Bitcoin Forum

http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-322-max-keiser/

Ah, glad Max Keiser is finally seeing the light about the Libertarians.

 8)

Ah, glad Max Keiser is finally seeing the light about the Libertarians.

BTW: That bozo is even always rambling about the anthropogenic global warming hoax that he still believes in, like he were a climatologist.

And I guess since this episode is about killing bankers, as usual, the argument is that Libertarians aren't bloodthirsty enough...

Statalists are much smarter instead (provided that they are on the state's payroll).
I for me, am too old to believe in Santa-state.

BTW: That bozo is even always rambling about the anthropogenic global warming hoax that he still believes in, like he were a climatologist.
Puh-leaaaze.
  

niemivh are you a fan of Webster Tarpley?

he's talking about how libertarians demonize FDR

Yes, Libertarians demonize FDR because we demonize both sides of the contrived political spectrum.  FDR bailed out the bankers, just like Obama and Bush bailed out the bankers.  Somehow the takeaway from this is that Libertarians are idiots for being the only ones who propose an alternative.

Who the hell is he, and why should we care?

He spoke at the bitcoin conference in Prague (mainly about himself and his crowd-funding-site piratemyfilm.com, which uses bitcoin for funding movie- and other projects). He has mentioned bitcoin as the "currency of the resistance" in his "Keiser Report" in april or may 2011 and interviewed Rick Falkvinge about Bitcoin very early (also in Keiser Report).

He has clearly promoted bitcoin and still said he would be "using his media leverage to help tony (bitpay) reach the goal of 1 million new bitcoin users in 2012" (I'm assuming this will fail, but nevertheless, he's a bitcoiner of sorts and one that reaches quite an audience.

Should we care if he denounces libertarians? I'm not sure... will watch the vid now.

Yes, Libertarians demonize FDR because we demonize both sides of the contrived political spectrum.  FDR bailed out the bankers, just like Obama and Bush bailed out the bankers.  Somehow the takeaway from this is that Libertarians are idiots for being the only ones who propose an alternative.

Bitcoin's community is not entirely libertarians. Rejecting him because he criticized them is unfair and unnecessarily disopen and elitist. Our goal is Bitcoin adoption, not production of copious praise for libertarians.

How did FDR bailout the bankers?  What specific policy are you talking about?

That's what Max says in the video.  Didn't you even watch it?

(notice the intellectual laziness involved in dodging this question)

http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-322-max-keiser/

Ah, glad Max Keiser is finally seeing the light about the Libertarians.

 8)

Who the hell is he, and why should we care?

http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-322-max-keiser/

Ah, glad Max Keiser is finally seeing the light about the Libertarians.

 8)

That's what Max says in the video.  Didn't you even watch it?

(notice the intellectual laziness involved in dodging this question)

I would like to see a real Libertarian plan for a civilization that would actually work. If there is one, why haven't they created it yet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History

I would like to see a real Libertarian plan for a civilization that would actually work. If there is one, why haven't they created it yet?

You are taking part in it. The plan is to just replace governments and their creations piece by piece with superior decentralized alternatives. If these alternatives don't get created or adopted, perhaps there is still a need for government intervention in that realm. The idea that everything should be planned out beforehand is for other people to do.

I would like to see a real Libertarian plan for a civilization that would actually work. If there is one, why haven't they created it yet?

You are taking part in it. The plan is to just replace governments and their creations piece by piece with superior decentralized alternatives. If these alternatives don't get created or adopted, perhaps there is still a need for government intervention in that realm. The idea that everything should be planned out beforehand is for other people to do.

I see the decentralization movement not replacing government, just decentralizing it. Libertarians believe in no government and survival of the strongest. Historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History) Other than Vikings living through raiding unsuspecting villages, I don't see a culture of selfishness actually working. Eventually collectivism of some sort will overpower warlords.

I can see Bitcoin promoting privacy where government does not interfere with the individual without cause, such as taxation without representation. In fact, Bitcoin will probably eliminate the need for national borders and limit the ability of large-scale warfare because money is globally interdependent.

