Bitcoin Forum

Why thank you! And to show my appreciation of this special award, here's a song for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o

You strike me as very young, so you've plenty of time to learn better than this^

I agree, I don't think a bitcoin-planet would be described as Libertarian. I shouldn't be too harsh on you guys, I beleive your fanatical zeal (though misguided in my opinion) will provide a sustaining core for this technology on the long road to wide adoption. Like the CIA funding the Mujahadeen in a way, yeah...

I doubt the result will be anything like what you expect however, though I do think it could be better than what we have now.

In nature everything has a use.

Onward to Kabul!

A mature thing to say.:)

My concern is for the newcomers, I don't want them to think bitcoin belongs only to Libertards and Rand-enjoyers.

Yeah, it's their money, which was stolen from them by the government.

You are in favor of government run healthcare and schools, therefore you are a socialist. Seems pretty straight forward.

You seem to be seriously deluded about the role that government plays in society. If you don't understand that government involvement in health and schooling decreases quality while raising costs and if you don't understand how government regulations and distortions of the market enable and encourage the corrupted and parasitic institutions we all despise, then I see this as you main failing. I could accuse you of hating the poor, as you advocate the system that condemns them, but I know you are just another righteous liberal who hasn't thought things through.

Many here appreciate bitcoin precisely because it takes away the power of the government to persist with it's wealth redistribution insanity.

Stop bashing Libertarianism until you can actually make an argument against it. you clearly don't understand it at all.

Actually I beleive in a mixed economy. Call me a socialist, I'm not one but I do not consider it an insult. Socialists are proud to be so, and I respect what they're trying to do. Socialism helped rebuild Europe.

Libertarianism is not hard to figure, it's embarrassingly easy to understand the mind-set of the movement...

http://memecaptain.com/i?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcolorificink.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Ftantrum2.jpg&tt=&tb=My+Parents+Are+FASCISTS%21

Talking about a childish response....

How can you compliment one on being mature in one sentence, then call someone a "libertard" in the next? The immediate next, no less.

Hazek, that was way over the line.

Threads like this are an example of why I don't discuss politics with people any more.  ::)

Damn thread went AWOL.  Did anyone take me up on my offer?

I'm sorry but I lost it. Guy calls me inhumane while at the same time idiotically faithfully supporting ideas that have throughout our history always lead to the most inhumane consequences for a society that followed these same ideas.

I just couldn't help myself. Sorry again.

My beleif is that you are deeply confused and angered by a complex world you do not understand and resentful that you must share said world with other human beings.

Mises cannot help you though, you should abandon that rubbish.:(

See this? There's a whole country who followed his beliefs into a major crisis where people lost their savings over night and are now going to have to starve, because his ideal world does not work and yet he is unable to learn this lesson and instead will further parrot his moronic beliefs and tell me that it is me who doesn't understand.

How am I not suppose to lose it to a person like that?


Belarus devaluation spreads panic:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Belarus-devaluation-spreads-apf-3127812939.html?x=0&.v=4

Welcome To Hyperinflation Hell: Following Currency Devaluation, Belarus Economy Implodes, Sets Blueprint For Developed World Future:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/welcome-hyperinflation-hell-following-currency-devaluation-belarus-economy-implodes-sets-blu

Deeply deeply confused. :(

Perhaps you should start another thread in Economics or Off-topic asking what are the differences between left-wing politics and a dictatorship. I would be happy to assist you in any way I can there.

Saying and wishing I was the one who is confused does not make it so. I suggests you meet with reality.

Maybe watching this will help you: John A. Allison(BB&T CEO) "Leadership and Values" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDAn51D_YxY)

I understand the frustration of being talked down to about morals by someone who doesn't understand the logical conclusions of what he openly supports, and thinks himself educated enough to consider others to be irrational and uncaring while in reality he is the one who supports human suffering.  I really do.  But he knows not of what he speaks, while you do.  You must keep a cool head while using this forum.

And as for you, you are pushing it.  Intentionally skirting the line so that I don't censor you as well.  I can tell that you are practiced at antagonizing your opposition, but do you have a rational argument to present?  I won't let you continue with your own style of insults for much longer.

And this thread needs to split...

I feel I have presented my arguments well enough. To the denizens of a banckrupt, orwellian and immoral school-of-thought however, the fate of my arguments on this thread were to pass...

http://memecaptain.com/i?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aerospaceweb.org%2Fquestion%2Fatmosphere%2Fcontrails%2Fcontrails.jpg&tt=&tb=far+far+overhead

G seems to be presenting a rational argument, albeit one to which you are not receptive. Unless I am mistaken (please correct me if I am, G), he is suggesting that the deeply contradictory beliefs (on many levels) being espoused here are the result of years of indoctrination and confusion. That indoctrination, by its very design, is meant to keep people scared and isolated. To keep them confused. It is difficult to free oneself from this confusion, without some outside perspective.

Let me quote one of the links posted by hazek:

This is interesting. Hazek furnished us with an article which I presume was meant to bolster his assertion that unbridled capitalism is good. Yet, this article specifically ridicules a banker who calls for privatization, which again is one of the basic canons of the anarcho-capitalist religion. This seems to be deeply incongruous, and supports the assertion that hazek is, in some way, struggling to reconcile what he accepts a priori (unrestricted privatization is good) and what he observes (economic devastation resulting from unrestricted privatization).


