RE: BLOCKCHAIN: In the future History may stop being written/edited by the victor...
When I was watching G20 and they stopped the broadcast right when actual event/debate starts, I was like "U wot m8!?"
For me even the word "public" implies that the people are able to look into it without barriers.
The idea of achieving total transparency through blockchain is nice and we might actually have people learn from our mistakes if our history is not written by the victors.
However if Blockchain becomes the established currency people will find a way to trade outside of the blockchain to keep their secrets. Since you don't want to use force on people for non-violent behaviour it is hard to force them to use the blockchain.
Sure there might be that golden age where everybody agrees that monetary transactions should be transparent, but I think that is very unlikely to happen.
Anyone that claims to be acting on my sovereign authority, as government claims, has no right to conceal how it wields my authority from me. Either government uses the blockchain, or it abdicates.
big words much, mate?
=p
It is known
well, actually your argument comes from an emotional place. Why would others feel the same way? There might be a lot of people who argue that government should be allowed to keep secrets so that the "enemies of the state" can not easily attack it.
They are welcome to do with their authority as they wish, as long as they leave mine be.
In whatever the case may be regarding the actions of government, insofar as they claim to exercise my authority absent my agreement, they are not exercising my authority at all, and therefore have abdicated their claim on my sovereignty.
This is the natural consequence of not having my agreement to act on my behalf. I have sovereign authority, and they do not have my agreement, therefore my sovereign authority remains my own.
Under what theory can they be considered to act on my behalf absent my agreement? I am unaware of one of legal effect.
Parenthood would bea common example.
What if you are really sad and really want to press that kms button and I want to stop you. I can not stop you so i am calling an ambulance to help you. I am forcefully interfering with your right to decide about life or death of yourself, are you OK with that?
No. In fact there is a death with dignity act, IIRC, in Oregon.
Are you ok with people living, and dying, as they see fit?
The Fatherland is not presumed to be my parent under any legal theory of which I am aware. Are you stating that that is the relationship between the citizens of a nation and the government?
no I am stating there is a relationship between people where naturally authority is given away from child to parent, without the child ever signing up for it. I literally mean parenthood.
Same for suicide. If my brother wants to kill himself in a moment of overwhelming sadness, I will protect him from himself (my brother has no severe depression, this is a theoretical example)
Sure, I am against most forms of state, you can read about it in detail in one of my last post. Funny thing is though that the contract between state and citizien is meant to be a social contract as well, but the auto-check on the checkmark at birth is a problem indeed and this (once good intended) contract got warped into the thing it should protect us from, an oppressive power.