What is America? look at all our wars.

That's easy, America is a Corporatocracy.

since when

Libertarians believe in no government and survival of the strongest. Historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History) Other than Vikings living through raiding unsuspecting villages, I don't see a culture of selfishness actually working. Eventually collectivism of some sort will overpower warlords.

WTF have you been smoking?

You take one example, of Medieval Iceland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth), twist it all up wrong, and say "historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare"? Come on, man. Nobody can be that stupid. You have to be trolling. The Vikings were from Norway.  ::)

Tell me how a society based on this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) practices continuous warfare.

I simply asked for an historical example. The ones I was given were the Vikings that colonized Iceland and Early America that conquered and enslaved indigenous tribes. Neither lasted nor are even theoretically sustainable. I just think that Libertarianism is a pipe dream that does not consider the complexities of global affairs.

You're looking at the non-libertarian potions of the offered example societies, and saying, "see, libertarianism promotes these bad things" The problem is, that portions of an AnCap society have been implemented, but never the whole thing before. So any (non-fiction) example I give you is going to have holes. I can give fictional accounts of what an AnCap society might look like, if you'll take those as examples. I can give you theoretical constructions of the entire society, as well.

But to answer the original question, Why hasn't it been done before, the answer is pretty simple. The gangs who claim to be in charge of the land where we might set one up seem to feel that our trying would be a threat to their control. That, in and of itself, is all the evidence I need to be confident that it would work.

This is why I have abandoned all the movements to change society. John Lennon had it right in Revolution Number 9. Bitcoin is a technology that can help bring positive changes. It won't happen in my lifetime, but this is a revolution in how to think about money.

If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right.

Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's impossible. Just look at the progress made already in the Free State Project.

First you have to change human nature (whatever you think it is). That will take awhile. Behaviorists are working on that, but it won't happen soon. Ford was talking about nuts and bolts, not social mechanisms. Bitcoin is nuts and bolts that make us think about new paradigms, but it doesn't offer any solutions to social problems.

Libertarianism has no plans to change human nature. We want to change the structure of society to utilize human nature, rather than fight against it.

I'm afraid you're wrong about wanting "nothing to replace it"

And Ron Paul isn't my Poster boy. I'm not a political Libertarian, I'm an agorist. That means I want to build the replacement system right now, within the shell of the old failing one, so that when it crumbles (oh, and it will, on that, I think we can agree), the new way is there to take up the slack.

A few links that may help you understand my position:
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epub
http://agorism.info/

But before you read those, I want to ask you, What is it about human nature that you believe libertarianism would need to change?

This system will crumble. What takes its place will probably the same thing that always does. Feudalism. It may be a more technological feudalism, but violence will be at its core.

I didn't define human nature. I said behaviorists are working on that. How do you fix a problem when you can't even define it?

Well, you're the one that says there's a problem. How can you point out a problem, if you can't define it?

Libertarians think human nature is fine as is. We just need to build a system around it, instead of trying to build a system to constrain it.

Behaviorists believe human nature has needs that must be met before it realizes its potential. Without these needs being met, people are dysfunctional. Libertarianism does not offer to meet basic human needs for anyone other than to say "someone else" will do it.

In my opinion voluntary collectivism has the potential to yield superior results to involuntary, and the best candidate for incentivizing this behaviour is self-interest. Don't "try to change society", produce something of value that people will voluntarily choose to use and society will change it's self.

OK, you're going to have to explain that one in more detail. I think I know where you're coming from with that, but I want to be sure.

Bitcoin's community is not entirely libertarians. Rejecting him because he criticized them is unfair and unnecessarily disopen and elitist. Our goal is Bitcoin adoption, not production of copious praise for libertarians.

I don't know how much detail you want. That's what Universities are for. Well just look at all the marvelous technological development that came from feudalism. Basically nothing other that sharper sticks and throwing bigger stones. Even before Maslow, Jesus and others said we are our brother's keeper. Since the 1940s when we established social safety nets, Europe and America have created a technological explosion. We make nuclear power instead of just nuclear bombs. We make moon rockets instead of just missiles. If America, Europe and USSR decided to punish Germany by genocide, they would have reverted to their monarchic roots. Instead they rebuild Germany, well mostly. If America had rebuilt Afghanistan in the 1990s, there would be much more progress there.

