The Self-Awareness Has Gone

Think I might start posting daily again ( ..well, daily the days I'm not at work anyway). We'll see how it goes. I'm in quite a bad mood about Boris being forced to resign this week. I won't go over the ins and outs, but the spectre of another Tory leadership race made me revisit some of the posts I wrote back in 2019. Back then I was posting daily, and it was quite a useful endeavour. It's also provided quite a handy reference to look back on. To see where my thoughts were then and where they are now. So it might be good to begin again.

One of the disappointing things about Boris leaving for me is that I think he's actually much more intelligent than most of the other people in politics. I read a book about John Lennon a few months back and there was a quote from the singer Billy Joel, who said he'd been inspired when younger by seeing Lennon on the Ed Sullivan show - "He's standing there, looking around him as if to say, "Is all this corny or what?"

It's a self-awareness thing. Most people who want to be famous and on TV take these things very seriously - as they take themselves very seriously, but though willingly part of it Lennon was always aware how ridiculous it all was. Meaning that though he took part in the showbiz-ness he viewed it as somewhat beneath him at the same time.

I think it's similar with Boris. People mock the "clownish-ness" of his public persona, but the reality is he can't help but be aware of how ridiculous it all is, meaning he can't take the performative aspect of it seriously. Hence the smirk that's nearly always on his face. The other politicians take themselves seriously and lack the self-awareness to see how pompous they are. Whereas Boris is too smart. He knows it's bullshit and sees that it's beneath him to put his soul fully into it. That's not to say he doesn't take the actual politics seriously though.

I read Boris's book about Churchill during the corona panic. It was great, and it was fascinating reading a book about a former leader, by someone who was now a leader during a difficult period. There's a self-awareness and an awareness of history with him. He's a very intelligent guy.

It's a shame what's happened this week. I could rant on about all the back-stabbing that's went on, but it's probably not helpful. I need to calm down and be a bit more forgiving going forward. It's not the end of the world, it's just a bit of summer madness. It is a bit of a mess though. The country was united. Not anymore.

Bitcoin: Currencies Are Backed By Cultures

I've been watching the recent bitcoin crash, as well as the surrounding online furore, and it's made me think about what currencies are backed by a little more. Obviously bitcoin isn't backed by anything in particular - I see more and more people pointing this out online. The reply to this from pro-bitcoin people then being something along the lines of:

"Well, the dollar/pound/euro [insert fiat currency] isn't backed by anything either."

However, though this is a good point to make, it isn't really true in quite the same way. Fiat currencies, although not backed by a particular commodity, are backed by something much more powerful: an entire culture.

Particularly the state force manifested by that culture.

So, for instance, here in the UK we use pounds sterling. This is backed by a state that controls a large area of land. That has an army, and tanks, and law, and the power to enforce that law, and to collect taxes, and to jail people who don't pay their taxes; and so forth.

This power to impose a currency and demand taxation in that currency can be tyrannical, or it can be democratic, or something in between - i.e. it manifests however the politics of that country or state manifests.

Still, on top of this state power the currency is also backed by the wider culture that chooses (or is forced) to use it. How trustworthy that culture is. How innovative it is. How strong that country or culture is on the world stage. Its historical track record and reputation. All these things back a currency.

The Culture of Bitcoin

This then returns us to bitcoin. The question being: what culture backs bitcoin?

hope / HODL

Bitcoin isn't backed by a state, with state force. So it definitely isn't backed like the dollar or the pound is. Yet still, you don't necessarily need state force to have at least some cultural backing.

For example, no state is forcing an individual to value gold. The value of gold is largely derived from the simple fact that we live in a wider culture where gold is valued. In every major culture of the world the idea that gold is valuable is ingrained in the collective consciousness. A view that has been ingrained and embedded in our worldview over centuries and millennia.

Perhaps if we found an undisturbed tribe somewhere they might not care for it. They may deem it just a shiny rock, but for us the value of gold pervades our culture and history.

