pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @softglitter2d OP 6 Nov \ parent \ on: If Donald Trump doesn't free Ross, what is your next step? AskSN
Does he have the power to release him? Yes, he does
So...why didn't Trump release him in his previous administration? That's other question, before 2020 he could potentially release or pardon him but he opted not to.
Well, you could say a bunch of rights
TLDR: Yes, there are laws that require you to have a name since it's considered a first-generation right, but enforcing it can conflict with personal freedom.
Now, let’s expand on this:
The word "name" we use comes from the Latin nomen, which also derives from nominis, meaning designation. The early Indo-Europeans wanted to distinguish each other, so they started labeling things or people. We use names to characterize and identify a person.
In legal terms, names have historical functions:
- They allow us to identify individuals and their origin. For example, Darthcoin of Tatooine isn’t the same as Darthcoin of Coruscant. Even if there are two Darthcoins in the known universe, we differentiate by nomen, in this case, of planets or places.
- Names convey attributes: Humans often attribute magical qualities to names (Harari discusses this extensively in Sapiens), and names can carry those attributes. Examples that come to mind are Pepin the Short, Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great. Royal names like Juan Carlos of Spain, Charles of England, or Charles III are used to distinguish one from another.
- Names reinforce the person-community bond, as humans are inherently social. Function 1 highlights this point again.
- They facilitate communication, which is obvious. Try communicating without names. The mental image of that scenario is quite funny.
Why did naming start being enforced?
There’s no simple answer, but over the years, emperors and feudal lords needed to label those under their rule to collect taxes. We see this in Sumerian and Mesopotamian tablets, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Roman censuses. Now, having looked at the historical function of names, we ask: is it necessary to have one?
Usually, names are chosen by legal guardians, such as parents. Many people see this as an imposition, and indeed, the State today allows people to reject their birth names and choose another as a reflection of personal autonomy.
This is where social responsibility comes in. The laws originating thousands of years ago require each individual to act according to their individual obligations. Without this, it would be impossible to assign you legal rights and obligations. In matters of inheritance or crime, having an identity is the starting point.
So, do I need to have a name?
Here, I think the analysis narrows down to:
- Having a name to differentiate myself from others
- Having a name to claim rights and responsibilities
- Having a name to exercise rights and responsibilities
This is where the State itself allows name changes but within legal limits.
So, what’s the answer? No, they cannot impose an identity on you, as identity changes over time. The real issue lies in the imposition or lack of labeling by a State. A person identifies by a name, which could change tomorrow. States tend to discourage this as it affects one of their primary tasks mentioned earlier: taxation.
Remember, according to the State, you own your country because there's a social contract.
Bitcoiners must engage with the traditional political machine. Both to protect and extend Bitcoin itself, and to ensure the most positive synthesis of the two systems. Because Bitcoin is itself just politics by another means.
I don't get how people can claim that bitcoin is not a political tool. It's a currency that pretends to have an alternative for the fiat system, which last time I checked it was managed by (checks again notes)....politicians.
Politics is just another way to embrace. And yes, you are so right when you point that:
Bitcoin has built a political structure of its own
I have like...five or six, which I didn't mentioned yet...but until now, Gregory the Great [64] and Leo the Great[45] are my two favorites, in that order...so far. I have more, not just how they handle the theological part but also to build a relationship with kings and leaders. Those are coming next chapters.
Currently reading about Roman Empire...and have many annotations. Maybe from that perspective, then I'm reading modern history with many comments. Those are for the moment :)
Then again, these are my findings, there are things obiously I missed or didn't take into notice, so when you DYOR, it's even better and funnier.
One way to put it is studying what they did for mankind. I'm currently writing about the Popes, all my 20-pages of annotations, checks, comments and everything I learned of each of these leaders1. About if they did something good, they did but also, we have bad and ugly popes that used religion as an excuse.
So, my short answer will be, yes, they did good stuff.
Footnotes
-
Worth notice that is an ongoing work. ↩
I'm creating music with my girlfriend, we have a set of musics including some tech-bitcoin explained, sertaneijo and jazz for your coffee. Follow us at Wavlake and of course, NOSTR. we're testing the value-for-value formatting.
Look Pope #23, there's your answer sir.