How would a Libertarian country deal with being in the middle of global conflict?

I don't really care about these definitions of libertarians and poster boys or whatever. If you think about it, framing arguments with that kind of stuff is a distraction.

In my opinion voluntary collectivism has the potential to yield superior results to involuntary, and the best candidate for incentivizing this behaviour is self-interest. I also think the current system encourages stereotyped thinking and orthodoxy while discouraging experimentation and cleverness (especially academia). Don't "try to change society", produce something of value that people will voluntarily choose to use and society will change it's self.

Also, (IMO) the job of a democratic government isn't to "meet basic needs", it is to use a monopoly on legal violence in order to provide an environment conducive to the general welfare. Perhaps meeting basic needs is a part of this, perhaps not. The primary job, though, is keeping any other malicious entity from occupying the space of "biggest gang". The game is not letting the government itself become so powerful that when malicious powers take over (and they will eventually) it is not too big to stop without taking everything else down with it.

My point is, if the actions necessary to "meet basic needs" are an obstacle to limiting government power, then perhaps those actions should not be taken.

None of that even touched the original statement. I'll answer your question, but I'd appreciate an explanation of what basic needs need to be met, and how libertarianism doesn't offer to meet them.

Now, as to your question, I assume by "in the middle of", you mean in a position similar to Switzerland during WWII. And, in my opinion, it would be handled much like it was by Switzerland. Free trade with whomever came peacefully, and armed resistance to any who came in aggression.

Switzerland was in no position to take sides even if they wanted to. Bad example. What if England chose to remain neutral in WWII?

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

Switzerland's a perfect example of exactly how a libertarian nation or AnCap region would handle being surrounded by warring nations. "Well, I suppose my people would have to shoot twice."

OK, now, how does libertarianism fail to meet those needs?

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

Libertarianism is not based on science. I have no reference for defending it. You have not posited a clear specific argument where AnCap is sustainable. The Wikipedia article mentions historical roots to related philosophies, but that's like saying we have a mission to Alpha Centauri planned because we went to the moon. I think your philosophy has a lot of development to do and probably requires a technological breakthrough of some sort before it should be attempted.

Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise.

"Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth.

OK then real life examples. Most great inventors, artists, authors, etc. in history lived on a pension of some sort. They were supported by family wealth or at the amusement of an aristocrat. People struggling to survive don't think grand thoughts. Speaking of which, I must now bow to my master for a few hours.

I would agree. I would just change the original wording from "[if needs are met] people will thrive" to "the ability of people to thrive is facilitated by having their basic needs met". In other words, having basic needs met is necessary but not sufficient for thriving.

The entire right column of that is not "needs". Those are Internet resources that do nothing more than waste time that could go to proper socialization.

The entire right column of that is internet resources which meet those needs in the tier they are featured. LinkedIn, for instance, meets the need for employment, or at least, helps meet that need. I do agree they're a waste of space in this graphic, though. Not needed for the discussion.

A bigger problem is not laziness but that there are only 24 hours in a day and a declining standard of living.

You are taking part in it. The plan is to just replace governments and their creations piece by piece with superior decentralized alternatives. If these alternatives don't get created or adopted, perhaps there is still a need for government intervention in that realm. The idea that everything should be planned out beforehand is for other people to do.

I see the decentralization movement not replacing government, just decentralizing it. Libertarians believe in no government and survival of the strongest. Historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History) Other than Vikings living through raiding unsuspecting villages, I don't see a culture of selfishness actually working. Eventually collectivism of some sort will overpower warlords.

I can see Bitcoin promoting privacy where government does not interfere with the individual without cause, such as taxation without representation. In fact, Bitcoin will probably eliminate the need for national borders and limit the ability of large-scale warfare because money is globally interdependent.

WTF have you been smoking?