[I discussed the psychology of gold (and bitcoin) here: Metals, Markets, and Digital Jewellery ]

The question then for bitcoin is how many people believe in bitcoin like people believe in gold - and how ingrained is that belief. You can be fairly sure people will still value gold in 20 or 30 years time, the concept being so culturally pervasive, but bitcoin is relatively new. Will it be a fad? Or will the people who swear by bitcoin now still be as passionate and invested in it in a few decades time.

I personally have no idea what the answer is to this question. So remain open to either possibility.

Cultures without state force..

To flesh out this issue of "culture" further it might be worth considering other strong cultures that don't have a particular state. You could take the Amish as an example. Though the Amish don't have their own state, they still carry a fair degree of weight. So, hypothetically, if they were to issue some kind of token or currency you could perhaps have a high level of confidence in it.

• They have a trustworthy culture.
• They have a strongly ingrained set of cultural values: so you can have confidence that they'll still hold their current values in 20, 30 or 40 years time.
• There are quite a lot of them, i.e. they have strength in numbers - meaning if the wider state (in this case the U.S. government) did try to ban or suppress their Amish currency it would be quite difficult.

A similar, though more warlike example of a strong culture would maybe be the Taliban. Again - they have strength in numbers, and a strong set of cultural values that are heavily ingrained - and that they're prepared to defend. Hence why entire states and their militaries have failed to quash them.

So groups of people with a strong set of shared cultural values can wield a lot of influence. Even though it's not quite at the same level as state power, they can kind of exist (or compete) independently of states.

So what culture surrounds bitcoin?

At present it seems to be quite a mix. Ranging from genuine believers in the concept, to get-rich-quick types, to outright grifters. There are also some big companies and players involved (perhaps even state actors). It's quite broad. The confusion enhanced by the fact that many of the true believers also want to get rich quick too.

If all these people simply fizzle away when the going gets tough and there's no more money to be made then obviously that would bode badly for bitcoin. Alternately, if there is indeed a hardcore of people that genuinely believe in the concept - and to an extent that this belief will persist throughout their entire lives, then that may be different.

If there's a culture of people - where belief in bitcoin is tied up with other beliefs, such as belief in liberty, or religion, or gun-ownership. Or whatever the set of values may be. Then that would be something that could help support an alternate currency or store of value.

Other cultural currencies..

Of course, you could take this understanding that currencies are backed by culture and apply it to other crypto-coins or currency concepts. A few days ago I tweeted that holding currency is like holding shares in a totemic flag, representing a particular culture or worldview.

Perhaps you could deliberately create a currency that is tied to a set of values in some way. I mentioned a few posts back about potentially buying shares in Stonehenge. There you'd be investing in, but also sponsoring, a particular cultural artefact. An artefact that symbolically represents something more than the material artefact itself.

A totem pole. You're buying shares in the flag (and the values) you're rallying around.

Again though, we already have something not a million miles away from this with national currencies. I use pounds sterling partly because I'm forced to by my government, but also partly out of choice. British people aren't happy with the state of inflation at the moment (something of an understatement), but at the same time we're not exactly on the verge of overthrowing our government and demanding something new. So we consent to it to some degree.

We also choose how much we invest in it to some extent too. For example, if I have money in my bank account I can choose to keep it all there in British pounds, or I can take some of it out and invest it elsewhere. In gold, or other assets and currencies. So again, even just as individuals we all have these small ways of exercising power in the real world.

In fact, I have shares in U.S. dollars in American companies. As a Brit no one has forced me to do this. I've chosen to do it - partly because I believe in the values of America.

In contrast I haven't chosen to buy shares in Chinese companies because investing in a non-democratic country doesn't appeal to me. That wouldn't reflect my values. As much as I like and admire Chinese people.

So our economic choices are often deeply entwinned with our beliefs. These individual choices, multiplied by the numerous people making them, can aggregate into something quite potent.

.. as I'm still not sure what the core beliefs and values of the bitcoin community are I'll remain on the sidelines in this arena too.

