Bitcoin Forum

Sure, I see a lot more posts in here by clueless people who worship at the alter of big government. More as it has gone more mainstream.

But we are still here.

Hi!


Oh, and I like how they like to use the less prevalent Silk Road as "proof" that libertarians are going away.

And yes, we all already knew that we had to pay taxes on our bitcoin earnings.

But we will let you think that you are getting what you want...keep driving up the value of our huge Bitcoin wallets.

Yeah we been here and we aren't going any where so get familiar with our freedom loving behinds.  Haha I don't see myself as the cookie cut out libertarian more of a independent free think and so much more.  Just wanted to show some support and libertarians tend to get a bad rap at times and it's usually not justified in my opinion.

Time is on our side, yes it is!
Well maybe not.

Does the Libertarian Party accept Bitcoin now?

They have for years now.

Respectfully,  I realize that you and many people here are libertarians, and you believe that your particular philosophy is the only correct one for the world.  I am sympathetic to many libertarian ideas, but there are things that just do not work when taken to the extreme.   I think bitcoin is a great idea, because it removes control of a currency or a currency-like system away from the control of a central government.   However, I am a pragmatist, and to live in this society, you must obey laws that you may not agree with to keep from going to jail.

There are some things that I believe in that are not libertarian, for instance, I believe there should be subsidies to get broadband internet service to every rural household in America, just as there was for telephone service and electricity.   I believe in the right of a group of people to band together and bargain for higher wages and safety standards with a large company or corporation.   I believe that people and corporations should be made to account for degrading the environment without paying for it (socializing a cost), while making a profit.

An extreme libertarian utopia does exist at present: It is called Somalia.  A nearly non-existent central government, no regulations, no taxes, and lots and lots of guns.   I personally have no desire to live there.

Many would have thought that there would be no way to have a currency without government.

People think the same things about other government services.

As for Somolia...compare it now to when it had a government. You may be surprised.

Calling yourself a Libertarian doesn't make you an Anarchist any more than a Republican makes you a Nazi or a Democrat makes you a Communist.

People need to accept that most people are moderate and the inclination towards a particular group over another is usually a subtle difference of opinions with disagreements on far-wing ideas...

I feel like taxes must be 100% apportioned by census, no taxes on property ownership, I can accept sales taxes. I think inflation is shadow tax and its equally as sinister as currency debasement. I think Congress should control the money. If Congress is unwilling then the people are responsible for themselves.

Legal tender is only morally acceptable when the object in tender has a dual purpose; anything else is robbery.

I think the lives of our ancestors who died fighting for the Constitution should be honored and their dying wishes considered. I think we live in a shadow of the freedom they secured for us and we should be ashamed of ourselves for the level of indifference we've demonstrated as our liberty has been progressively sabotaged over the last century.

I'm more of a Libertarian but I'm moderate.

In WWII Germany those under the foot of the Nazi government would probably consider themselves libertarians (anti-government) even if they favored taxes, regulations and other government policies.

But as the government becomes worse, we all become libertarian in some way or another.

Thanks, during/after Bob Barr 2008 I stopped going to the official LP site.

The Somali argument is such complete nonsense.  It's in sub-saharan Africa.  Pretty much every country in that region is poor and violent.  Heck, Zimbabwe is an even worse basketcase and it's a socialist country.  What does that really prove? 

Keyword being "maybe".  With all the new money wanting in I don't suspect very much has changed and Bitcoin is still in in an adolescent stage.  To put that quote into perspective I'd just like to say that nothing lasts forever.

I'm against subsidies not because I don't support the end sought (broadband for rural folks), but because subsidies distort markets and are fundamentally anti-competitive.  The sentiment is just as wrong as "Every person should own a home" or "Every person should have their college loans paid for" both of which have had disastrous results.


Libertarians are all about free association so I don't think any libertarian would disagree with the above.


Libertarians are pro-property rights, so dumping waste onto others' property or the commons is a big no-no.  The argument is about the solution: whether it be central control, or whether it be by privatizing the commons (like has been done with fish stocks) or  pigouvian taxes.  Libertarians generally prefer the latter because it avoids creating another tragedy of the commons: ensuring the regulatory apparatus is not captured.

So if you don't want the libertarian utopia that is Somalia because somehow they are not worthy due to being located in sub-saharan Africa,  what type of government would you impose on these poor and violent people?  Is not the libertarian ideal the perfect system to generate wealth?  Do or do not large amounts of guns create a polite society and lower the crime rate?