You take one example, of Medieval Iceland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth), twist it all up wrong, and say "historically Libertarians practice continuous warfare"? Come on, man. Nobody can be that stupid. You have to be trolling. The Vikings were from Norway.  ::)

Tell me how a society based on this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) practices continuous warfare.

Funny how all this 'decentralization' actually does the work of the 'dividing' prior to the 'conquering' that will soon follow.  You regionalist fools are walking headlong into a trap in many regards to these proposed 'solutions'.  Mark my words, before this decade is through we're going to see a serious resurgence of secessionism.

Wherever one finds Utopian thinking one finds ignorance and foolishness in abundance.

I'm afraid you're wrong about wanting "nothing to replace it"

And Ron Paul isn't my Poster boy. I'm not a political Libertarian, I'm an agorist. That means I want to build the replacement system right now, within the shell of the old failing one, so that when it crumbles (oh, and it will, on that, I think we can agree), the new way is there to take up the slack.

A few links that may help you understand my position:
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/NLM.epub
http://agorism.info/

But before you read those, I want to ask you, What is it about human nature that you believe libertarianism would need to change?

Switzerland's a perfect example of exactly how a libertarian nation or AnCap region would handle being surrounded by warring nations. "Well, I suppose my people would have to shoot twice."

OK, now, how does libertarianism fail to meet those needs?

Don't worry about proposing solutions after the system collapses.  Whatever Utopian systems you promote better begin with a large doses of Warlord repellent to deal with the pragmatic actualities of that future existence.  

I am not one of the Libertarians to partake in the jumping off the deep end into the waters of "all decentralization is good and having no central authority does not hinder our defense strategically"

thanks very much

niemivh, I'm not sure which "nation" you're talking about.  But, if it's the United States, you should probably take a step back and realize that our "central" government has not served to aid in our "defense" in the least.  On the contrary, it has only served to provide a convenient storefront for foreigners wishing to purchase our country wholesale.  Centralization is a complete failure.  Secessionism worked swimmingly the last time we had it.  Your peddling the same old tired, collectivist ideologies that brought us to this point will not help in getting us through what is to come.

Sorry, that wasn't meant to foist upon you something that you do not hold, it just reminded me of how much in the realm of supposed 'solutions' I'm seeing in this specific direction.

My apologies.

Wherever one finds Utopian thinking one finds ignorance and foolishness in abundance.

Got yer Warlord repellant right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency

LOL.  I forgot for a moment that you're wholly unworthy of my time.  Sorry about that.  I almost made the mistake of trying to sway you out of your... inclinations.

Once again, PM me if you ever read that book "Oligarcy".  Until then you go back in the playpen, and by that I mean "Ignore".

niemivh, have you ever actually read the US Constitution?  I mean, like, sat down and read it front to back?  Maybe you should add that to your reading list.

+1

LOL

Actually I think writing a picture book with all types of photos in this vein would be great.  Since Libtards are so intimidated by the act of reading and thinking and not being in possession of their primitive absoluteisms, this book would be right up their alley.  Doesn't matter if their knees buckle when they are confronted by any representative of the State (be it police officer or meter-maid) - they can act out their total impotence and weakness as males in such an absurd fashion as to think that they are going to be violent armed revolutionaries.  It's fucking perfect.

It'll be somewhat like the zombie books that tell you how to turn your house (parents basement or apartment, bungleoo, whatever) into a 'Lil Alamo' so you can imagine going down in a 'blaze of glory' as you somehow mow down dozens of federal agents.  It's totally, absurdly, mythologically fantastic and plays to the stunted emotional intelligence, frustration and denial of male virtues in the society.  So you're left to act that bottled aggression out in fantastic 'flights of fancy'.  And it's not like the vast majority of you are having any worthwhile sex, often, if at all, so we can delete that as a potential outlet.  And so you long for a collapse in which your flabby bodies and childlike personas would be brushed aside like dandruff, out of the way of people that don't have the fear you do and will victimize the hell out of you, as is so often when national governments collapse.