What is Teesside?

Middlesbrough has once again failed in its efforts to acquire "city" status. As a city-zen of Middlesbrough I'm actually quite pleased about this. To me Middlesbrough just doesn't feel like a city, it feels like a town. I can see why people want city status, it brings an element of prestige, but it's little use if it isn't a genuine reflection of reality in my opinion.

Teesside as a whole could be considered something akin to a city. It's certainly big enough. However, even here the label wouldn't be quite right. Teesside is kinda weird. It's its own thing.

(Teesside, courtesy of Google Maps)

All the places that make up Teesside - Middlesbrough, Stockton, Redcar, Billingham and so forth - all pretty much just blend into each other. There are no real dividing lines in actuality. It's one huge urban (and industrial) sprawl. Still though, each is a unique place in its own right, with its own centre of gravity.

I guess you could describe Teesside as a multi-polar cityscape in a sense.

The difficulty in packaging all these separate but conjoined places under one label is reflected in the amount of different names that have been used over the years.

Teesside, Tees Valley, Cleveland, North Yorkshire - these are all things I could put between Middlesbrough and my postcode when writing my address. (I generally go with North Yorkshire, but only because I feel it conveys a bit more beauty.)

The fact that Teesside is on the boundary between Yorkshire and Durham only adds to the difficultly in pinning things down. Historically the River Tees was the boundary between these two places. Now Teesside lies sprawled across this boundary. A blob in its own right.

We have some of the most beautiful countryside in all of England right on our doorstep, it's a huge blessing, yet by focusing on Teesside alone we don't advertise this. When people think "Teesside", or "Tees Valley" even, they think of an industrialised landscape. They don't think of the green fields and forests out on the horizon. So we lose something by calving ourselves off from these two historic counties. Still though, these settlements that have blossomed along the river are too big to not have their own label; and it's only natural that the label would refer to the river.

It's not a city, or a town, or a county. It's Teesside.

It's the corridor of concrete, chemical works and artificial lighting that follows the river out to Redcar. The grim, but futuristic landscape that helped give Ridley Scott the inspiration for the movie Blade Runner.

(click to enlarge)

But even this is changing somewhat as we move into the 21st century. So who knows what the final imprint will be.

The difficultly in finding a vision that fits is compounded by the fact that Middlesbrough, at the centre of it all, is a young town by English standards. Only really coming into being during the 19th century - when industrialisation kicked into gear and the "iron rush" began in the very same hills and valleys.

In some ways Middlesbrough has more in common with the towns that sprung up in America during this period than it does with English ones. Its motto - Erimus - meaning "We Shall Be" reflecting this.

In fact, this is partly why I've come to view it as counterproductive to try to force labels upon the area. It's still a work in progress. It'll be what it'll be ..and when the time comes the language to describe things will naturally come too.

Are Our Inalienable Rights Innate ?

I saw a little discussion today on Twitter about "inalienable" rights and natural law. Where one side was stating that these rights are rooted in nature, and the other side was saying something along the lines of:

"Well no, surely they're just invented by man like all laws."

My view is somewhere in between. My thinking goes like this.

All humans have an innate sense of 'good' and 'bad', and this stems from our sensory experience of the world - i.e. pain = bad/wrong, and pleasure = good/right.

So notions of good and bad are hardwired into our worldview.

However, sometimes our own pleasure comes at the expense of someone else's pain. If I take someone's food I'll get the pleasure of eating whilst they will get the pain of hunger. As our own pleasure/pain is more immediate than another person's it often takes precedent. Still, given our own experience of these things we can at least empathise with the other person. This doesn't necessarily mean we won't take the food though.

So, we have this innate appreciation of good and bad, and understand that others experience good and bad too. We then calculate the balance of our good/bad versus the other person's in a very vague way. Naturally weighing our own interests more heavily in the balance.

If I have a lot of food and see someone who's hungry I'll alleviate that 'badness' in the world by giving that person some of mine, but if I'm starving I'll prioritise my own hunger and not care so much about the other person.

