More Libertarian leaning Opposed the creation of a national bank But but but.. he wasn't fully like that after he came to power it seems like. So there's that (that's the case with anyone who comes to power).

https://youtu.be/P7JRvwfHFwo

I used to like Hamilton because of that pretty good musical by Lin-Manual Miranda (It's very good actually). Then I discovered Libertarianism and realised he was just another big government guy and that Jefferson was the based one.

Aye bro look at the meme that's what I tagged you for lmao You be preaching to the choir 😂

On its own, it can't 'do stuff'. Nope. A human being can tell it what to do, and only then it will. That's how it is now. And that's how it will always be. We won't get further if we can't agree on definitions. 'Doing stuff' and 'acting' are the same things to me. And I extensively defined what it means to act. Not sure how the concept of doing stuff differd from those definitions.

Wait no no no you misunderstood me Don't subscribe *just* for this. Only do it after going through a few issues and if you feel like it's worth spending your money on. Besides, issues that get sent to your email directly will always be viewable for free, except for a portion of the quick media section. Only he web version gets paywalled after 1 full day of being free. Making you pay for a subscription wasn't my intention at all 😂 Rather, here's a screenshot with your submission:

It was all related and implied. The reason why I defined all that was to explain what 'acting' entails. Everything I described as the categories of 'action' are things an AI cannot do. I thought it to be better than simply saying that an AI cannot act. •An AI can't aim at ends and consciously choose the means to achieve those ends. •It cannot own itself or other resources and things. It does not have a will. It has no conception of 'labour'. •An AI cannot understand the concept of scarcity because it cannot own things. •Not being able to aim at ends or understand the scarcity in means, it cannot choose between different ends and means. •Not being able to own things, it cannot bear the costs and risks. •Not having any conception of costs and risks, it cannot have preferences. •It cannot have profit and losses as a result of all the above. All an AI can do is do what it's told. And this function of doing what it's told can increase in complexity. That's pretty much what we're looking at. Thus, an AI cannot act. Of its own accord.

Thanks for the submission Vinney! Whitepaper books seems like a good project. https://whitepaperbooks.com/ Featured it in our Thursday issue (#381): https://www.btcbreakdown.com/p/issue-381 We put up paywall after one day of leaving it free for all, so I'm not sure you'd be able to see it right now, unless you're a paid subscriber. If you aren't, I'm sorry that I didn't tell you immediately so that you could see your contribution.

An AI can't 'act', is what I meant. The rest was about explaining what I mean by 'acting'. Not separate things.

I've learnt to articulate it a bit better since we last spoke about it: Only human beings can 'act'. When we say act, we mean to say: •Aiming at ends. •Understanding the concept of scarcity in the means available to achieve those ends, like time, energy, resources, capital, etc. •Choose the preferrable ends and means by rank ordering them. •Bear the opportunity costs of aiming at certain ends and means over others. •Choose the preferrable ends and means based on costs. •Take the risk of incurring a loss by choosing the wrong means to achieve their ends. This is basically the action axiom. Wading further into the philosophical territory, we can say that only human beings can 'reason' about things. H/T Hans-Hermann Hoppe. His writings have helped me understand the above. Furthermore, perhaps a theological argument can be made that only human beings have the ability to access 'revelational knowledge'. Only they have the gift of self-realization. But I am too young and inadequately read to elaborate this particular point properly.

😂😂

Would be amazing if you could make a tutorial for the embedded node version of good ser 🙏 Would be lovely to share it with Bitcoiners I know, get them onboarded to it and help them go fully and truly self-custodial while using Lightning.

It is about holding a politician who claims to be libertarian to a libertarian standard. This means attaining libertarian goals through libertarian means. A fiscal surplus achieved by increasing tax coercion is certainly not a libertarian policy program. Increasing govt debt is not a libertarian policy program either, as it just pushes the instance of tax coercion into the future. If the surplus was attained by reducing spending, reducing debt and also reducing tax coercion at the same time, then yes. It can be appreciated. And the counter argument that 'net taxes' fell is also not what I consider to be the standard. There should be no increase in taxes whatsoever. In terms of monetary reform, abolishing the central bank would be worthy of praise. Backing the Peso with Gold would be another one. The fact that no government doing this is not a valid justification he can give either. And it's not just an economic criticism. There's also the question of whether he brought in libertarian legal reforms.

