Bitcoin Forum

From reading through the forums, I expect a large percentage of the people here to be in the Libertarian/Anarchist group. This is to be expected since many people point out how BitCoins will challenge traditional, government backed currencies. I would like to suggest, however, that we could spread our message to the "Liberal" part of the political spectrum by also focusing on how BitCoins will challenge the almighty corporations as well. I can imagine some people are worried that Visa and Paypal have too much control over the monetary system, and BitCoins afford a way to get around them.

Let me know if I left out any obvious choices for the poll.

-Peter-

But what if we like corporations?  (I voted conservative)

Opening a can of worms here.

Then you use PayPal. ;D

What's the difference between Neutral, Ignorant and Uninvolved? :P

By Statist, do you mean Fascist (State Capitalist)? Libertarians, Liberals and Conservatives are technically 'Statist', in that they approve of a governing state through which to enact political change.

My political philosophy is antidisestablishmentarianism!

Oh, what... I'm the second Libertarian voting? And we have an anarchist majority so far.

That's kind of unexpected!

Really? Libertarians are just anarchists who are confused.  ;D

Most of the anarchists are probably anarcho-capitalists which is basically pure libertarianism.

What about "non-ignorantly unlabeled"?

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. Then, I brushed my teeth with that water, filtered to standards set by the EPA and my state.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank and printed by the Federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

I park my car on the street, paved and maintained by the Department of Transportation, and put quarters issued by the United States Mint into the parking meter.

Then, after spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I drive back to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the Internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on the Bitcoin forums about how the Federal Reserve Bank is going to destroy us all because the government can't do anything right.

You people probably vote too  ;D ;D

I am a Ron Paul Republican. 

I am a member of the Wheeling Township Republican Party.   I am active in local and state politics. 

c-rock

.... and then you took a look at your sorry, dwindling bank account and social security that has been ass-raped by the banksters and their minions in gubmint and reached for the .44 in the drawer under your desk ...

... your freedom under government spiel is an illusion, you are a monetary slave, indebted by by blind adherence to a corrupted medium of exchange.

Well shit! $14,282,631,245,678 was a bargain.

More than 50% is anti-government, heh.

+1

except that his .44 wasn't there because his State Legislature, in their infinite wisdom, does not allow him to own a means by which he could so easily remove himself from the tax-farm.  oh, and the internet exists because the relatively free parts of the not-really-free market created cheap home computers, modems and routers that anyone can afford, not DARPA.

Shouldn't this be in Off Topic?

Lol, win.  :D

If you want more crap like that, read:
http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1

Sorry, I should have specified.  I am all for a smaller government, and do think the current government system is bloated and, well, crappy.  I just thought that post was a particular example of awesome, considering the subject matter.

Don't give Sawzall any credit for it though, it's an old copy/paste.

Orientation: Gamma Centauri

p.s.
tired/sick covert indoctrination/brainfuck attempts, such as this topic in real-life.

Yeah, I know. There's a rebuttal to it, which I can't seem to find right now.

Awww, that just took away 98% of the awesome factor.

I am left-wing / socialist / liberal.

Also 46 years old, and director of two companies, in NZ and the UK.

15 years ago I was working in the City in London... have had every job from meat-packing-factory-labourer to chauffeur to Head of IT... and the older I get, the more I learn, the more perspective I get, the more socialist I become. I would be honoured if the taxes I pay went towards giving younger generations the freedoms that I had... provided by strong socialist  forbears.

This weirdly American idea of "freedom" being everyone out for themselves... "small government"... basically means that "essentials" are privatised - forcing the majority of people into a lifetime of debt, where "time-out" is a life-threatening condition. Corporations pay for this propaganda, and they've now got the American People over a barrel - and "Libertarians" who are basically in love with an abstracted theory, play directly into the hands of these corporations.

"Government" is how we organise ourselves at a national level - and it needs to be big to stand up to corporate power. That's what it's for. To tame the baronial classes. The fact that govt has become corrupted by corporate power doesn't mean it should be made weaker... basically handing the house-keys to (you guessed it) corporate power. Corporations don't (massively) fund think-tanks like Cato or The American Enterprise Institute or any of the massive plethora of others because they're nice guys. It's a massive excercise in social-engineering, and libertarians are one of the results.