This all sounds incredibly selfish and uninspiring, and reduces us to Darwinist animal/machines somewhat, but it's important to look at things in this crude calculated way to get to the root of natural law.

People often debate if there is a true right and wrong - some fundamental rightness and wrongness that we can all universally recognise.

I would argue that there is, and that it simply lies in this intuitive understanding, based in sensory experience, that pain is 'bad' and pleasure is 'good'.

The universal baseline..

So, for example, if we take something truly heinous like torture.

Though most of us deem torture beyond the pale, some people will argue that in certain circumstances it's permissible - because the good outweighs the bad.

e.g. If torturing one person stops one thousand people dying in a terrorist attack.

It's a similar equation or calculation as before. It's good because the bad stopped outweighs the bad caused. (And again, what's good in this instance is no doubt somewhat biased by the position of the person making the decision - their own pleasure/pain/danger being more immediate to themselves).

However, even though someone could make this argument they still wouldn't argue that torture was good full stop.

Everyone - even the person arguing that torture is good to stop a terrorist attack - wouldn't argue that it was good to torture someone for no reason. As this would be a net addition of suffering in the world with no beneficial gain.

So the infliction of needless or pointless suffering is something that all humans would agree is bad. No one would argue in favour of it.

We all agree that bad is bad and that good is good. The problems only arise when we try to balance the good against the bad from our own particular viewpoint.

I would say natural law, in its true organic sense, is simply this vague common acknowledgement that good should be aimed for and bad should be avoided. Anything more than that is subjective.

Natural Law/Common Law

The notions of natural or common law rights do naturally follow on from this however. It's sensible for humans to agree upon basic principles - the most simple being "I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone." What we call "live and let live".

Most people at least try to follow this concept because it's reasonable and they intuitively understand it's not good to cause harm to another person for no reason. People naturally understand this.

This is why basic common law rights simply protect us from direct infringements by others. They don't state what we can or can't do ourselves, just what we can't do to others. We can't punch someone or murder someone, etc.

Again though, life isn't always this simple, and sometimes people may feel they have good reason to punch someone.

So specific written laws enshrining these notions of right and wrong aren't the same as our intuitive appreciation of the concepts. They're not inalienable or "God-given" in quite the same way, though they arise from this same basic understanding.

When we codify and express such laws we're choosing to try to articulate these concepts; and when we do we partly do it for selfish reasons, and we always risk introducing our own particular bias because of this.

Animals

If we take animals for instance. We don't extend these rights to animals in the same way. People who espouse that human rights are "inalienable" will still often kill an animal for food. The reality is people are simply valuing their own health and happiness over that of the animal's when they do this. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with this - in fact, it's part of nature - but people rarely recognise it for what it is: an act of self-interest. People much prefer to create a narrative that paints over this self-interest.

Animals were put on Earth by God to be eaten; Or, animals are less sentient than humans; Or, if it wasn't for me eating these animals they wouldn't get to have a great life being looked after in a nice green field; and so on..

All these things could be true of course, but they don't nullify the underlying self-interest.

It's in our self-interest to have human rights - we're human, but animal rights less so. As we, being humans not animals, don't need them. We need to be honest about this self-interest. It's perfectly natural and it doesn't mean we're fundamentally bad. We can't help but want to live and thrive and survive. We should acknowledge our impulses and biases though.

[I explain this conflict much more lucidly here: please read.

Birth Family Tribe Love Sex Apotheosis - Chapter IV - Love ]

Personally I don't eat animals. However, I do eat dairy. I don't want to cause suffering to animals - I have empathy for them. Still, at the same time I continue to eat dairy for selfish reasons. I felt unhealthy and unhappy not eating dairy, so I started eating it again. It's hard to admit to myself that I'm being selfish by doing this, it would be much nicer to create some feel good justification for it, but this is the truth. I'm trying to balance my own self-interest with the interest of the poor farm animals.

