Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hodor

World Peace with ILP, Crypto and XRP?

Recommended Posts

I am not so sure about the financing of wars...

In the past kings had to lean on other nobility to help them fight war- usually in the form of man power and resources. When the nobility refused or resisted sometimes they then had to fend off the very king they were supposed to support (revolt/ civil war/ independence/ etc.). In this case it just localized the conflict and lead to the power of might- those that could enforce the right to draw upon resources become the most powerful. In one form or another this trend continues today under different guises.

Perhaps at some point those able to afford war would be the Paypals and Visas of the future... sounds ridicules right? Look to Latin America and the various companies that had established, overthrown or manipulated governments (look into the history of the United Fruit Company and populism of the term Banana Republics). The economic influence allowed them to assume more power until they become the de facto king makers.

One of the reasons governments control Fiat is because they can enforce payment of their own issued script via taxes, fines and transactions. Say Google decouples their own currency from the national fiat in the countries they are present in. All apps and products have to be paid in this new currency at the same time services and content providers will be paid out in the same currency. Now Google would know everything about anyone, control who can send information to all their users and have their financial independent system... It would not be in Google interest to wage war on anyone right? Now suppose Google through some means or another gains control of a small nation state that has cheap power for server farms and allows Google their own security forces to protect said farms. And now suppose the natives of that country resist that idea and rush the server farms, and Google responds by taking over the whole country. If this country was far enough away and in an area we don't care about much, and all the news out of the country came via Google and they did it in the name of 'persevering the personal and sensitive data of all its users' - there might be an outcry, but I doubt much. This of course is an extreme example, but 'war' would be the same. Just financed and conducted differently by different parties.

Wars of the future might be less open and more confined to cyber. It might become less of gaining resources as denying them to others- attacking another countries cyber-money could be waged 'bloodless'  and 'safely' from a distance with the same impact. Imagine if all the sudden all the credit would be locked up behind some sort of encrypted doomsday scenario (ie. Mr. Robot) - an entire financial ecosystem would be wiped out.

We are already seeing a transition to cyber warfare, symmetrical warfare, nation state hacks/ attacks.

So who knows. We might see a return to huge monopoly companies war (similar say to the British East Indian Company), or a shadow cyber war, or even some sort of structured warfare, but war wont be going away sadly I am afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mercury said:

Perhaps at some point those able to afford war would be the Paypals and Visas of the future... sounds ridicules right? Look to Latin America and the various companies that had established, overthrown or manipulated governments (look into the history of the United Fruit Company and populism of the term Banana Republics). The economic influence allowed them to assume more power until they become the de facto king makers.

Fascinating historical topic.  Once I did some research into the "rubber barons" of South America (One Amazonian city was carved out of the jungle by one - Manaus, Brazil) and was shocked by the massive amounts of wealth that were accumulated by one or two individuals. 

7 minutes ago, Mercury said:

Now suppose Google through some means or another gains control of a small nation state that has cheap power for server farms and allows Google their own security forces to protect said farms. And now suppose the natives of that country resist that idea and rush the server farms, and Google responds by taking over the whole country. If this country was far enough away and in an area we don't care about much, and all the news out of the country came via Google and they did it in the name of 'persevering the personable and sensitive data of all its users' - there might be an outcry, but I doubt much.

@Mercury

I think you are correct to assume that the nature of war will change with monopolies, but even Google can't "keep the populace" away from information.  If you look at the war in Syria as a recent example, both sides and interests waged a war online and through the media as well as on the ground.  But the information always leaked out about the "reality" of what was happening despite public announcements otherwise... so I'm not so sure I subscribe to your scenarios, even if a war is run by a powerful global search engine. 

But I admit you may be right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well perhaps not a search engine :P

But it has been a while since we saw anyone with a true strangle hold of a region (barring say North Korea). We have to also remember that the 'tools' to get the truth out, like Twiiter or other internet based technology, have been allied with those interested in getting the 'truth' out.

Another geographic region facing current asymmetrical warefare is Ukraine where both side leak out the 'truth' that constantly differs. As in most things I believe the real truth is somewhere in the middle and there is always more going on then we are aware of.

Anyways, back to the topic. I just think the idea that modern or future currencies making war impossible unrealistic. Government war bonds were released to finance world wars and were a opt in strategy that paid off for example. As a means of national interest Governments have shown remarkable incentive and creativity in financing military power. Germany prior to WWII was broke, facing hyper inflation and hostile regional powers that kept its economy down. In a very short period of time Germany was able to turn its economy around without outside help to point it could fund a industrialized war machine that threatened all of Europe.

Or maybe 'war' would become a every-man option. Say a group of people buy and hold solar-coin, a currency linked to solar energy that derives profits based on power consumption. Say such a group operates under a DOA. Say on a budget vote they decide to split profits to 20% dividends, 20% R&D and, 20% re-investment and the last 40% to hire hackers to take out a rival's energy system and to market manipulate the rival's currency. It would be just business and might be even a response to a previous provocation. People vote behind a screen and seems like a no-one-gets-hurt scenario. Except for that village in Africa that depends on the competitors local grid for all of its energy needs from powering the local school, mobile medical clinic and villages only water supply pump. Is this as devastating then a traditional war scenario?