People that a generation ago would have been union guys, are now campaigning... "fighting", to disadvantage themselves... and more importantly, their kids.


so that's my 2btc.

That's easy.

1) Anyone can do stuff with infinite money.
2) There is no reason to think the free market can't provide those same products and services with the same quality and for the same price.
3) All regulations mentioned wouldn't even be required in a society where the average person has more than half a brain.

nickwit,

Corporations are creations of the government.
If there was no government,  there would be no corporations.

Memory Dealers provides safe, working products to customers all over the world,   not because of government regulations,  but because it is what our customers want.

I'm sure we will still have clean water,  safe food, and the internet without government involvment.

People do not walk barefoot because there are no government shoe factories.
- Murray Rothbard

I don't get it why there's Libertarian and Anarchist as different options. Libertarians are anarchists.... or by anarchist you mean the communist type?

Isn't it the other way round - anarchists are libertarians, but libertarians are not necessarily anarchists? (Libertarianism, as I understand it, includes anarchists and minarchists - those who want to abolish the state, and those who want to see a vastly reduced state).

Libertarianism, as I understand, is about the non-agression principle. And that's incompatible with any form of state. The difference between minarchists and social-democrats is quantitative, not qualitative, as is the difference between libertarians and statists... but well, just words anyway.

Logically, I agree with your analysis.

Practically, I think you will find that most who label themselves as libertarian are in fact minarchists.

This is why using labels as a tool to understand the beliefs of others often fails.

Yeah, pretty much like the term liberal, which now means leftist in the US, and if you want to talk about original liberals, you have to say classical-liberal to avoid confusion.

Other> National Socialist.

Also "other". Put me down as "royalist".

are left and right still having orientation?

i have considerably less faith in the free market. 

free markets only work within certain bounds.  it relies on several key assumptions, many of which are interdependent.

1. large numbers of buyers and sellers in the market
2. negligible barriers to entry.
3. all market participants have complete, or at least equal, information.
4. minimal friction in transactions.
5. all sellers seek to maximize their profit at all times.
6. all sellers are theoretically capable of selling the same quality of product.
7. all sellers are theoretically capable of selling the same quantity of product at proportional input costs.
8. no buyer or seller is large enough to distort the market to a relevant degree.
9. lack of externalities

as long as these assumptions are sufficiently true, a free market works well.  the less true these become (especially 2, 3, 5, and 8 ), the less well a free market works, eventually breaking down completely in various manners.

i consider the proper role of government is to work to ensure that these assumptions are kept as true as possible (e.g. regulations on advertizing to help ensure #3) to create functional free markets, to provide services in sectors where a free market cannot function properly (e.g. healthcare, basic food, etc.), and ensure the safety, security, and social freedom of its citizens.

this apparently places me as a leftist economically (i voted NDP in the last election.  sadly, my riding is a conservative stronghold.) and centrist socially.

compro, I agree that government regulation is necessary to a degree for a properly functioning free market (can anyone imagine the sorts of trickery that would happen if we didn't have a court system, or how many people would die from food-borne illness without the FDA?).  I just don't agree with the current bloated form of government we have, that rewards people for sitting on their rears all day or eating so much they can hardly walk anymore.

That whole site nearly gave me an aneurysm. It's too painful.

Make it stop -- make it stop!

A lot less. The FDA fails at regulating food. I would prefer a private regulating body that actually has incentive and CAN actually FAIL and be replaced by a competent agency.

...or I could prefer to buy foods regulated by other alternatives.

Just because we completely depend on government monopolys now, doesn't mean we can't live without them.

"Oh, no. Without government we wouldn't have indoor plumbing!"

It's such a crock-of-shit. We will still have these things because people want them. Not because big daddy government says so.

So you predict, that without the FDA, we would have a private company start up as a regulatory company?

Would you then look for a stamp of approval from this private company on any foods you purchased?  What would stop a company from just stamping it themselves without approval?

Easily, if not, a more optimal solution we can't yet imagine



I would look for approval from a credible company, yes.


Pretending to test foods and sending people tainted products isn't a sustainable business model. It will fall apart eventually. Fraud laws and market forces will prevent this easily.

1. the FDA needs improvement, but i see no rational basis to suggest that a collection of private regulatory bodies would be an improvement.

