mordaunt

Husband. Father. Software developer. Aussie. High on coffee and Bitcoin.

The natural state of the free market is deflation.

Public Key

npub14l0387z0ejfmnn3j38nnalg5p57952d84aqakqguhzx7p7pns2vqg3x78w

NIP-05 Address

jack@mordaunt.dev

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs2lhcnlp8ueyaeecegnee7l52q60z69xn67swmqywt3r0qlqec9xqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejs3s0uyz

Publishing to

nostr.wine

Author Public Key

npub14l0387z0ejfmnn3j38nnalg5p57952d84aqakqguhzx7p7pns2vqg3x78w

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-10-11 23:55:13 UTC

Freedom or Slavery. There is nothing else.
#philosophy

2026-10-11 23:48:46 UTC

- reply

The ideal is "peaceful interactions are preferable".
How we achieve and sustain the ideal is our challenge as a species, and as individuals.
We don't actually need examples of civilizations that encode peaceful ethics to prove the ideal, because that is to wait for it to have already been achieved in the first place.
Many things were thought impossible, with an absolute lack of examples to back up the opinion.
The four-minute-mile was thought to be impossible. Not only is it possible, many have surpassed it since.
That is how I view peaceful ethics.
Most simply cannot comprehend the abundance that lies beyond, if we could simply stop abusing power to "win" short term games against each other.

2026-10-11 23:36:19 UTC

- reply

You can find all of those properties in each of the groups I mentioned.
Orania has farmers, schools, builders, security, management. They generate all of their power from a solar farm. That's complex specialisation by any reasonable definition.
As for the last question: anyone can do what they like. Ideals are the question of shoulds and oughts. What is "right" and what is "wrong".
Whether or not anyone adheres to the ideals is a question of their fidelity to and belief in the ideal.
Categorically though, you cannot be a pacifist and engage in violence.
The moment you engage in violence you fall out of the pacifist category as a matter of fact.

2026-10-11 12:48:12 UTC

- reply

To that, you would say that Evil was done unto them.
You're conflating idealism and pragmatism.
Whether or not a peaceful civilization could be destroyed doesn't change that it was a moral one.
It's also worth noting that ALL civilizations are subject to destruction, including coercive ones.

2026-10-11 12:25:55 UTC

- reply

To be clear, I'm not saying that it would be wrong for them to have fought. Self defense is legitimate, after all.
I'm only using them as an example that even a totally Pacifist group (as in, wont even defend themselves with aggression), can produce a coherent and functional social group that self governs.
If that's the case, then the moral argument for coercion evaporates. There is simply no justification for it, and all who engage in it are given over to Evil.
Mutually beneficial win-win interactions are the ideal, and anyone telling you otherwise wants to exploit you.

2026-10-11 12:21:30 UTC

- reply

Yep.
Modern governments have leveraged violence into a huge threat projection.
They do lots of violence, yes, but mostly it's the threat of violence that is used to coerce people.
It's ingenious really. A true evolution of power: trick most people into thinking it's noble and legitimate, and threaten everyone else.
That way you keep actual violence to a minimum and get maximum compliance.
The awkward truth is that they are so leveraged on threats, they cannot actually make good on those threats. If the average man was to believe violence is not valid, the whole system of coercion evaporates.
It's mostly smoke and mirrors, and a guy with a dagger hiding in the hallways.

2026-10-11 12:13:17 UTC

- reply

The Menonites, for example, have fled war zones and refused to fight or be conscripted. They had no protection.
They migrated to Ukraine, and then migrated to Paraguay - which was "nowhere" at the time.
They carved out their own civilization in the most inhospitable land in Paraguay known as the Chaco.
They are now the main component of Paraguay's economy: beef exports.
What was the place no one wanted to live due it's harshness, they tamed and now have better roads and electrical infrastructure than the rest of the country.
They have preserved their culture and resisted invaders, without being sucked into warfare and violence, and without relying on being "protected" by a big stick.

2026-10-11 12:06:29 UTC

- reply

They certainly are resisting invaders.
Have you tried to join them? If you don't conform to their social values, you will get spat out - peacefully of course, via social ostracism.

2026-10-11 12:03:06 UTC

- reply

More spell casting!
Your spell is that you are blurring the definition of violence, to water it down and hollow out my statement.
That's not an argument, it's trying to redefine words to make your counterpart wrong by definition.
This is no insult to you, I'm just calling it how I see it.
Violence: the physical aggression between humans (or "people").

2026-10-11 11:59:15 UTC

- reply

Menonites and Amish, and there's some practically pacifist groups (as in must organise under voluntary ethics for practical reasons) like the Afrikaaners in Orania.

2026-10-11 11:15:24 UTC

- reply

The only "we" that I need to define is the fact that humans exist in relationship to other humans.
Whether that relationship is (or should be) peaceful or coercive is the debate.
Statists believe that "we" must involve coercion.
Pacifists believe that "we" must not involve coercion.

2026-10-11 11:13:21 UTC

- reply

Violence is well defined, attempting to blur the category is just spell casting.

2026-10-11 11:11:39 UTC

- reply

Pacifist societies do exist, and are doing quite well for themselves.

2026-10-06 12:13:51 UTC

- reply

There it is! It always boils down to a thirst for power.

2026-10-06 10:18:58 UTC

- reply

Exactly. So when will stop pretending it's about the roads and the children?

2026-10-05 23:13:14 UTC

If a Pacifist society can exist, and solve the collective problems of infrastructure and social welfare, then the burden is Statists to justify why coercion and aggression should be used to organize instead.
#philosophy

2026-10-05 23:00:56 UTC

- reply

"You completely red-herring-ed my point."
We can have a friendly disagreement, please don't be a dick. I cut straight to the principle at play, which is the precise opposite of a red-herring.
The fundamental debate over The State is whether aggression is required to organize society.
There is no moral principle, nor pragmatic one, that demands aggression.
(Self defense is recognized as legitimate specifically and precisely because the other party initiated aggression.)
If you mean something other than a fundamentally aggressive institution by the term "State", perhaps we can find agreement about it's necessity.
The belief that, if only you had the ring of power and could reforge the world in your own image, is exactly why we are in the collective mess that we are.
You don't need to worship the power of The State to form a successful collective identity (see Amish, Mennonites, Afrikaaners).
And as you correctly pointed out, it will ultimately destroy the very civilization that wielded it successfully against others.

2026-10-05 22:03:12 UTC

- reply

Slavery evolved in every society on earth. All that tells us is that humans are addicted to power. It says nothing about the legitimacy of the underlying idea (that aggression is essential for organization).

2026-10-05 10:15:36 UTC

- reply

The State exists to violate rights, not enforce them.

2026-10-05 10:11:43 UTC

The taxes will increase until morale improves.

2026-09-03 14:28:07 UTC

- reply

Sure, but Stratum V1 is not.

2026-09-03 12:34:21 UTC

Judge a society by the beauty it generates.
#philosophy

2026-08-27 14:14:46 UTC

If Bitcoin was widely adopted as global currency used to denominate the world, it would rapidly "stabilize" (in the sense of purchasing power volatility).
Things would just get consistently cheaper, in the same way that things get consistently more expensive under the dollar.
#Bitcoin

2026-08-19 12:15:19 UTC

- reply

I feel that.
Personally, I can't get behind Monero as a Bitcoin replacement.
The primary kill shot in my mind is that you cannot audit the supply of Monero, so you can never prove that there's no inflation.

2025-09-15 10:46:41 UTC

- reply

Father as of 7 days ago👨‍🍼