Trillionaires still work in teams; they don't operate in a vacuum. Their influence extends throughout government, which is how they enforce their will, using the police, military, and court systems.
Been there done that but from a different continent flying in. Nobody cares in general unless you're importing scheduled substances. You need to do your research but it's a way to beat the racket.
Drive up to the border and walk across on a day trip to the pharmacy. I believe the first few miles into the country are a NAFTA special economic zone with very relaxed paperwork requirements.
Completely disagree. They have even more to gain by being in absolute control, and bitcoin cannot be completely controlled, unlike a financial instrument which can be adjusted at the whim of the court systems and by decree from a central institution
They aren't dysfunctional in the sense you imagine. Their state is fighting for survival in the face of foreign agents and interference. They are in a weak position to defend themselves so you see them lashing out in less subtle ways. Civilians are unfortunately caught in the crossfire.
TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM
125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other’s land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, “OK, let’s compromise. Give me half of what I asked.” The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom.
126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.
127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications ... how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages.
Younger generations don't use the web browser as their main source of entertainment. Their attention and energy has been siloed to the largest media platforms. They enjoy being serfs on the FAANG plantation.
You could post just about anything online and mostly get away with it for a brief period of time ending around 2004 unless you were wholesale drug trafficking out in the open. Those websites were taken down but not very quickly.
Sometimes I miss the lulz of the sheep being taken to slaughter by tubgirl and goatse.