BitCoin - Mise En Scene?

    The following  brings things around in a circle. I started out online writing for the hacker scene (this was before the internet)   and have gone through various permutations; first reviewing mac audio software, then the business situation during th 97 to 01 boom, then, while in England, the structure of myth and propaganda, and lately, all over the place.

     As the title indicates the question before us  today is the desirability of the use of Bitcoin for the scene. Obviously I am a theorist of the virtual state and not overly concerned with specific logistics - among other things it has kept me out of jail since in large part the authorities don't know what I/We are talking about and as well there still remains the heritage of free speech in America from before.

   OR as Jackson Brown puts it "In America we have free speech up until the point someone begins to listen."

  
            The Scene is sometimes referred to as "You know who you are" and in terms of economic clout I imagine it's in the several  hundred billion dollar bracket. If you ever downloaded anything that someone would have preferred you not - congratulations - you're part of the scene.  (Of course now the word will become over used.)

            The entire process actually is something of a marvel. Each person sees what needs to be done and does it. In a miracle of self organization one person gets the soft and hands it to another who reverse engineers ten to another who puts it online which in turn is the set of another who maintains they have no idea what it happening,

        Suffice to say the creators don't see it as a miracle - they see it as theft.

         Most of us understand that ones chances in life more then ever, revolve around who one's parents are and so  we see it as fighting for survival in a crooked world.  Such is however a question for another day.

 I and others like me expected better then the system has provided and since self reliance is praised that's what we are doing. And there's millions of us being ruled, like ancient Egyptians by a tiny minority of guys in three piece suits. If you wish to argue fairness , go right ahead. We have all the time in the world.





      My answer to the question posed is qualified. One of the rules thusfar set in stone is that one does not pay for warez. Period.  For the scene to operate it requires the combined efforts of many people and for one person to take the result and seek to use it to their advantage alone is definitely a no no.





       The case before us involves a company that wants to in effect "sell"  series tv programs for bit Coin.  Like many pyramid schemes it masks some of the theft via rewards for getting others involved and there are other means of paying.

         I chose to address this because it deals with the essentials of the virtual state, namely ownership and privacy. If the state tells you who to marry that is an imposition on your privacy and as well implies you do not own your own "being."

       A critical but little noticed aspect of the disintegration of the social system is the real battlefield is about who owns the individual - to what extent shall a corporation or governmental agency be free to manipulate the cognitive processes of the individual?

         Most often this comes under the rubric of privacy.  We've admitted previously that the old antidote to abuses of centralized power, namely revolution, is no longer viable. This is more so in the industrialized nations. One can hardly imagine a  group of protesters up against a squadron of  fighter jets.

        This said I'd like to use the term revolution in a softer way wherein  revolution is considered a preserver of privacy. The state has no interest in privacy.

       Paul Krugman has stated that, were he alive today Milton Friedman would be considered a moderate rather then a conservative economist - because the Republican party has move so far to the right. the same holds true with,   of all people, Richard Nixon who would today e called a left winger.  Suffice to say the public at large, especially those suffering under current policies,do not feel like the governing elite.

        The Reagan movement did not effect a permanent change in attitudes. I say this to indicate it was a general realignment. Peggy Noonan was a sparkling polemicist, but those who responded to it can hardly be said to have understood the real meaning of her words.

          So, inthe following I look at privacy, and revolution in two ways. The immediate kind applied to individuals, and the general kind, applied to systems.Certain the two intersect at some point. To great a machine of mass murder one need lists of targets.

         Bit coin, we must assume, is a racket, but in terms of it's deleterious effect on the global currency market that we can regard as desirable  but in terms of our own usage in the barter scene - it is to be rejected.
          

part  2






   
One thing is I can write 500 words in 20 minutes - no sweat - I've been doing it for years. I told a landlord once I have a degree un psychology once. HE said "Oh I hear they often commit suicide."

         If I don't replay to something you say it's either because you have said something  so intelligent I am still making sense of it or you have said something so stupid I can't be bothered. 
 
        Onelearns,basically that a lot of things are said as attacks which in turn are defences of weak minds.  Such was the case with the land lord seeking to "cut me down to size".