2. yes, a corporation will expend large amounts of money to expand service into areas where it is unlikely to ever profit or even break even.  after all, it didn't take decades for power and telephone companies to expand into rural areas and the government never had to legally force them to do so.

Sure, it'll fall apart eventually.  But then they'll just change names, change packaging, and do it all over again.  Meanwhile, dozens, hundreds, thousands of people die because their products aren't being properly tested.

You already see the same thing happening with electronics.  No-name brands come out, and the only thing preventing them from copying the exact look of the "real thing" is copyright and import laws in the US.  Usually, these electronics are cheaply made, and the consumer doesn't really find out until after they purchase it and begin to use it.  You see these cheap knock-offs on eBay all the time, and if they weren't illegal in the US because of government regulations, you'd probably see them on store shelves too.

Take that same "business model" to food or drugs, and you've got real trouble.  As long as it looks ok from the outside, people will buy it and consume it.  Heck, without any sort of regulations or government in place, one company could copy another company's logo and packaging to the pixel, to where not even the store that is stocking it can tell the difference.  Not only would this evil company be riding on the reputation of the company they copied, and probably drive them into the ground, but the people who would suffer would be the people who consumed the product.  The evil company would simple rinse & repeat with a new already-reputable company once the previous company was sufficiently defiled.

Sorry, but I don't see a completely unregulated society working.

That's the thing: The FDA has no incentive to improve. There's no competition. Just people throwing tax payer money at it.

Also, I see no rational basis for a government monopoly on food regulation when it doesn't work well at all.



Don't use the term "corporation". Those are government entities. Also, a business doesn't need to expand into areas. You just inspect food at their distribution points. Do you know how the supply chain works?

Also, I am willing to argue that telecommunications would have reached rural areas faster if the whole industry wasn't gimped in the beginning with government stimulus. The smaller guys would want to find room in the industry and the rural would be a great market area to cater to. The truth is nobody can really predict how the free-market will work but with the examples we have, it most often produces amazing results.

That's not sustainable at all. A company isn't going to survive on producing fake guarantees and killing people. It would be revealed and the stores would not pay for such products. There's no value to be found for anybody. This just doesn't happen.

You can't prevent consumers from supporting crap products. It's not a real problem. People should be able to see the different names. In addition, this should be covered under fraud laws. Patent and regulations on how people can shape their property is immoral.


This should all be covered under fraud. If the public doesn't find out, we are doomed from the start. A regulating body is no smarter nor more capable than the people it rules over.

In fact, they may well be dumber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

Atlas, my apologies.  I was assuming you were talking about an environment with no regulatory systems or laws at all.

Yes, with just the FDA removed, there likely wouldn't be too much trouble.  There'd still be incidents of people dying from drugs that weren't tested properly, but most companies would do proper testing to ensure their reputation stays clean.

As with most regulatory bodies, there is a certain point of diminishing returns.  You can only regulate so many accidents out of a given industry, and any further regulation is hugely expensive for very little benefit.  I do not believe it is worth it to spend millions of dollars to save one person's life.  Many people believe that every person's life is priceless, but that simply isn't true when you look at the economics of it.  We put prices on people's lives every day, and unfortunately, the amount we spend on saving some random person's life through regulation can far exceed the amount we actually value their life at.

Random tangent, but I thought it deserved saying.

Heh, yeah. Lawless environments don't tend to produce the best business environments.

No need for an apology. It's just a discussion. : )

barriers to entry strongly suggest the rural market is not a great area to cater to.

covering a rural area, as opposed to an urban area, requires much larger amounts of cabling (alternatively, wireless transceivers), labour, physical plant, etc. requiring a much larger expenditure of capital and consequently, higher costs passed onto the customer in order to regain that capital investment and start profiting in a reasonable time frame, costs far in excess of what a rural customer is willing/able to pay.

a free market can and usually will produce very good results if and only if my above mentioned requirements are met to a sufficient degree.  if they are not met, a free market does not function.

Well, let's not limit us to current technology. I'm sure they could serve the rural with other (and probably better) innovations if there was sufficient demand.

Also, telecommunications isn't a right.

Here's an idea for a way to transition away from government regulatory bodies. I'll use the FDA as an example.

If instead of having enforcement power, the FDA was merely another certification organization, there would be many benefits.