I'm offering you something Utopian by constrast; and yet, real.  If anyone wants to see my book list let me know, contrary to the Libtard doom-mongers and their king turd: Alex Jones, there is still time, there is always time and yet there is no time - none, if you never choose to take it.

Not disagreeing with what you said, just curious; What is worthwhile sex to you?

That is a question that says more about the person asking it than the person responding.

 :-*

alright you got me. but it goes against my constitution to pay for sex

It'll be somewhat like the zombie books that tell you how to turn your house (parents basement or apartment, bungleoo, whatever) into a 'Lil Alamo' so you can imagine going down in a 'blaze of glory' as you somehow mow down dozens of federal agents.  It's totally, absurdly, mythologically fantastic and plays to the stunted emotional intelligence, frustration and denial of male virtues in the society.  So you're left to act that bottled aggression out in fantastic 'flights of fancy'.  And it's not like the vast majority of you are having any worthwhile sex, often, if at all, so we can delete that as a potential outlet.  And so you long for a collapse in which your flabby bodies and childlike personas would be brushed aside like dandruff, out of the way of people that don't have the fear you do and will victimize the hell out of you, as is so often when national governments collapse.

Does anyone disagree to saying:

Democrats/Republicans are more intellectually lazy & idiotic than Libertarians

niemivh: do you expect to gain some rep being so full of hot air or are you just trolling for the sake of it?

@Topic:

we asked Max Keiser what he meant during an interview with him this week. We'll publish the results in issue #4 (October) of the Bitcoin Magazine.

fan fucking tastic!

@above
I think we're becoming guilty of going off topic now

@topic: I can't wait to see it.

@above: It doesn't matter, a libertarian could call the sky blue, and niemivh would argue that we're idiots, and the sky is clearly azure.

niemivh: do you expect to gain some rep being so full of hot air or are you just trolling for the sake of it?

Define what you mean by 'hot air'.

@Topic:

I don't see why Bitcoin, as a currency, should recruit a community that is so politically oriented. This limits adoption, and that is not in any of our best interests. If a spokesperson for Bitcoin criticizes a certain viewpoint, rather than attacking them, the community should consider that Bitcoin is valid for people not of that viewpoint.

The Bitcoin community is diverse, and will only become more diverse. We should together refrain from politically minded comments and go for a neutral, Bitcoin-centric discussion about the merits of Bitcoin.

If people like government force (i.e. anti libertarian principles) then they like the possibility of controlling or completely stopping bitcoin with force

No, the two entities can coexist. Bitcoin is very popular among social liberals, true, but even social conservatives (e.g. Luke-Jr) use it. Bitcoin is politically trans-spectrum, and should remain that way.

On the contrary, if Bitcoin or its successors are successful, Politics as we know it will essentially go out the window.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=100804.0

Bitcoin can be regulated just like any other currency. It's just that one can now choose whether to be regulated or not. Politics will not go out the window.

Bitcoin can be regulated just like any other currency. It's just that one can now choose whether to be regulated or not. Politics will not go out the window.

The day they will be able to effectively "regulate" bitcoins, I'm out for good.

Bingo. Bitcoin does not cure cancer, it just slowly impedes the process at which cancer cells can get their food and teachers other healthy cells that they're not alone, giving them some reason to fight. This is a 200 year battle we're in. Bitcoin is just a whisper of an innovation in the right direction, one that looks to us like the most interesting thing in our decade.

I know some people are against taxes (I'm not, just against forced taxes for things I don't want to participate in and don't ask for) but do you expect to pay taxes on bitcoins?

Bitcoin is a currency that the users of can decide whether or not to be regulated. It makes taxes voluntary. That's the game changer. It's not a cure for cancer, it's a means to starve the cancer.

I know some people are against taxes (I'm not, just against forced taxes for things I don't want to participate in and don't ask for) but do you expect to pay taxes on bitcoins?

I consider a moral duty to do my best to not pay any tax, and that is one of the reasons I am into into bitcoins.