Not sure why. Just want to spread the topics around?

I agree, the world view typified by hazek is so riddled with self-contradictions and faithfully regurgitated nonsense from the likes of the pitiful Ayn Rand or the cult-like Mises.org. I'm tempted to consider this 'Anarcho-Capitalism' as the new Fascism.

It is endorsed by a bewildered middle-class under pressure by a manipulative ruling class, resentful, fearful and contemptuous of the underclass, bamboozled by the obliquities of international finance, fetishistic of the primacy of the will and wishing to return to some idealized glorious past. All very similar in my humble opinion to the support given various fascist movements in the 1930's.

this is exactly what I am talking about.  There is no argument here, only hateful retoric.  You have a right to your opinion, but if you can't be more civil, you shall soon find yourself keeping your opinions to yourself.

At best, you and him are exposing an opinion about those you hold in opposition, and know next to nothing about how those you and him make assumptions about actually came to the opinions that they hold.  For myself, I was a true green as a young man, and my parents were real hippies.  I started to question the logic of the green and progressive movements on my own, and never even heard of Mises or Rothbard until those names were thrown at me by my father during an argument around 22 years old.  So I started to read, and then I was changed.  I never read Rand until I was 30 something, and thought it was okay, but I'm not a randian.

"If you are not a socialist at 20, then you have no heart; but if you are still a socialist at 40 then you have no sense."

Yes, you presumed, and failed to understand.  The banking systems of the Western world are not remotely privatized or 'deregulated'.  That's all BS.  It's never happened, and cannot happen, because the bankers own the government not the other way around.  That's the short answer.  Austrian economic thought (i.e. libertarian thought, praxeology) is incompatible with central banking.  Central banking is, by it's own definition, central control of the money markets.

This topic is about politics, and no longer about Bitcoin or Spain.

I can be more civil, but why is it acceptable for some people to make vast sweeping blatantly inaccurate and false statements about people with whom they disagree politically or in terms of economic thought?

I have said repeatedly that I am not a socialist, but that I do not consider socialism an insult, in response I have been called a socialist anyway (as if socialists don't know whether they are socialists or not) and furthermore I've been told that I support the nature and the mismanagements of the government of Belarus. I do not support that, and it is deeply offensive to me for it to be suggested that I do. Why has this false accusation been leveled against me? Because I have said that government must be an agent of the community as a whole, because I have suggested that there is merit to the concept that we who live together in a society have common interests that it makes sense to pool resources in order to maintain.

This is merely to state my conception of the role of government, taxes, expenditure and society. It's a big fucking leap to conclude from that that I want government thugs to kick peoples doors down and drag away their stuff to spend it maintaining dead-beats and losers in the lap of luxury.

This dire misrepresentation is not only completely unjustified, insulting to me and to the vast majority of working people that pay their taxes and benefit from the expenditure of those taxes in various ways at various times of their life. Therefore a vast majority of tax paying people would have to consider themselves the dead-beats and losers, stealing from... themselves I suppose.

If I were to say instead that I want to tear down all government on the grounds that "what survives is good" and proudly announce that I would be happy to watch children starve to death to uphold my principal against "welfare" and anyone who does not agree with this is a "socialist" and that all "socialists" basically support genocide andf hate freedom, this would be considered reasonable argument and not just "hateful rhetoric" where no attempt is made to understand how or why those that disagree with me hold their point of view..

I let that slide because I figure that you can't really help that, and everyone has the right to be wrong.


Amazingly, some do not.


I'm sure that you sincerely believe that, but in reality it is a matter of degree.  If you accept that a legitimately elected government should have the power to take the resources necessary for survival from one group of people and give it to another group of people by use of the collective force of government, then the remainder is just a concern about under what conditions.  I'm sure that you would reject divine right as a legimitate justification for a nobility to impose their will upon the majority 'mobility' (yes, that's where we get "mob" from); but would you accept the results of a presumedly democratic elected congress doing something similar?  Why?  Because some special group that you agree with, desire to support, or identify with receives the benefits of that ruling?  I'm Cherokee, but wouldn't for the life of me want to live on a reservation for the side benefit of a $300 per month check and food stamps.  You probably wouldn't either, but would you argue in favor of continuing the practice for your cousins?  I would not, and do not.  The conditions that come with taxpayers' money pretty much promises that the mediocre remain where they are.


Worse, from their own children.  It's not unjustified, as it can be demostrated as being economicly accurate.  You just don't see yourself as we see you.  That is understandable.  Everyone likes to think of themselves as the reasonable ones, as the moderate.  Few people ever question themselves or their own indoctrination.  The irony of all that, which I'm sure that you will reject out of hand, is that the various flavors of liberty minded are those few.  This is why there are so few of us in the political sphere to begin with.  There is no such thing as indoctrination for libertarians, it's contrary to governments of any sort to promote that.  If you attended a school in the US, public or private, you have been indoctrinated in the church of the state, as you have literally been institutionalized.


If you want to say thinks generally about what you think libertarians want, go right ahead.  You are allowed to be wrong, but you have been intentionally antagonizing your opposition, not engaging in a debate.  I have no problem with you openly displaying your ignorance of your peers, no harm comes to me or others by that at all.