Without government you would be a shivering wreck. People are weak and vulnerable alone- it is only by forming and working in groups that humans have come to dominate the environment and resources. Most people quite reasonably want to be governed and if the government was taken away they would very quickly move to create government- to protect their property and to provide security. The quality of government is always debatable and highly variable for sure- but a population of cynical Libertarians is not going to deliver better government. Libertarians are just the neoliberals of the 1980s repackaged into new memes and slogans. Natural monopolies will be exploited by private enterprise unless strictly regulated and controlled by government. The deregulation of banking that occurred under the neoliberals has created a culture of crony capitalism based upon fiat money and rentseeking debt fueled non productive speculation that has created a massive increase in inequality and corrupted the political process. You are right to be critical of politics and politics but you do not offer any credible solutions. In a democracy- even a highly corrupted one mostly undermined by massive corporate patronage what is required is voluntary participation by citizens to push back against the creeping rentseeking of private business interests- Libertarians fail to do this- instead they enable more rentseeking and corruption of our democracies.

Will take that as a yes.

This is why Bitcoin will not be allowed to be used for payments. This is why the establishment has effectively obstructed use of Bitcoin for payments. This is why the establishment has successfully managed the laws and narrative to neuter Bitcoin into a harmless SoV speculative commodity- increasingly held under institutional custody and almost universally surveilled via KYC. Control over MoE is control of the economy and people in it...and they are determined to maintain and increase their control over you.

You fail to mention climate change...are you a denier?

Yes it is often not worth the effort. Initially I was so enthused by the concept of Bitcoin that I could not help telling friends and family about it- but very very few of them 'got it'. Have come to the conclusion that Bitcoin is too radical and anti establishment for many people- the problem is they do not understand the inherent inequality and power imbalance that the fiat monetary system is built upon and so they are unable to understand the beauty and need for Bitcoin. So I come to the conclusion that people will 'get' Bitcoin when they deserve to- the fact that they do not yet 'get it' is largely because they do not care enough about equity in the monetary system. Perhaps we can try to educate people to understand how the fiat system is fundamentally unfair and manipulative but I still think most people will struggle to understand and accept that and that Bitcoin presents a real and viable alternative. Most people are sheep.

Agree China are unlikely to attack Taiwan militarily- rather they are waiting until they have achieved a position where they and their proxies have demonstrated that the US/West no longer can universally impose its will via force and control of global institutions, resources and protocols. China already dominates global markets in commodities and manufactured goods- they are working on building alternative protocols and institutions - for example their already operational CBDC and the China Development Bank. The CDB has now comfortably surpassed the World Bank as the biggest international lender to developing countries. China is already also demonstrating that it can provide alternative trade settlement routes for nations sanctioned from the US SWIFT hegemony. Yes it seems the population in the West is ignorant or in denial at the rate of the global power shift and the ongoing trend. Surely though western governments must be aware but seem mostly helpless to confront Chinas rise in any credible way. The removal of the pro Russian Syrian regime looks like one win for the west. As for Ukraine being trapped into the current situation it seems like it was just unfortunate in being positioned where it is between Chinas latest military proxy-tributary state, Russia and the Wests NATO stronghold. Arguably, it is Putin who foolishly fell into the role as an enabler of Chinas global strategy with Russia is now entirely dependent upon China while China gains access to cheap oil and arms length military attack on the West via Russia...at no cost to China. Sun Tzu would approve.

While China is mentioned in relation to the potential for conflict over Taiwan nowhere does the article acknowledge that neither Iran nor Russia would be capable of the military actions they have and are engaged upon without Chinas ongoing economic support. The author of the article dismisses the idea that WW3 has already begun. He is wrong. Days before Russia invaded Ukraine Putin and Xi had signed a pact of mutual support. It is only because China now buys the gas and oil that Russia once supplied to Europe and China ignores the sanctions imposed by the US against Russia that Russia still has an economy capable of supporting the ongoing invasion. The war in Ukraine and the war on multiple fronts in the Middle East are between Chinese proxies and US proxies. WW3 has commenced but the MSM dare not acknowledge it. Because China has already won the trade war and the US cannot afford to openly declare war on China as so much of the US economy is dependent upon Chinese supply chains.