Taxes being voluntary doesn't starve the government. In fact, the IRS isn't even going to care if most people just stop paying taxes with USD. They only target people who are worth targeting, and that doesn't change with Bitcoin. It just gets harder.

Just don't pay it. Unless you earn a significant amount, the IRS isn't going to go after you.

In other words, you're against taxes. If you're not forced, it's not a tax.

To tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.

I consider a moral duty to do my best to not pay any tax, and that is one of the reasons I am into into bitcoins.

Yup, they'll actually have to offer services that people will want to pay for.

Sound familiar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)?

Is that because you don't agree with what the money is used for, or because you're an anarchist or something of that nature?

No, they'll still collect taxes from people that want to pay them. There are a lot of those people.

For now.

And now is all that matters concerning Bitcoin adoption.

Adoption: not alienating half the political spectrum.
Post-adoption: whatever you imagine.

Which half would that be? The half that wants to control other people? Fuck 'em.

Bitcoin is not a means to achieve a political end. It is a decentralized, fair monetary transfer system. Sabotaging what it is for what it is not is not constructive.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!"

You are not permitted to issue and control Bitcoin.

Precisely.

Therefore, the quote is invalid.

Bitcoin is not a means to achieve a political end.

Then you're looking at it wrong. The quote says money trumps political power. Decentralize money, decentralize political power.

The only invalid quote here is this:

Then you're looking at it wrong. The quote says money trumps political power. Decentralize money, decentralize political power.

The only invalid quote here is this:

I consider a moral duty to do my best to not pay any tax, and that is one of the reasons I am into into bitcoins.

Money doesn't make politicians, people do. Money is just what gives them more power.

Why would Bitcoin be a means to achieve a political end?

Bitcoin, or it's successors, makes paying the State an entirely voluntary affair. They can't even prove how much you've got. When people cannot be forced into paying the State, the State must convince them to pay. That puts them in market competition, if not with each other, then at least with all the myriad other things money can buy.

Bitcoin, or it's successors, makes paying the State an entirely voluntary affair. They can't even prove how much you've got. When people cannot be forced into paying the State, the State must convince them to pay. That puts them in market competition, if not with each other, then at least with all the myriad other things money can buy.

Yes, but it doesn't remove the government, it just makes them more honest (unless they basically kill everyone who carries bitcoins like they currently do with any lethal weapons).

Government may be a flawed principle in itself, but I think short of some advancements in Eugenics, our need for government is far from over.

Government may be a flawed principle in itself, but I think short of some advancements in Eugenics, our need for government is far from over. This forum is a government. The internet you use is a government. McDonalds is a government (they control your actions and do not reward you unless you do what they want, they way they want it, and yet they produce a product through this). Everything needs management, and the roots of this go right down to our childhood. When a baby can be born alone and grow up without any help from anyone else, we won't need government. The second someone says "we dont' need moderation of that", I'll point you to pedophiles, kidnappers, murderers and psychopaths that would raise the child up as a freak.

Government may be inherently evil, but our interest in creating one is natural and understandable. Government is a file system tree on your computer. You want chaos? Fine. Randomize your hard drive. No order! No one tells these bits what to do or where to go! Rather useless.

That's the brainwashing the matrix of B/S instilled in you: "lack of Government? Be afraid!"
...and an ironical negation of your sign.

I'll try to cure it with this quote:
"Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can’t have criminals without a jail. We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves. If a man was so poor that he had no horse, tipi or blanket, someone gave him these things. We were too uncivilized to set much value on personal belongings. We wanted to have things only in order to give them away. We had no money, and therefore a man’s worth couldn’t be measured by it. We had no written law, no attorney or politicians, therefore we couldn’t cheat. We were in a really bad way before the white man came, and I don’t know how we managed to get along without the basic things which, we are told, are absolutely necessary to make a civilized society." - John Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions: The Life of a Sioux Medicine Man, Simon & Schuster; Revised edition (October 1, 1994)

I believe however that as seekers of shelter and cooperation, we are inherently drawn to moderation for the fairness of the group. Such is government.

