No technology is inherently good or evil. All technology is a tool, and the morality of a tool lies in it's wielder. If technology appears to be evil, it is an indicator that those using the tools in our society are being evil.
Towards a Liberatory Technology - Lewis Herber (Murray Bookchin)
This is how I didn't know I'd visited Bosnia & Herzegovina until afterward. My friends and I were not paying attention and assumed the customs booths were toll booths. We probably looked like we were trying to bribe them but they were very kind regardless.
Isn't Marxism-Leninism the one branch of communism that has far and away the most real world proof that it's particular style does not work for bringing about a utopia? Not to be one of those "communism doesn't work just look at the USSR" goons, but very clearly the continued embrace of hierarchy and it's power creep is largely what aborted that project in a matter of decades (Having to coexist in a world with capitalism sure didn't help, but no communist project gets the option not to).
My cat has a more precise internal clock than humans could ever engineer.
I am very familiar with your perspective. Like I said we fundamentally disagree on centralization and hierarchy. Put simply, we have different theories on the nature of power. I believe you have a naive and under-developed understanding of power, which then necessitates a few fallacies in your perspective - Specifically that centralization and hierarchy are necessary for complexity (A naturalistic fallacy), and that those things can be "eased out" systemically over time (Like one believing they could dismiss Cthulhu back to the void).
No, Archer.
To be clear I am referring to marxist definitions of property and not common law definitions. It's not personal as it has no personal practical use to me, it is very purely an asset, a fungible and liquid capital. The possession of which necessarily deprives others of doing the same (Finite supply). I own it specifically to leverage it's value and that alone.
OK so you don't think hierarchy is a barrier to actualizing post-scarcity, while I definitely do. Doesn't sound like we're moving each other off our respective stances.
Right, assuming you want increasingly complex machinery and supply chains predicated on a framework of institutional hierarchy that necessarily recreates individual concentrations of power. That's like, the largest issue with unenaxmined Marxism that most contemporary Marxists and other communists have with it.
I agree with your ultimate assessment of money, but the security mechanism of bitcoin is an order or two less energy demanding than the security mechanism of the dollar. The US military is the largest consumer of energy on the planet. Projection is how champions of US hegemony attack bitcoin. Theirs aren't the best arguments for you to use, keep it simple and stick to the base condemnation of money and crypto's technological acceleration of it's potency.
Social classes are a quintessential form of hierarchy. Also, hierarchy is not really a natural phenomenon (There are limited scenarios in nature that humans like to describe as such, but they generally don't meet the same criteria as human social hierarchy). And it doesn't necessarily emerge from increasingly complex production, the other way around really, it has been the organizational scheme that enabled much of our complex production (Especially if that complex production required human exploitation or coercion at any point, as hierarchy is most useful as a way to get people to participate in things that are against their own interests).
I keep telling people we don't need to strive for post-scarcity, we've already had it for a full century. We just need to eliminate the hierarchy that keep us from enjoying it.
Oh no! Anyway...
Does all British food look like literal diarrhea or only the British food that gets photographed?
That's not a surprise, nor was it unknown. Pretty much all pre-"social media" discussion sites were PHP. Myspace probably was, too. PHP also isn't intrinsically insecure, it just doesn't lend itself very easily to security.
Liberal institutions with the capability to easily stop Trump through solidarity instead watching idly he steps all over them:
It's money. It's private property. I'm anti- both of those. But, I am coerced and compelled to participate in a monetary economy. So, as long as we are stuck in this situation I choose to save my money in a form that is the most reflective of my rejection of existing centralized hierarchical institutions and one that I believe can leverage those rather toxic aspects of capitalism to springboard it's value. Like, you don't have to be a monetary luddite just because you're a communist (In fact, some people are communists and socialists specifically because they understand money more intimately and exactingly than most capitalists).
So I'm money negative overall, bitcoin positive within that negative space. I'd be cool if it sucked a bunch of the inflated value out of real estate, though I don't know if it'll actually do that. Governments for sure will never allow it to hamstring their ability to raise military funding through inflation as a lot of anti-war libertarians envision.
With the rear seats dropped my MK5 GTI has almost as much cargo space as some of those bloated cries for help.
That is a good point, I guess what seems disrespectful about telling someone they're gay is that it seems to ignore that distinction.