Censorship resistant (all participants are treated equally without fear or favour and adoption/use is voluntary), p2p payments, strictly limited issuance = MoE + SoV = good money.

You want to live without government?

There are places on this planet that lack any effective government but we don't see you rushing to go there.

People equally mostly want to be ruled.

Put most people in a situation where there is no government and they will very swiftly organise to put some form of government in place.

WHY?

Because humans are weak and vulnerable individually and only as an organised group can they gain collective power wealth and security.

This simple and self evident reality seems to go wooooosh over the heads of Libertarians.

Don't you know bankers own your government and every government ... except perhaps the CCP in China.

Milei would not be able to close down the central bank - there is not adequate consensus to do that in the Argentine assembly...and it cannot be done via executive order.

But if you look Milei has done a hell of a lot already - its just that Libertarians are not capable of understanding the nature of politics in the real world is getting what can be done done.

Libertarians will forever be pointlessly screeching about what they believe 'should' be done- but they will never do anything, more than complain...because they do not understand and cannot accept the reality that government is a potent factor in the wealth of nations.

Rich for Libertarians to criticize the one politician in power who is closest to espousing their delusional rhetoric. Criticize politicians and governments all you like but you will not go and choose to live somewhere where there is NO RULE OF LAW. If you were you would swiftly be begging for a blanket, a coke and a Big Mac. Libertarians are a joke- delusional intellectual teenagers who cannot point to any real world implementation of their delusional dogma because it is simply unworkable nonsense.

At least he does not outright dismiss Climate Change...even of he questions how to deal with it.

He is a great thinker ~ his thinking challenges some of my beliefs and values.

While not a Christian many of the values that underpin western civilization are.

Christianity got well and truly co-opted by politics.

And science made it hard to accept Christian authority..

We are left somewhat in a moral vacuum.

Identifying and explaining the completely irrational and dangerous idiocy of the Libertarian climate change denial narrative is doing something to make things better.

What Libertarians hate about climate change is that if we accept that it is a threat to humanity the only logical way to respond is collectively.

Any call for individuals to altruistically make sacrifices while zero initiative or lead is taken by governments is disingenuous, illogical and will not work. The main beneficiaries of fossil fuel use and other causal agents of climate change will not logically voluntarily change their behavior.

Acknowledging Climate change is to acknowledge the role of governments in responding to it because it is not a problem free markets can fix.

You can probably find many contributing factors to the severity of the California fires but that climate change is the underlying driving force in this event and many others globally is now undeniable...except for Libertarians trapped in their own death cult loop of irrational denial.

You fail to even address the primary issue raised in my post - that the Wests highly financialised economy is extremely vulnerable to climate change due to its underlying reliance upon insurance to support the value of the property assets it is largely based upon.

If natural disaster property insurance is unavailable in Manhattan how much does that reduce the value of that real estate? It will be a substantial reduction if not a collapse- extrapolate that out to the entire economy which is now highly dependent upon real estate ~ and its underlying dependence upon insurance.

Yes - the many interdependent layers of the fiat debt monetary system... In a major way insurance is crucial to the banks. Without insurance banks will be reluctant to finance assets. Insurers/reinsurers in turn depend on investment in assets to provide the reserve funds required to settle claims. Climate change and resultant declining insurance viability challenges the entire fiat debt based monetary system.

POTUS is not saying the federal government will cover uninsured property owners...or insured property owners.

He is talking about the costs of fighting and containing the fires.

It mostly depends on the specific wording of your policy- and the ability of your insurers and their reinsurers, to pay. READ YOUR INSURANCE POLICY. In large claims events they may delay payment as they gather funds to settle claims.

It depends on your policy wording. Read your policy- carefully.

To answer your questions. 1- Your payout will be determined by the precise wording of your policy. Read it carefully.

2- Payouts for large events can take years to settle...especially when the reinsurers are having to pay out large sums. Climate change has already put the insurers and reinsurers under huge pressure.

3- Most insurers use reinsurers to cover large events like natural disasters...so it is the reinsurers who are called upon to pay most of a large claim event. Governments may be forced to contribute toward settlement of large claims events...especially given the stressed situation many reinsurers are already in as a result of climate change.

Large events such as the California fires are very likely to result in higher future insurance premiums for many people including people not directly affected by this event.

Insurance is becoming increasingly unviable in many cases due to climate change.