“It thus has been demonstrated a priori, to those of us who have faith in the principles of economic science, that the exception indicated above is not justified, and that the production of security, like anything else, should be subject to the law of free competition. Political economy has disapproved equally of monopoly and communism in the various branches of human activity, wherever it has found them. Is it not then strange and unreasonable that it accepts them in the security industry?”

@Topic

Whatever Bitcoin's aftermath will be does not really matter. The point of Bitcoin is to offer a decentralized, fair, and cryptographically secure monetary system. To meet that primary goal, adoption by people from all kinds of cultures, opinions, and political views is necessary. It is not constructive to criticize those that support Bitcoin without supporting a socially liberal society.

@Topic

Whatever Bitcoin's aftermath will be does not really matter. The point of Bitcoin is to offer a decentralized, fair, and cryptographically secure monetary system. To meet that primary goal, adoption by people from all kinds of cultures, opinions, and political views is necessary. It is not constructive to criticize those that support Bitcoin without supporting a socially liberal society.

It's funny, I thought the title was "Max Keiser - "Libertarians are Intellectually Lazy & Idiots"," not "Max Keiser - "Statists are Intellectually Lazy & Idiots""

You're scolding the wrong people.

I'm not scolding anyone, I'm pointing out that we shouldn't scold anyone supporting Bitcoin. Bitcoin is young, and all of its supporters should remain united in one principle: the support of Bitcoin.

Who the hell is he, and why should we care?

Bitcoin, or it's successors, makes paying the State an entirely voluntary affair. They can't even prove how much you've got. When people cannot be forced into paying the State, the State must convince them to pay. That puts them in market competition, if not with each other, then at least with all the myriad other things money can buy.

Bitcoin, or it's successors, makes paying the State an entirely voluntary affair. They can't even prove how much you've got. When people cannot be forced into paying the State, the State must convince them to pay. That puts them in market competition, if not with each other, then at least with all the myriad other things money can buy.

Hogwash.  It's easier to "prove how much you've got" with BTC then it is with paper fiat. 

Really? My primary address is in my signature. This is the one that I have used to receive all my mining gains, any pay from projects, etc. How many Bitcoins do I have, all told?

0

Really? My primary address is in my signature. This is the one that I have used to receive all my mining gains, any pay from projects, etc. How many Bitcoins do I have, all told?

Total Received    24.27672903 BTC ?

At least it's a start.  How much USD are in my safe at the moment? 

It's absurdly funny how some individuals think Bitcoin can stop taxes. That would only be the case if Bitcoin is never adopted wholeheartedly and you choose to live within the Bitcoin market while it is a fledgling movement without any real utility. However, if it was universally adopted, then what is taxed would just change to things such as:

- Crossing boundaries (tolls)
- Square footage of your residence
- Perimeter length of your properties

Bitcoin will not and cannot stop taxes. It can stop certain kinds of taxes. Universal adoption of Bitcoin will change tax structure, not eliminate it.

You just did.

Ah, good point. I don't pretend to know. But can you carry those bills over the border in your brain?

And while you have determined how much BTC I've passed through that wallet address, You still have no idea how much I have now. In fact, maybe I lied when I told 420 he was wrong, and I am actually Bitcoin broke. Can you tell? Can you even tell where those coins all went?

I am a political realist, therefore anarchist.
Besides, what is the point of taxes in a pure fiat money system?

I like how this thread is kind of concluded with the first answer.

Apparently, he's some loud man who is being funded by Russia of all places. I take it as a compliment to be insulted by that sort.

Also, derp -- the context makes no sense. He's acting as if Libertarians accept the breaking of financial contracts or something. One moment he talks that short-selling is somehow evil, then he's ranting how rocket launchers used by the public solve everything. Tha heck?

It's because he's worked on Wall Street.  He inventing patents around algoTrading and knows how the system works - although he doesn't present that that well to someone who doesn't already know who he is.

Max is good for some things and understanding the daily workings of Wall St. is what he's best at.  Although his bombastic nature and raving make it simultaneously a humorous and over-the-top show.

In many regards the man knows what he's talking about.

and he believes in global warming...