If I ran the best charity in the world, would be ok for me to knock on your door and force you to pay for it under threat of imprisoning you?  If not, then how do you justify permitting the "government" to do this?

That's a real stretch...

 - The Libertarian system does not generate wealth by itself in the same manner that an aqueduct won't hydrate a farm without first connecting to a water supply.

 - The government of Somalia should be whatever the people of Somalia desire. Being Libertarian gives a population the right to choose for themselves.

 - The amount of guns is not the primary determining factor for "politeness" or crime rate. The distribution of those guns within society is certainly a major factor. When you decentralize gun ownership you decrease crime. A Bitcoiner should grasp that concept because the rule equally applies to the creation of money.

A study examining Somalia’s performance relative to other African countries both when Somalia had a government and during its extended period of anarchy found that Somalia, when subjected to an honest comparison between Somalia when it had a functioning government, and Somalia now is less poor, has higher life expectancy, and has experienced a drastic increase in telephone lines.

What does Detroit really prove? #racism_spotted

My point exactly.

Then, what is the system of government needed to create the water supply if libertarianism is going to cut it?  You are a hypothetical benign dictator, you choose.

So, "socialize" the distribution of guns?  Anybody that has the money or submits to service to one of the many warlords there can get a gun.  There's no government there saying you can't get a gun.  I'm just not getting your point.

Perhaps the influx of income from ransom and piracy had something to do with it?

Raise your hand if you've downloaded any music, movies, or TV shows lately.

*raises hand*

If you have, you've been breaking the law. Have you gone to jail for it? I haven't.

Speaking of breaking the law, the authority figures do it too:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/03/27/busted-police-allege-lax-theft-ring-stole-from-fliers-bags/6949949/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/dozens-baggage-handlers-involved-lax-theft-ring-police-article-1.1737407

Trusting wealth with strangers is a risky proposition... that's why Bitcoin is such a brilliant technology.

Personally, I, as an urban dweller, see broadband internet as means for rural dweller to not remain backwards and ignorant, and get exposed to other views.   Instead, they are led by the nose by two of the richest oligarch brothers in America through shadowy "grass roots" organizations that they fund from their Upper West Side penthouse in Manhattan, and they get them to vote against their own self-interests.   They have an extreme hatred for heathcare.gov, even though they've never seen the website and objectively made up their minds.  But that's just me.

Without a subsidy to jump start the investment needed in infra-structure, rural dwellers are going to wait a long, long time until the free market solution finally allows them access.  Meanwhile, the urban dwellers have the advantage of the information economy, and they don't and society stratifies.


I strongly believe in Pigouvian taxes on the dirty energy industry, as it would quickly provide a free market solution to develop the clean energy industry (and get America ahead of the rest of the world in this regard).   But I thought the word "tax" was a dirty word with libertarians.  

If I did, would I admit to it on an open forum?  Probably not.   If I did participate in that activity, would I use a VPN located in another country to protect myself?  Probably.   Would I admit to sending some spare satoshis to the donation btc address on piratebay.se which resolves to ip address 194.71.107.15?  Probably not.

Bullshit. Somalia is governed, not anarchic or libertarian; non-aggressive liberty there is prohibited by law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/somalia

 - No system of government will ever create wealth. Different governmental systems only protect the interests of different people. A Libertarian government affords little protection and favors an individuals right to choose for themselves. The protections afforded by other forms of governments come in the form of restrictions and have a high cost. The cost of regulation is a piece of freedom + the financial draw of regulatory oversight. Everybody is losing money just to protect a few people from themselves, essentially.

 - The distribution of guns should not be "socialized" because that would imply that the guns weren't owned by the person carrying it. Guns should be owned diversely by society, if a warlord wants to steal your food supply then the people should outnumber the warlords... Allow the people equal access to power and the oppression will end. Gun ownership is power; think of Yin and Yang. The guns will exist and the power is real; the people deserve equal access to that power necessary to protect their lives and equalize the distribution of power. The force of the people should exceed the force of the government ALWAYS and at every point.

Are you then arguing that Somalia is or is not a libertarian utopia?   I regard it as the closest thing in the world in this point and time.   You are adding on to an argument in which the other poster doesn't believe it is because the people are poor and violent, and I am arguing that from a libertarian point of view, the absence of government and increased gun ownership solves these problems.  However, I don't see many idealistic libertarians flocking to this paradise.

