Things that went whizzing by that I want to remember: The typical left-wing position on slavery back before the Industrial Revolution was, more or less: masters should treat their slaves well.... That slavery as an institution is repugnant to Natural Law and to Reason itself—that was an overwhelming step that nearly nobody who wrote things down was willing to take.... If I were a cynical historical materialist, I would say that a blanket prohibition of slavery for all (rather than just for members of the in-group) as against Reason and the Law of Nature is a position that could only be seriously advanced, before the Industrial Revolution, by inhabitants of a commercial kingdom that bought massive amounts of the work of slaves from elsewhere—that had the usufruct of slavery without formal ownership...
The piece by Stephen Diehl is the best I've seen as a critique of crypto currency. I've always had misgivings on the general rule that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Block chain sounds like an interesting method of producing secure and anonymous transactions. However, any institution or activity has opportunity costs attached. These seem to me to be inadequately considered. Perhaps this results from most crypto touters being evangelists rather than analysts.
The piece by Stephen Diehl is the best I've seen as a critique of crypto currency. I've always had misgivings on the general rule that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Block chain sounds like an interesting method of producing secure and anonymous transactions. However, any institution or activity has opportunity costs attached. These seem to me to be inadequately considered. Perhaps this results from most crypto touters being evangelists rather than analysts.