Besides, what is the point of taxes in a pure fiat money system?

This is simple.  It's obviously not to fund the government.  So the only meaningful aspect of taxation is the fact that taxes are "progressive".  The point is to stimulate constant economic "growth" by preventing anyone from becoming self-sufficient.

The Need for Cognition scale [64] is a measure of the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. People with high need for cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments, whereas people with low need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. The measure was completed by 8,035 participants (4,242 men; 5,888 liberals, 760 conservatives, and 657 libertarians).
Results.

Table 3 shows that libertarians scored slightly higher than liberals and moderately higher than conservatives on Need for Cognition (also see Figure 4).
Interpretation.

This pattern is consistent with the libertarian valuation of logic and reasoning over emotion. Libertarians may enjoy thinking about complex and abstract systems more than other groups, particularly more than conservatives.

The scale asks participants to describe the extent to which they agree with each statement using a 9-point scale with the following values:

    +4 = very strong agreement
    +3 = strong agreement
    +2 = moderate agreement
    +1 = slight agreement
      0 = neither agreement nor disagreement
     -1 = slight disagreement
     -2 = moderate disagreement
     -3 = strong disagreement
     -4 = very strong disagreement



1)    I would prefer complex to simple problems.
2)    I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking.
3)    Thinking is not my idea of fun.*
4)    I would rather do something that requires little thought than something that is sure to challenge my thinking abilities.*
5)    I try to anticipate and avoid situations where there is likely a chance I will have to think in depth about something.*
6)    I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours.
7)    I only think as hard as I have to.*
8)    I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones.*
9)    I like tasks that require little thought once I’ve learned them.*
10)    The idea of relying on thought to make my way to the top appeals to me.
11)    I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems.
12)    Learning new ways to think doesn’t excite me very much.*
13)    I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that I must solve.
14)    The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.
15)    I would prefer a task that is intellectual, difficult, and important to one that is somewhat important but does not require much thought.
16)    I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort.*
17)    It’s enough for me that something gets the job done; I don’t care how or why it works.*
18)    I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally.

* = Reverse Scored

(1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost? _____ cents

(2) If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take
100 machines to make 100 widgets? _____ minutes

(3) In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size.
If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it
take for the patch to cover half of the lake? _____ days

The Need for Cognition scale [64] is a measure of the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. People with high need for cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments, whereas people with low need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. The measure was completed by 8,035 participants (4,242 men; 5,888 liberals, 760 conservatives, and 657 libertarians).

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366


Note there are different samples for each measurement for some reason (cognitive reflection task = 9,721 participants). The authors also report a significant correlation between cognitive reflection score and need for cognition (r = .3, p <.001).  Talk about sampling to a foregone conclusion... cutoff  pearson's R at .001 for such large samples is like .15. Due to these silly errors in reporting methods and interpreting resutls, I would personally dismiss the paper as not worth studying or quoting further unless you are in the field.

Libertarians are the lazy ones?

Haha

@Topic

How is that not insane? It's a recipe for a totalitarian nightmare!

That's why, in order to change certain things in today's society, and do it right, there has to be a strategy. Some realistic plan that goes step-by-step. Ask yourself, if you're getting a heart transplant, how would you want your doctor to approach the problem? Chop out the old one, kinda hope you don't die, and then speed-dial a new one for delivery?!

Totally fair comment. I guess when people sit down and think about various scenarios, most possibilities that would otherwise be unexpected, are actually predictable to a degree.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on the Libertarians. If there's some kind of super-secret underground resistance with the Libertarians collaborrating with the Military on some kind of massive coup (I'm trying to be open-minded here...), I'm sure we'd hear nothing about it until the day after.

Sorry but no. Anyway you are going to tell me that Libertarians are the intellectually lazy ones and that Republicans and Democrats are the ones who are really intelligent?

max keisers did not mention liberals or conservatives nor compare libertarians to them, just the statement on libertarians

I think all humans are intellectually lazy and idiots. As a consequence, libertarians are all intellectually lazy and idiots.