I'll give you pointers because I'm not from the same jurisdiction you live in and do not deal with the same laws as you do: >>How do we break this cycle? Look for subsidies that make the production of certain crops artificially cheap. You'll find answers as to why the demand for healthy food isn't being met and producion is diverted towards less healthy alternatives. This gets reflected in the prices of the end product and the sales of it. Which then reflects on the balance sheet of the companies that produce these end products. Also look at the make-up of the basket of goods in the CPI index and see if there's correlation with which crops are being subsidized. The political incentives are right there. >>How do we develop a for-profit company that evaluates the food industry independently and informs the people of what is healthy and what isn't? 1. Build a platform online that evaluates food products. Or a customer base offline through word-of-mouth. 2. Gain the trust of people who listen by being consistent and honest. 3. Get into sponsorship agreements with companies that are producing healthy food. 4. Let audience book one-on-one consulting sessions in which diet patterns are recommended. This business model already exists and there are those I know who are consulting with people and upgrading their diets. The other option is to invest capital and start producing food that's healthy and of better quality than existing, less healthy alternatives. Looking for regulatory restrictions or barriers that hinder such production will have to be removed. >>Who quality-checks the quality-checkers? The service being provided is informational and educational. When a quality-checker is found to be unreliable, his customers will stop paying for his service. He will lose his position in the market and be replaced by a competing quality-checker. If it's a legal service that's expected where the food producer is sued in court, then there's the question of whether fraud is involved. If there is, and it isn't punished, then it's a failure of the legal system, not the market. If the legal system has failed, then private arbitration tribunals that go after the producers for fraud will have to be permitted to exist. And there will have to be a private appeals court system for challenging the decisions from these tribunals. And I repeat what I said earlier: even with all this, if a person still voluntarily buys something he knows to be unhealthy, then that is his responsibility and noone else's.

Same goes for full nodes for Bitcoin, routing nodes for lightning and relays for Nostr

Ergo, Play fiat games, win fiat prices

>>But who hires them and pays them? Same as any other business. Investors who see the opportunity in the market, entrepreneurs who start the business and the customer who pays for the services. >>Who quality-checks the quality-checkers? The market. Much better than the current situation where the monopoly regulator does not get quality-checked. If they were indeed being quality-checked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. >>We get into this 'web of trust' model where you somehow have to determine which of the competing "experts" are trustworthy. The market will determine who is trustworthy and who isn't. The companies that lie will lose their reputation and go bankrupt. >>How do we structure it? Trying to structure it through a top-down approach is the reason for the current mess. The market is a discovery process that is bottom-up by nature, comprised of people having differing ends and means. It cannot be designed, predicted or planned. Beyond this, nothing can be done. Nothing ought to be done as well. People buy what they want to. They are ultimately responsible for what they buy and eat. The desire to tell other people what to do is a path towards tyranny.

Yep it was Saifedean https://saifedean.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-the-milei-ponzi Also: "It is true that he has made the names of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and other thinkers of the Austrian School known to a wider public. But his knowledge of their ideas and theories is superficial and flawed, and his praise is therefore double-edged. In any case, we can only advise the public not to regard Milei’s statements on economic philosophy as authoritative... ...it is not enough that he pursue liberal goals with his policies. Rather, the political means must be objectively suitable for actually achieving those goals. This should be self-evident, but it is often disregarded in politics, as Ludwig von Mises repeatedly pointed out. Milei’s policies are a case in point." - Prof. Dr. Rolf W. Puster, Prof. Dr. Jörg Guido Hülsmann and Prof. Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe https://mises.org/power-market/resignation-scientific-advisory-board-ludwig-von-mises-institute-germany

I don't see why these experts have to be a part of a monopoly regulator. It's obvious that a monopoly is prone to capture. I don't see why there can't be competing organizations that keep track of the quality of service provided by food, health and social media companies. They don't have to be non-profit. They can be paid for their services. There are many potential business models here. Market competition will keep them from being captured. Every service provided by the government can be provided by the market more effectively.