1. Individuals who trust the government and want to exclusively buy government regulated products can continue to do so.
2. Those who do not trust the government or have higher risk tolerance can buy unregulated or non-government regulated products.
3. Forces the FDA to be more competitive.

That's a Hobson's choice. Everyone is still forced to pay for the FDA. It sounds like those school voucher programs.

It doesn't force the FDA to be more competitive because the consumer's still have to pay twice (they still get paid if they screw up) and I bet the government would just limit the hell out of competitors if they got anywhere close to threatening the FDA's position.

Good point. In order to get the benefits of this system, the FDA would have to make its money from companies voluntarily procuring its services (which some would, especially at first, I think) instead of taxes. Just an idea, not that I think it's likely that government organizations will give up their enforcement monopoly.

I voted myself an "anarchist", but I would support a form of government that recognized the right of unlimited secession. I prefer the term "voluntaryist" because it doesn't have the baggage associated with "anarchist" (or "capitalist", for that matter, as in anarcho-capitalism).

its actually untrue for some countries, where its human right, according to laws/constitution.
and other countries problem is lack of similar laws :P

What does it mean for telecommunication to be a right? Can you use violence against someone who denies you the use of their telecommunications equipment?

why you can ?
you can't selfish violate others rights in order to get personal rights.  w/consequences.
actually laws explain that's.

I think it's more selfish that people believe they are entitled to my property (in this case telecommunications equipment) that I labored for.

it means they cannot deny you telecommunications service except on a lawful basis.

as for the second, that depends on how you define "you".  presumably, you inform the government of them denying you service, at which point they can employ their granted authority, up to and including violence, to force the provider to provide service.


if you purchased and owned the land all your telecommunication equipment used, then yes, it would be your property.

but being as you entered into agreements (in practice with the government, but could also be in theory with each individual landowner and have the same effect) to obtain the use of that land rather than purchasing it, it is not fully your property, and thus subject to certain restrictions and requirements, such as being required to provide service on some terms.

So then it is not a right, it is a contractual obligation?

exactly.  other guaranteed rights work the same way, and by converse, the granted powers of government, through the concept of social contract.

Let me paraphrase some of the more pertinent parts of the best rebuttal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU) of the social "contract" I have seen.

if mr rebutter had been elected or appointed to some position with the power to purchase vehicles on behalf of the residents of that area, then his argument would make some sense. 

as it is, his argument is a complete non sequitur as there was no act granting him the powers he's assuming himself to have.

Only a tiny fraction of the population voted to authorize the collection of income taxes per the 16th amendment. In what way is it different?

If taking property without the consent of the owner is immoral for an individual, how is it moral for a group to authorize that same act? How big of a group is necessary before such an act is moral?

I'll suggest that it's not a matter of morality at all, it's always immoral to take property without the consent of the owner. It's merely a matter of who has the most guns. In which case, how is that any different from organized crime?

I'm a leftist.

Yeah .... that doesn't really compute with me ... what ?? ... how ?? ... did you skip the Soviet Russia chapter in your history classes? smoking pot that day? I don't understand.

If I have cancer in the states, I'll go broke. If I have cancer in Spain... I won't pay a dime for the best treatment. And we pay a minor percetage for our health care than people working in USA.

We pay less, we get more. Socialized health care is more efficient (for the people, not for corportations) than privatized health care.

Yeah, but your country is busted ass broke. How does that work?

Socialized/Universal Health Care are in place in every 1st world country except for USA. Germany ain't broke, neither is UK, and both have a Socialized Health Care that costs way less and delivers way more to the average person than in the US.

BTW Spain is not broke, it's just that we have 20% unployment rate  ;D

The only reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because everyone's so dang sue-happy.  If we didn't have absurd judgments awarding hundreds of millions for a mistake in the surgery room, healthcare costs would be much more reasonable.

your explanation does not appear to be grounded in reality.

the state of texas passed tort reform measures in 2003.  it has not improved the situation and by most measures (average cost of health insurance, percentage of uninsured people, cost of medical procedures), has made it worse.

doctor's malpractice premiums have dropped by 27% and malpractice payouts have dropped by 67%, yet the cost of health insurance and medical procedures has doubled in 6 years.

There are many reasons for the price of health care in the United States. I will list some...

