I’d say that my comment is pretty much the antithesis of crypto nonsense because I’m arguing that it’s basically the polar opposite of anonymous transactions and that it would be an avenue for government “overreach” or “tyranny”, or however they would refer to it.
Don’t they usually claim that it’s super anonymous and that it’s the magic bullet for dealing with government tyranny?
I did give mention that it would take years of work and investigative journalism to uncover stuff so I was referring to the ways that the government would obscure its spending without going right into the weeds on this but if we’re going there either:
The government disperses money across an immense array of wallets (?? Idk the term) or accounts and there’s a huge churn as all the money gets moved around, each dollar changing hands a thousand times before it lands where it’s supposed to go. That’s pretty scandalous in itself and it would be a good emperor-has-no-clothes moment for the blockchain and for the public who are advocating for naive reformist ideas like “transparency in government” and “getting lobbying out of the government” because it will reveal power for what it is.
Governments will have a single point where money goes from the budget to the particular department or agency, so everyone can see the government sent the department of education x million. And then the trail ends. This would also reveal how any measures to establish transparency are going to be strangled at birth so same as above.
The government actually allows full transparency and there’s no attempts to obscure where the money goes (lol), which would be its own disaster.
Whatever happens it seems like it would be a real poison pill and having the three letter agencies demanding an exclusion would also definitely happen but it would draw a lot of unwanted attention to the dark/semi-dark money and you would get another uncomfortable moment of revealing the true power and demonstrating these reforms as being wholly ineffectual (as mentioned above).
I’m not saying that it’s a good thing or that the plan would ever have a chance of working - what I’m saying is that if someone actually tried to implement it (which in itself is very speculative and exceedingly unlikely) then every foreseeable consequence of it would be an absolute win, going by my own political objectives.
![[Not the Onion] RFK Jr.'s budget plans](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/103eff8d-455e-4563-b6ba-c664be92b7bb.png){kind=link}
I’d say that my comment is pretty much the antithesis of crypto nonsense because I’m arguing that it’s basically the polar opposite of anonymous transactions and that it would be an avenue for government “overreach” or “tyranny”, or however they would refer to it.
Don’t they usually claim that it’s super anonymous and that it’s the magic bullet for dealing with government tyranny?
I did give mention that it would take years of work and investigative journalism to uncover stuff so I was referring to the ways that the government would obscure its spending without going right into the weeds on this but if we’re going there either:
The government disperses money across an immense array of wallets (?? Idk the term) or accounts and there’s a huge churn as all the money gets moved around, each dollar changing hands a thousand times before it lands where it’s supposed to go. That’s pretty scandalous in itself and it would be a good emperor-has-no-clothes moment for the blockchain and for the public who are advocating for naive reformist ideas like “transparency in government” and “getting lobbying out of the government” because it will reveal power for what it is.
Governments will have a single point where money goes from the budget to the particular department or agency, so everyone can see the government sent the department of education x million. And then the trail ends. This would also reveal how any measures to establish transparency are going to be strangled at birth so same as above.
The government actually allows full transparency and there’s no attempts to obscure where the money goes (lol), which would be its own disaster.
Whatever happens it seems like it would be a real poison pill and having the three letter agencies demanding an exclusion would also definitely happen but it would draw a lot of unwanted attention to the dark/semi-dark money and you would get another uncomfortable moment of revealing the true power and demonstrating these reforms as being wholly ineffectual (as mentioned above).
I’m not saying that it’s a good thing or that the plan would ever have a chance of working - what I’m saying is that if someone actually tried to implement it (which in itself is very speculative and exceedingly unlikely) then every foreseeable consequence of it would be an absolute win, going by my own political objectives.
Appropriating even a single dollar of the $2T budget would take too long to validate