I call it “Keysnesian-Style” due to the outrageous liquid of supporters perplexing to disagree that Dan’s UBI isn’t indispensably going to be damaging because acceleration doesn’t indispensably equal devaluation. we always try to follow up by indicating out that people watchful for their termly “URI” is probably looking to immediately sell it, as HODLing is discentivised by inflation, and URI is used as a extra income in judgment (in which, mass offered army prices down as people have to reduce prices to strech mutual accord on trade deals).
But let us not look over something potentially more mortal than a UBI.
One of my favorite books of all time was by an author I’m not totally lustful of, but but shares much support for the Mises Institute and libertarianism. His name is Hans Hermann Hoppe. In his book “Democracy: The God That Failed” he outlines the tumble of western culture/values as well as mercantile strength when multitude transposed monarchies and feudal systems with democracies and republics.
But, isn’t democracy freedom?
One side will tell you that it is, that it’s better to have SOME voice then to be theme to a aristocrat but any possibility at all to change the domestic climate. But what does story tell us?
Well, we could start with the elementary fact that the 21 trillion in inhabitant debt is a democracy-republic invention. Also, fractional haven banking and State-Mandated ponzi schemes like Social Security.
But what privately about democracy creates it more dangerous than carrying a king? Doesn’t it concede for more choice from the people?
It’s accurately this distortion that creates democracy dangerous. You’re told that your voice matters, but in reality, the contingency customarily smoke-stack up to your voice only carrying a 1 in a 1,000,000 possibility of mattering. So because would anyone bother?
Smart people don’t. They know it’s not value their time.
Fools do. They don’t know what is and what is not value a person’s time in terms of receiving their possess desires.
So now we have a system where fools make all the decisions and intelligent people just close up and listen. Great.
But does this stop here? No.
Democracy has two methods of securing votes.
1) All votes are unweighted.
2) All votes are weighted to wealth.
Under 1, we get a lot of mud poor, foolish people creation decisions. Under 2, we still get a lot of mud poor, foolish people creation decisions, but abounding people can just overrule them.
EOS chose #2 as it’s character of democracy.
So now, instead of just normal fools determining how we live our lives, only the abounding fools who have leeched off the State get to run our lives.
How does this end?
How does any supervision end?
In sequence to answer this question, we need to serve know what a supervision is. A supervision is a amicable organism. To survive, it contingency assemble wealth, which requires certain renouned opinion. So what happens when you take the income away, or the renouned opinion away? As a amicable mammal stuffing a niche, the supervision contingency adjust to survive, or die.
The standard instrumentation for a unwell supervision is media manipulation. With this, they can artificially increase support for their existence in sequence to secure more wealth. Also, branding taxation increases or acceleration increases or what have you, as being beneficial to a network or village of people is another plan to acrue more wealth.
Time and time we see this again, in America, in Russia, in China, and probably every other nation in the world.
The dignified needed of a parasitic category of people is to tarry as a parasite, being means to catch as much goodies but murdering the horde or it’s possess food source. The sociological needed of supervision is to grow, not shrink.
To move us back to kings, briefly, a aristocrat can only control so much. As a man, he is finite. He seeks out for the long tenure advantage of his people moreso than a politician because he contingency live his whole life “serving” a country, and he can't just emanate hype and embankment a plan like politicians do. But since minarchist, monarchist and feudal character governments do not grow as quick as republic’s and democracies, they were Darwinistically competed out of existence. We are now in the age of democracy.
The subsequent age will hopefully be a series to overcome the parasitic statute class, but if not, then we’re probably looking at a conditions where the government’s of the universe possibly destroy each other or combine into one if they are concordant enough, so that more people can be effectively extorted. Right now, a lot of income goes into military. Imagine what would occur if different countries didn’t exist. That same income could be used to spin a troops force into a military. Orwellian Nightmare Hellhole 101 people.
So let’s get back to EOS. What is EOS? It’s supervision on a blockchain. It has a constitution, governance is performed through voting and campaigning, there is an inflationary financial system built in, and it’s presence requires being means to contest with it’s competitors like Bitcoin, so it aims to be quick and probably giveaway to use. BPs have all the power, and they all work together.
But we know that voting and democracy, doesn’t work. we think this might be because Satoshi Nakamoto refused to confederate any kind of a voting mechanism, and instead incited to mining, so people could be financially incentivised to secure the network AND benefit consensus. Instead, Dan wants to give people disdainful entrance to apparatus lending services IF they vote, which is absurd, since anyone doing it FOR THAT REASON wouldn’t expected caring about who they press the opinion symbol for.
My conclusion: Not all of us determine that supervision is an fundamental evil. Not all of us is an anarchist/voluntaryist. And don’t get me wrong, we like some aspects of the EOS project. we say, if you reinstate voting with a weighted pointless BP pattern that changes up, mislay 4% or even 4.5% of the inflation, and make all stakeable resources NOT JUST Ram deflationary in trade, then EOS might indeed could turn a kickass ethereum killer. But until then, it’s a supervision on a blockchain. And the most absurd part of all of this is that Dan Larimer is a self admitted Anarcho Capitalist / Voluntaryist, while ancillary approved revolutionary and statist concepts.
Take this post as you want, as constructive critique or border beliefs parroting, but you know I’m not wrong. Dan Larimer, the creator of EOS, has good ideas, but he’s ideologically confused and misguided, and it’s causing him to destroy his possess marvel and invention slowly.
Edit: If EOS creates my due changes to the software, or any identical changes, in so that it becomes concordant with Austrian Economics and loyal Anarcho Capitalism, we would not only turn an EOS believer but it would expected turn my second top holding. Until then, I’m staying divided from something with imperative open biometric scans, high inflation, and democracy. Just for personal and dignified reasons.
Article source: https://www.reddit.com/r/eos/