• Health insurance tied to employment
• State mandated coverage
• Unable to purchase insurance across state lines
• Medical licensure laws
• Widespread use of insurance for routine visits

Those are just the few I can think of off the top of my head.

THe only reason is that it's not socialized/universal. Health care, roads, prisons, public education, army, police, firemen... all of them must be run by the State and paid with our taxes. Because maybe it won't make many millionaires, but it's the most efficient way for most of the people.

Prove it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Spain

External debt in US dollars: 2,166,000,000,000    
Date: 30 June 2010
Per capita US dollars: 52,588
% of GDP: 157%

Btw, UK and Germany are broke too.

I've already proved my point for health care, setting USA as an example.

I can prove the same with prisons with the same example: USA has privatized (but paid with taxes)  prisons... and they have the world highest incarcelation index.

As for private military forces... Blackwater. What a freakin' dangerous thing man. States should have the legal monopoly of force/violence (that affirmation also applies to prisons).

I mean, some serious people even consider monopoly of violence as the definition of state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence).

You can't consider that being broke. Being broke is not being able to pay your debts. I mean, that percentage is 398% for UK, 143% for Germany, 4636% (yeah, that's right) for Luxembourg, 188% for France.

Private and subsidized =/= Private

It's the worst kind of private.

It's not private at all. It's still a government entity like most large corporations.

It's a private company, with capitalist inversors (it's for profit) and all that... it's just that they do projects for the government.

The profit would not exist without government coercion and its request for services.

That's true, but whenever there's a private prison, the state is transfering part of their monopoly of violence (you have very limited rights as prisoner) to that private prison company. Therefore, as for the definition of state as monopoly of violence, you are breaking the state apart.

As i'm not an anarchist, I firmly believe in the state having the monopoly of violence (therefore existing).

You really believe that socializing the health care industry would make it cheaper? Doing so fixes none of the problems I've outlined above. It will indeed most likely get more expensive, except we'd now be paying for it in taxes, regardless of our usage.

Can't you see that allowing private entities to compete against the government (not subsidized by it) in what are normally considered to be state functions (law and law enforcement) would lead to a decrease in price and and increase in service quality? Why is it different than any other competitive industry?

To say something on this issue, you need to decide in which world you want to live.

Now if you look from the point of view of bitcoin users, then the state really has the right to its actions in the country and this may even be bad. If, for example, legalization bitcoin is allowed, then we will lose anonymity.

Sistem politik secara keseluruhan peran politik atau struktur tertentu,individu atau kelompok yang memikul peran tertentu,kebijakan publik yang khusus termasuk di dalamnya adalah aktor politik dan ego dari aktor politik

Because government functions and state functions are different?  Policing isn't a competitive industry.  Neither is firefighting or sanitation.

In my opinion, politics is the development path of the country. developed countries under socialist or capitalist regimes. Cooperation with the nations of the economic bloc is the political path of each country. My country follows the socialist regime.

... and are 'you' going to move to Venezuela any time soon?

Nope.  I have publicly funded police, firefighters, and sanitation right here in Arizona.  Also publicly funded roads, libraries, etc.

Socialism is a failed ideology, just like communism. Please give me the name of a single socialist country, which is successful. There aren't many. Capitalism is the way to move forward and it gives equal opportunity for everyone.

   I dont have any kind of political orientation except I dream to live in anarchy-commune type of society. I mean a society without any police, censure, propaganda and people in power, with dwellers who respect privacy, rights and feelings of each other. Yea, such society is utopia because people are not as good, they would abuse each other in life without police, but its because they are created by moderm society.
   Anyway I dont beleive in democracy as well, it is same utopia for me. I see the world is ruled by powerful and greedy people, it is reality, so I dont care what kind of politics they represent

The biggest problem with socialism is it's a lot like cancer. You can still live with a little bit of cancer but when it grows things get worse and worse and the cancer grows faster.

Ain't we all crypto anarchist here ?  8)  8)

More seriously, I've had a hard time trying to relate to current politcal movements ... In my yought I was very interested in anarcho-syndicalism (ref. Noam Chomsky if you want to read a bit on the subject).

Now i truely don't know...

That's good to see that people who are keen on bitcoin and cryptocurrencies do really share the values of cryptoanarchism and separation from the governmental finance control