Sorry, but you sound really pathetic. Like you're the type to wait for the crosswalk light to switch to "walk" even if its in the middle of the night, and well lit and no cars for over a mile in every direction.

Do you really think the Feds are gonna bust down your door for streaming the final season of "Breaking Bad"?

Have you even been to Somalia? What are you basing your knowledge of its current condition on? "Captain Phillips" with Tom Hanks??

The official government has no control outside of the capital and very little control inside the capital.  Sure, it is the officially recognized government of Somalia.

The gun statistics are based on household surveys done in limited geographical (safe) areas.   "Knock, knock, knock.  Hi, I'm doing a survey and would like to know how many guns you keep in the house.   Thanks you for your time and honest answer, have a good day."   Try doing that in Texas and say with a straight face that you can interpolate the true gun ownership statistics in Texas.

I refuse to see that movie, because it glorifies the mighty power of the US Navy brought to bear on a bunch of skinny teenagers.   I read a lot; but no, I have never been there, have you?

Copyright law in the United States is moving towards more and more criminal provisions.   People who violate such laws should be aware of that, and not all of them are going to admit it in public.  Just like people that take illegal drugs.  As I have said before, I am sympathetic to a lot of libertarian principles.

Let me be a little less subtle.  Smart criminals are the ones that never get caught.  Dumb criminals are the ones that get caught.  Really dumb criminals are the ones that don't even require a confidential informant to inform the authorities of their actions.

I actually do wait for the crosswalk to light to switch so I can have legal right of way.  I'm usually not in that big of a hurry crossing the street.   Crossing with the light in the crosswalk allows me punitive damages in court if someone chooses to hit me.  It's just a weird thing I do, hopefully it will never pay off.

Statistics are irrelevant to this argument about who can or cannot legally get a gun under the laws of the State, which is covered by gunpolicy.org with cites. Texas with its Jim Crow laws is another example of a State that is covered in "but there's liberty here!" bullshit.

You site statistics, then say statistics are irrelevant?   I'm confused.    Somalia is a failed state with no effective government.  The gun laws of the ineffective government don't really figure into the equation.

Bitcoin is slowly breaking down our shared myths: "deflation is bad," "money must be issued by a government," "people should not be free to transact with each other," etc., etc.  Bitcoin will break down some libertarian myths too.  

I think it is better to focus on ideas rather than labels.  Labels divide, ideas unite.  When you settle into an ideology, it seems to be an excuse to stop thinking.

Exactly!   Bitcoin is usable currency that relies on no central government, a novel invention and a great idea.   Do I believe that it will replace all centralized government currency?  No.  But it will live along side of it.

Yup, anytime a society grants to a special group of people a monopoly on the use of violent power, the psychopaths among the wider population will inevitably be drawn to become a part of that elite power wielding group. As the proportion of psychopaths within this elite group increases, the more deranged and destructive the actions of that group become, and fewer good, well intentioned people will remain in it.

This dynamic is inherently self-reinforcing, inevitable, and unstable. Over the course of time proven in history, it always results in the deaths of thousands and millions of innocent people. Which usually means the destruction of the host society.

Government has become an incredibly foolish scheme in which we grant all the money, all the guns, all the power, AND a monopoly on violent force to a relatively small group of demonstrably fallible human beings.

Our only choice is to never ever grant such power to any group of people.

Before we can progress to a brighter, more prosperous future, humanity must learn to finally and irrevocably turn its back on this destructive fantasy that psychopathic power-crazed control freaks with all the money, guns, and power, will ever be a solution to anything.

With the advancement of technology, communication, and a P2P, decentralized, global, open source, proof of ownership system in Bitcoin, I think we are getting closer to such a realization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You claim Somalia is a failed state with no effective government, yet you admit you haven't even been there. Those who have actually been there, reported from there, such as Unreported World's "The Master Chef of Mogadishu" crew, show Al Shabaab insurging against the government and trying to assassinate them, a government composed partially if not mostly of former ex-pats and refugees. Why would Al Shabaab insurge against a non-threat, non-effective government? Why would ex-pats and refugees return just to circlejerk and get suicide bombed? Why is Mogadishu Central Prison run, if not to lock people in?

How bloody effective does a government need to be before you stop saying it's not?