       Shit. I have a harelip, a cleft palate, which means I have been making people uncomfortable by my very presence since childhood.  Saying people become shrinks because they are crazy is like saying people become football players because they are afraid of being beat up in bars. 

      to get the the actual subject then - I was just now looking to dl some tv and of course these sites are loaded with snares and  traps and  pop ups etc - One site wants you to pay them in bit coins -

  Aside hacker ethics say you never pay for something someone gets for free.  Even ten thousand worth of soft on a DVD - for  five dollars is no good. It , first of all encourages the wrong kind of people.

   As to Bit coins - if you say the social network movie about the facebook founder, essentially no one comes off looking good. Two brothers wanted to start a similar program and the facebook founder led them on until he could countrol the market - he was eventually fined but like the hundreds of millions of fines payed byt microsoft   there are many times when it is more profitable to break the law then to obey -  for several reasons - one being in many cases the businesses themselves write the actual laws and intentionally play loop holes.


       I'm not not overly interested in the practical workings of BitCoin what is important is it is a global currency - which brings interesting tax considerations into play.


     Again for context - Capitalism in the modern sense was invented by Italian bankers in the 15th century when they extended letters of credit to sailing  voyagers - in  way this was an extension of credit vouchers held by  Templars in the Crusades.  The bankers got very rich- and the idea spread.

    We're at a similar economic crossroads with electric money able to travel round the world instantly.  A lot of it,as I mentioned a few months back, is "dark money" meaning no one knows who owns it and more to the point it is considered not part of any nations  treasury.

          
    Corporations at present can shop around for tax laws, environmental laws, social policies that they like and live under them - but the poor thus far cannot. We are stuck obeying in most cases the laws of the country we happen to be born in.

 the founders of bit coin are not neccesarily nice, or even  intelligent people. Someone comes to them with a plan to make a fortune and they go for it..


    Probably this will not be the first incarnation of what had been called the virtual state.  But I'll leave you with one slightly complicated thought.

    We may suggest that for awhile at least the two forms of currency or government will co-exist. Like Layers  some transactions will take play in national currency and some inthe international barter system

             That is not inconceivable.

       When the possibility of connectivity via telecom became real inthe the early 80's  the first idea that came to mind was called "Zones of privacy"  essentially these were like gated communities only electronic. We have one here although it's simply because we're too insignifigent to crush.

       There's a kicker though. When you send a letter by snail mail it can't be intercepted except by specific court order whereas e-mail has virtually no protection - in other  words in the past ten years theres been a dimmunition of the rights of privacy - some say it's justified since the ability of organized cells to hurt and destroy is increased.

       That's not the current issue however. The idea of a zone of privacy is like putting a fence around the backyard/  You - the individual- are keeping the others out. It' traditional, like the farmer with the shotgun keeping the revenuers away. We can call this internal privacy. 
        It's easy to invade because we all know where the farmer lives.

      The issue of privacy revolves around, power, control and ultimately wealth. We want to keep our gold from you and in turn we want to take your gold for ourselves.  Privacy is about ownership.  As Darwin said watching the natives of Terra del Fuego - until they develop a notion of private property they will remain savages  - ps they are now extinct.

           The thing is law exists for the protection of property.  It is the external manifestation of the impulse to  privacy.  Where as the farmer with the shotgun defends the farm, the sheriff with his guns  defends the notion of property and the right to own property for everyone (allegedly)

      It is only when the external supporters of the old regime  no longer function that a real revolution has a chance of succeeding. That means not just replacing the figure heads but replacing the actual functioning obligations and duties of the power structure with something that works better.


    I'll repeat what I just said in simpler terms.


 We might feel that having purchased an item we have the  right to share it with others and it's nobodies buisness what we do. That is conventional privacy.


Others may feel that is there is the potential of you obtaining such perogatives of privacy then you must systematically be denied that.  That is what I am calling external privacy.

  in even simpler terms

a man wants to buy a fish but he has no money - ergo he buys no fish

or

a man wants to buy a fish but there are no fish inthe stores - therefore  no fish.


the is also known as supply and demand side economics- and it's worth mentioning that for most of us freedom of speech or freedom in most senses of the word means nothing - we are too conditioned to actually think for our selves - but that's alright    

where all this comes into play is the freedom to eat and to have a roof over your head.


   to restate yet again


    then they kick down your door at ten am on a snowy midwinter day to evict you -  that's a loss of internal privacy

          When the police are arresting hundreds of people guilty of nothing more then being onthe street  - as inthe case of the  occupy movement  that's a loss of external privacy.