe nothing to the collective, because I am part of the collective . I owe nothing to the government, for the government gives me nothing,—in fact, has nothing to give me except that which it takes from me.
Do I, then, deny collective interest? Certainly not. Society is the inevitable consequence of the aggregation of individuals; collective interest is an unavoidable deduction from the aggregation of private interests. Collective interests can be complete only so far as private interest remains intact; if collective interest is defined as the interest of all, the moment the interest of a single individual in society is injured, collective interest is no longer the interest of all, and consequently has ceased to exist.
If the community needs to run a road through my field, it may compensate me. Here it is my interest that governs; individual right weighs over collective right. I have the same interest that the community has in having a road, but not in sacrifice to myself. So it is the communities' interest to indemnify me; which moves my interest to yield. Such is the collective interest that springs from the nature of things.
But when you close my establishment, forbid me to work, restrict my speech, prohibit me from being a lawyer or a doctor by virtue of my private studies and my clientèle, order me not to sell this and not to buy that,—when, in short, you call collective interest that which you invoke in order to prevent me from earning my living in the open day, I declare that I do not understand you.
Let us leave this frightful and outrageous fiction, and let us say that the only way to protect the collective interest is to protect private interest.
John Tierney, the author of “The Real War on Science” has a few words on this: “Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. (In sociology, where the ratio is 44 to 1, a student is much likelier to be taught by a Marxist than by a Republican.) The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth.”
To find all the articles my friends and I featured, browse the following:
Next time you’re feeling melancholy, or even depressed, let this thought console you…"at least I didn’t go into debt to write about black anuses”
I will make this brief and to the point, respecting the spirit of my post's title.
Roger Ver and those associated with BU have a dislike for the core dev team, and segwit. Roger has been very vocal regarding his idea of how Bitcoin should move forward and so has his opposition. This week we happened to all be at a conference together and efforts were made to have a productive dialogue.
Tone Vays started the discussion with Roger, after which Trace Mayer and I thought a more technical follow up was needed, so we asked JD of blockstream to flesh out some points. The intention was for the two sides to expand their common ground, to stop animosity, and to agree on a path forward for Bitcoin considering the solutions available today. After several private and public discussions, no one's attitude or understanding of Bitcoin has changed.
There were points where he was asked "if core increases blocksize to 10 MB tomorrow, will you get behind core & segwit, and disassemble BU?" and "how about signaling segwit on BU?"
Roger tended to defer the questions or respond with "we asked core to do something years ago and they didn't listen."
I later asked Jake the first mentioned hypothetical and he simply said "no."
I'm not sure if much else can be said.
I understand Roger's frustration, but writing sound code is hard, and doing things right is a priority over making companies happy. Core cannot compromise code quality because someone's business model is suffering.
If Roger wants a Zero-Confirmation StarbucksCoin that is controlled by miners, he has a right to fund its creation. I will miss him as a positive voice for the original protocol, but I'm happy that it's now more clear as to what everyone's intentions are.
1. BU will continue to develop, while making technical blunders (such as their recent loss of 13k due to the mining on an invalid block) and remaining perpetually behind (~4000 commits as of today).
2. Core (around 120 active devs) will silently keep working on awesome stuff like mimble wimble, tumblebit, Schnorr, MAST, etc.
3. Bitcoin will keep its status quo until Jihan (bitmain CEO) makes a move
Until then, shhhhh…let the work talk.
I revisit Cody Wilson and speak to him at length about "Come and Take It," the first significant millennial memoir. Here is our conversation edited into two segments.
"Your fathers have died for less"
-How BTC funded the defence distributed "wiki weapon" project
-How they tried to paint him a racist
-Notable passages from his book
-On the state of the hateful boomers and the castrated millennials
-The childish maker movement
-The hell of enforced positivity
-On liberty and free enterprise
-On the loss of purpose
-Harmony vs. Chaos
-Amir Taaki was right…about everything
"It is imperative that the European project fail, and fail quickly"
(In the video I used mice as an example, but voles also give us a good indication about what factors shape our mating strategies…plus it works better with my pun below)
Meadow voles and prarie voles are 99% genetically identical. The meadow voles are promiscuous while the prarie voles are monogamous. Why the difference? Their environment. Meadow voles live in an environment where food is abundant, and where it doesn not get too hot or too cold; they don't need high parental investment from both parents to have a high survival rate. So the male voles take on a promiscuous strategy and go around spreading their seed. The prarie voles live in a less stable environment, so for the male to spread his seed is redundant because his offspring cannot survive with a single mother. Prarie voles have a high parental investment from both parents.
Monogamous voles have more vasopresson receptors. This is the hormone that enables pair-bonding. Scientists took genes from the vasopressin receptors of the prarie vole and injected it into the brain of the meadow vole..which caused it to pair bond with a single female.
Human's react to their environment as well when it comes to mating strategy, and if you look at a man' vasopressin receptors, you will get a good indication of how monogamous he will be.
WE ARE MEN NOT MICE? No, we are mice and voles.
In this video I discuss:
1. Mating Strategies- rape, promiscuity, polygyny, monogamy.
2. I give a better explanation for the rise of single moms than "they just want those benefits."
3. Why rape goes up during war.
4. Why polygyny is great for women while monogamy mostly benefits low-middle income men.
5. How our animal friends do it, and how we're not so different.
6. How testicles give us huge clues into our behaviour.
7. How monogamy can be measured by vasopressin.
1. Correction: It's elephant seals, not walrus 🙂
2. Polyandry in India is religiously inspired fraternal polyandry to avoid division of farming land.
Check out this book. It's awesome.
Wright, Robert. The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Pantheon, 1994. Print.
Female Mating Strategies
resource extraction, seeds of confusion, best of both worlds
2. Risks and benefits of lifelong monogamy
3. Awesomeness of polygyny