Just to be clear, we are talking about Al Shabaab that held control of Mogasihu only 3 years ago, until the predecessor of the currently anointed government (founded only in 2012) forced them out.   So yes, 3 years of holding most of the capital city under regular attack from insurgent forces, but not the country, is a small start towards Somalian statism.  

Asking a person to describe "Utopia" for a diverse group of people like the Libertarian party is impossible. The differences between what two individuals consider Utopia can be very different.

Somalia is closer an an Anarchist utopia than a Libertarian utopia. The difference being that most Libertarians are moderates rather than Anarchists.

A Utopia for me personally in the US would be when the Federal Government doesn't even attempt to blanket every State with the same ridiculous laws. The Federal Government should be limited to enforcing and overseeing the protocol that each State is required to follow. <Legislative, Executive, Judicial> Many States have overwhelmingly different ideas about whats in the better interest of their State.

There can still be a central Federal Government and the congress of all 50 States can control the treasury and tax the States by population. The States would then collect sales taxes from the residents. Each State should be responsible for making its own laws, and international treaties should be ratified by 2/3 of congress. The Federal Government should not be allowed to have a standing army, no DHS, NSA, or any other <insert Federal 3 letter agency here.>
 
There should be no such thing as a victimless crime and people should have the ability to choose the type of life they wish to live while maintaining pride in a US citizenship... If you don't like the laws of your State you should be able to pick a State which better suits your desires and move there. The US was viewed as the last strong hold on Earth for Liberty, the Federal Government should not have the power to control the laws regarding citizens of all 50 States directly.

The Constitution of the United States used to be a list expressing the following: THE US STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS CAN NOT TAKE THESE RIGHTS FROM YOU, CITIZENS.
Somehow it slowly turned into a list which expresses this: CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES CAN NOT DO THESE FOLLOWING THINGS.

The United States Constitution was never intended to be a document enumerating the powers of the US citizens. Had it been, there would be no need for individual State Constitutions... The Constitution was intended to limit the powers of the State and Federal Governments; not embolden them.

Good, you seem like a reasonable person with realistic ideas about changing our current system of government.   I have some libertarian principles, by I would never be welcomed by the extremists that believe our government is sure to collapse in 2 years, and that bitcoin is going to completely destroy the USD.   Instead, I invite them to set up shop in Somalia, where there exist no effective government, no taxes, no regulations, and lots and lots of guns.

Somalia is an example of post-Gov chaos/following civil war, NOT a libertarian experiment.
Nice to know you have "some libertarian principles"...
Perhaps someday you will be an actual libertarian? 

Ah, so it doesn't fit the philosophies of extremist libertarian manifestos.   In what ways has the failed state of Somalia differed in the practice of utopia-libertarianism?   I honestly want to know.

Bitcoin does not rely on the government, a new invention and great money. I have always believed that.

I love when people call a government that's gotten off to exactly the right foot for tyranny (throwing people in prison and/or killing them for mere possession of "illegal" arms) a failed state.

Bitcoin exists, therefore all is well with the world, and the libertarians and crypto anarchists can rest and watch with smug and knowing eyes from the distance as slowly, something amazing begins to happen...

Their once weak and needy offspring has now turned into a tough and resilient young adult, casting its eyes around for freakin' countries to conquer.

Personally, I, as an urban dweller, see broadband internet as means for rural dweller to not remain backwards and ignorant, and get exposed to other views.   Instead, they are led by the nose by two of the richest oligarch brothers in America through shadowy "grass roots" organizations that they fund from their Upper West Side penthouse in Manhattan, and they get them to vote against their own self-interests.   They have an extreme hatred for heathcare.gov, even though they've never seen the website and objectively made up their minds.  But that's just me.

Without a subsidy to jump start the investment needed in infra-structure, rural dwellers are going to wait a long, long time until the free market solution finally allows them access.  Meanwhile, the urban dwellers have the advantage of the information economy, and they don't and society stratifies.

I've never been there, and so I don't use living conditions there as an argument for or against government. I'm fairly certain they are more primitive there, but as far as their freedom goes under different conditions and degrees of government, I think someone who actually lives there could give a better evaluation.


Yup.

Money is the root. It is called currency because it is like the electrical system of any body or machine: It controls everything else. If you have a hierarchical-pyramid system, like we have now, all other systems become hierarchical as well. If you have a decentralized system like cryptocoins, everything else will become decentralized.