We all balance the interests of ourselves (and our loved ones) with the interests of other people and creatures. Hopefully we try to do this in a fair and reasonable way, but none of us are perfect, and life isn't always simple.

[Incidentally, and mirroring the above point about torture, all humans also believe that animal cruelty is wrong. Even the most ardent meat eater. Again, because we recognise that pointless suffering - i.e. suffering with no positive benefit to someone - is fundamentally wrong. Once more illustrating that there is a baseline moral starting point of agreement for all people.]

Conclusion

So in conclusion it's important for us to recognise that we have concepts like 'inalienable rights' partly because we have an innate sense of right and wrong - but also because we have an innate self-interest. We shouldn't hide behind wishful thinking or ideological belief. It's only by honestly understanding these things and where they come from that we can explain these notions to other people. It's no use just screaming the word 'inalienable' at someone who doesn't share your worldview. They equally have the same sense that good is good and bad is bad - but they believe what they're doing is in the greater good. You have to explain to them that it's not in the greater good to have basic rights abused, and that it's beneficial for them too to have legal sovereignty over their own body.

The honest acknowledgement of your own self-interest also makes you realise that you do need to stand up for yourself. You don't need to apologise for defending the rights of yourself, your friends and your family. Likewise if you recognise your own failings and acts of self-interest you'll be more forgiving and understanding of the failings and self-interest of others.

Note to Self: Buy Shares in Stonehenge

About a month ago I was watching a Caspian Report video and it contained an advert for a company called Masterworks. Masterworks is basically an investment platform that allows people to buy shares in works of art. I saw the promo and thought "Hmm, that's an interesting idea.." then continued on watching the video.

Then about a week ago I saw another advert pop up online, this time one for Sotheby's. I was on a message board that was discussing Russian shares, so I'm guessing some of the people frequenting those boards, unlike me, actually have the money to buy fine art. Though the advert algorithm got my tastes correct, if not my income bracket, as it was an auction for this painting that grabbed my attention:

(The Madonna of the Cherries

- workshop of Joos van Cleve)

I really love this painting, so I was curious to see how much it was selling for. The estimate was £60,000 - £80,000. In the end it sold for £100,800.

When I initially saw £60,000 I thought "Wow, I'd definitely buy that if I was a multi-millionaire." I expected it to be a lot more. It's a beautiful painting.

Anyway, that in turn reminded me of the Masterworks advert I'd seen earlier. My thinking being that perhaps I could buy shares in one of these Northern Renaissance type artworks that I like so much. Having looked I think it's a little early for me to be attempting to invest in art - I'm still barely getting to grips with the world of regular shares. However, it did send me down a big rabbit hole.

I spent some time reading about Masterworks, and watching videos about it, and I've came to the conclusion that this is going to become HUGE. I really think this will be the next big thing in investing over the next decade or so. It's such an enormous untapped market. If they can succeed in making shares in artwork as accessible to regular investors as general stock market shares are - and as liquid - then it'll be really exciting. It will also potentially change how we fund and invest in culture.

It's not hard to imagine a world where galleries sell shares in artworks they own to raise capital. Just as companies sell a percentage of their company publicly on stock markets to raise capital.

I'll never be able to own the Mona Lisa, but if I'm offered the chance to own $50 worth of shares in it that would be cool - and probably quite a sound investment. Especially if I knew I could sell those shares just as easily on the same stock market I bought them on.

I don't think the French would be too keen on an Englishman owning the Mona Lisa, even if it was just $50 worth, but still, I'm sure they'd be tempted to use such a method to raise money for the national coffers. Particularly if it meant they could sell just 10% publicly and keep the controlling 90%.

And it wouldn't just stop at paintings too. This can all potentially apply to statues, sculptures, books, manuscripts. Basically any cultural or historic artefact. Even perhaps buildings and landmarks. Maybe one day you'll be able to buy shares in Stonehenge.