With more resources running on or linked to these new economies and currencies the more incentive there is to disrupt them with extended consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another idea just occurred to me. A comment that both you and @JoelKatz mentioned was it would be harder for states to fund unpopular wars, what if this was flipped on its head and there was a popular war?

What if someone tried to wage a asymmetrical popular war? Today we see some actions by some groups like Anonymous that are proven to be popular. International terrorist groups get financial backing from around the world- ISIS was soliciting traditional backing as well as BTC. After all one sides terrorists is another freedom fighter. To date these are fringe efforts, but what if someone at some point made a popular movement funded by an ICO?

History has rogue private armies 'conquering' territory and then selling them to such entities like the East Indian Companies (yes plural), gold miners and interest groups 'invading' native land in America in the hopes of being absorbed by the US government (for all those Deadwood fans), yellow paper journalism was in large part responsible for the Spanish-American war- these efforts were all backed by private monies with the promise of future profits. This is not distant history and national and central fiat was well already established.

What if a decentralized crowdfunded effort was used for a 'good and righteous' cause? Say a peacekeeping effort? It is a dirty open secret that some current peace keeping efforts hire security companies (ie. mercenaries). After a very public attack on a school or something that goes viral people may be upset by governments slow or unwillingness to go into a region. Instead of re-directing the anger into donations to Red Cross maybe a more direct response... A international foreign blue helmet legion perhaps? After all the white helmets accept donations, an armed and reactive version, or even an associated component  might prove popular if it can react faster than UN and international forces. A DOA peacekeeping brigade?

Heck, some security companies might even operate a go fund me type page as a means of direct and independent financing. Can you imagine a charm social campaign between private armies tying to self fund themselves? 'Support protection of orphans in x region for only a price of a cup of coffee- tweet your support now!'

It could be argued that by making war the realm of central authorities who had to directly fund them the total number of conflicts have fallen (if not the severity when they do occur) in part because these governments and authorities have to balance all interests.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mercury said:

Another idea just occurred to me. A comment that both you and @JoelKatz mentioned was it would be harder for states to fund unpopular wars, what if this was flipped on its head and there was a popular war?

What if someone tried to wage a asymmetrical popular war? Today we see some actions by some groups like Anonymous that are proven to be popular. International terrorist groups get financial backing from around the world- ISIS was soliciting traditional backing as well as BTC. After all one side terrorists is anthers freedom fighter. To date these are fringe efforts, but what if someone at some point made a popular movement funded by an ICO?

To me this is actually a potential positive.  Thus far it has been impossible for any peaceful citizen's group to raise money to quickly counter truly agressive and destructive efforts from adversaries!   ICOs could be put to use on the side of good... (of course, my good could be considered somebody else's bad, and all those other philosophical arguments!) 

:JC_thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hodor said:

(of course, my good could be considered somebody else's bad, and all those other philosophical arguments!) 

:JC_thinking:

Of course. I am sure the enemy would be saying the same of you. Just hope they have less followers and social reach :P... I would dread such a scenario as it would actually allow wars to escalate more quickly and be more accessible (sounds like a Silicon Valley IPO, throw in scary words like scale, reach, the under-warred...)

But all these scenarios if they do happen are in the future. More immediate is small scale- the darkmarkets already offer hit man services, say this became more accessible? We can play the what if game all day but the fact that there is even an IF... scary. After all history repeats itself..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation. AII this goes at the heart of the fact that technoIogy deveIops way faster than IegisIation intended to heIp controI it. One of the deepest darkest secrets of war is that it is a money spinner.   Most of the ideas here suggest that war is meant to wrestIe controI of something vaIuabIe from one group to another and crypto can be used for this. However. In every war there is a smaII group of peopIe that make obscene profits. Unbeknowest to many is that most of the wars that have pledged Africa for so Iong are funded by weaIthy deveIoped states. They pretend to support one side and quiteIy fund both sides and provide them with weapons. In the chaos many mineraIs are quietIy slipped out of the warring states' territory and taken to the deveIoped nations.. for free. The weaIthy parties therefore make money from the weapons soId to the war and so much money from the the mineraIs that have IiteraIIy been stoIen from those nations. Another exampIe is the unprecedented bombing in the middIe east by the Trump Admin. The bombs dropped are mostIy made by companies Trump has invested in. Imagine how much money he is making per bomb dropped? @Mercury rightIy points out that the worId ruIers and nations controI the money suppIy and in so doing wage wars for this conroI and this articIe reaIIy makes a good note of this issue.

        https://hackernoon.com/why-everyone-missed-the-most-mind-blowing-feature-of-cryptocurrency-860c3f25f1fb

However. I reaIIy beIieve that as Iong as humans stiII run this pIanet and war remains this profitabIe it wiII be so difficuIt to achieve worId peace. Infact crypto currencies may just be used to wage more wars inorder to make more money and controI more resources. War coin or a coin that is excIusiveIy meant for the exchange of armaments may just become one of the most successfuI and profitabIe if created unfortunateIy. WorId peace is stiII out of sight and I strongIy beIieve that the key to achieving it is to make war Iess profitabIe and one way is the space economy. This may just give us few hundred years of peace with aII those untapped resources.  AtIeast untiI the intergaIactic wars start as resources become scarce.      

Edited by Tikrp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...