Obviously creating systems that would allow this to happen is easier said than done, the potential is there though, and it seems Masterworks is already heading in that direction. I watched a few interviews with their CEO and he seems to very much appreciate the vista-like potential, so I'll be very interested to watch this over the next few years and see what happens.

I'm stocked up on Russian stocks..

Remember this..

This was back last September when I'd recently opened an eToro account and had tentatively started investing. More innocent days. Since then I've stepped things up a bit, so it's probably a good time to do a little update.

I now have over £5000 invested ..and I'm currently about £400 down :|

This is mainly because I'm now quite heavily invested in, er, Russian stocks. In fact, they account for about 30% of my portfolio -- eep.

(don't look, it's bad)

Some of which I bought before Christmas, when I had no idea war was on the horizon. Others more recently, in the heat of the drama - I couldn't resist the opportunity to go against the herd.

It might be a hard lesson to learn, but at the same time I'm enjoying it all a little too much. True to form my interest in politics immediately trumped my focus on cash the minute things started getting dicey. In fact, I bought $10 more of Sberbank after the sanctions were announced and it dropped 75%, mainly because I want to see what'll happen. I got more shares for my $10 than I got for the other $50 that I'd bought just a few weeks earlier. It's either more good money after bad, or it'll bounce back up in some sort of glorious resurrection.

No doubt given the current situation it'll more likely be the former. Still though, again, I just couldn't resist the opportunity to get in for the ride.

I think I'll probably refrain from buying more stocks for the time being. This is probably a good point to let my bank account recover. I won't be selling anything though. So I'll just watch what happens.

To be fair the rest of my stocks are doing quite nicely. All the (non-Russian) miners I bought are doing fairly well. Plus I have a lot of safer stocks in the mix. So I'm happy with it overall.

https://www.etoro.com/people/copperlocks/portfolio

I actually really like owning Evraz and Polymetal too. Obviously I have no idea what happens now. The politics are looking grim, plus I'm a total novice when it comes to investing. However, these seem like solid companies, politics aside. Meaning I'm quite happy to gamble on the hope that they won't be completely excommunicated from the western world.

A message to those that want to mandate vaccines..

The unvaxx'd repeatedly get accused of being selfish, so let's get selfish for a moment. When it comes to me and my health this vaccine simply doesn't meet my personal standards. It's simply not good enough for me, and I don't deem the balance of risk/benefit to be in my favour.

More to the point though, accepting this vaccine means accepting the premise that I can be forced or coerced into having any medical treatment the state deems 'satisfactory'; and I most certainly don't accept that. Again, it's not good enough for me. Perhaps it's good enough for you, perhaps you're happy with that, but not me.

Of course, people will state that government rules always set the bar for what's a safe standard, and that we all live by these rules already. However, those rules only set a lowest standard - they make sure the food sold in shops doesn't literally poison us, that there's no fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice. They stop medicines and foods from being sold and administered, but they don't force us to consume those things.

We are still free to say: "No, this isn't good enough for me. I'll choose something else; and if there's nothing else I deem good enough I'll choose nothing at all."

Again, the state sets a lowest standard, and it can only ever set a lowest standard. As if it attempted to set the highest it would have to ban literally everything, because everything comes with risk. Fast food restaurants would have to be closed. Every donut or cup of coffee banned. Every medication banned. Every human activity, sport, fairground ride, all stopped. As they all come with risk.

Either that or the state would have to micromanage all these things to perfection. Literally telling us how many donuts we're allowed to eat. Or how much exercise we're required to do or not to do. Likewise it would have to set the acceptable level of risk for any medication administered, as it does now - only in this scenario you'd no longer be able to say "No". It would decide.

So accepting the state can mandate what we do with our bodies means either believing the state knows best, and can manage these things to perfection - or it means simply accepting that it can impose the lowest standard upon you - i.e. whatever it deems satisfactory.

'Satisfactory' may be good enough for you, but it isn't good enough for me, and I don't accept it being forced upon me. So I'll decide what is good enough for me.

(click to enlarge)