Bitcoin will dissolve governments by simply being more efficient - no PR campaign or persuasion necessary.

That is an interesting analogy and quite correct I believe.  Thank you for that. 

If you have a decentralized system like cryptocoins, everything else will become decentralized.
No way...
Gox...Bitcoin Foundation, etc.
We need to fight to support decentralized projects, and it doesn't "just happen."

You are talking about a government less than three year old, that barely holds on to Mogadishu.   If extreme libertarians wanted to support the libertarian paradise, then they would flock to Somalia and participate in assassination politics to keep a centralized government from forming that controls all of Somalia.  It shouldn't be hard to do at present, with enough guns.

Just to be clear, it is a hypothetical.   I'd like an extremist libertarian to explain how Somalia differs from a libertarian utopia, just like I'd ask an ideological communist why the Soviet Union didn't turn out to be the worker's paradise that Karl Marx envisioned.

So far the only answer presented is that a very young, internationally recognized government that has held the majority of the capital city for less than three years, is to blame.

I think mostly you'd just like to boost your post count .... all of your stupid questions (and straw arguments) are answered quite well elsewhere in numerous publications over many years already. Just get out there and research, if you are genuine, which I highly suspect not.

yeah, actually it does. Just creating a decentralized system doesn't erase hierarchical systems or beliefs overnight. 99.99% of the human population still have hierarchy-on-the-brain, mainly because the fiat-pyramid-hierarchical monetary system is STILL the main system by a vast margin.

The fact that Gox has died a relatively quick death, and that the foundation is following behind is actually proof of just how quick things are starting to change.

Proof that a free market works, over a banking system that extorts the government and demands a socialization of losses rather than failure.

While a young, internationally attacked non-government is supposed to represent the ideal libertarian utopia?

Sadly it's a common smear of libertarianism these days.
Clearly a buy-product of rheally pour sckooling.

I'm just asking what the difference is.  If you are unable to explain, then I don't think you have a firm understanding of your philosophy.  I honestly want to know.  It's not a smear.   

If you actually have a valid argument as to why Somalia doesn't represent a libertarian utopia, then I may use it myself to argue the other way in the future.

You really don't have to feel insulted when your way of thinking is challenged.

The burden of proof is on you. You used Somalia as an example first, while admitting you never lived there and really don't know the situation. So why are you even bringing it up?

The idea of having a government isn't something that needs examples - its just logic and morality. Its a simple question: Should goods and services be provided at the barrel of a gun? If you think yes, you're an authoritarian and a psychopath. If you say no, you're an anarchist.

From my understanding, through reading about the place, I understand Somalia to be:
1) Not to possess a centralized government.  There is an official government that occupies most of the capital, but it currently does not control the country.
2) No taxation that is enforced.
3) No regulations that are enforced.
4) Has no gun ownership restrictions that are enforced.

These qualities appear to be the qualities that an extreme libertarian desires in a theoretical libertarian utopia.  I simply want to know why an extreme libertarian does not consider Somalia to be a utopia.


That's the problem with extreme ideas, is that you do not consider any possibility between authoritarianism and anarchy.  And morality is subjective.  Ayn Rand believed it moral to be selfish, yet died while accepting social security in her final years.

Uhm, if you should act selfish, It's perfectly rational to get some of what you paid in taxes back later. So I see nothing wrong from Ayn Raind cashing her social security checks.

You can answer the question, or be ignored - doesn't matter much either way to me:

Do you think it is ok for goods and services to be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Yes, or No.

My friend told me:  "Libertarians are just Tea Party-ers who are Athiest".

-B-

Man, what country do you live in? I didn't read the whole thread, but is this why I see Somalia being mentioned?   ???

I feel that principle is the same as "it's ok to steal from someone that stole from someone else."   It makes as much sense as selfishness as a moral positive.  If I were to hold a strongly held belief against a certain system, I would not participate in anyway that I was free choose to, as voluntarily participating would be endorsement.  I would not think her a hypocrite if she chose to become homeless and suffered her condition without medical care, because she did not have the funds to sustain herself near the end of her life.   At the very least, she should have lived at the mercy of the charity of any supporters she had.

I personally find hypocrisy to be morally repugnant, but each person is different.

+1

It's not a black and white answer, IMHO.  In general, no.

Let me ask you this:  Is it okay for a society in which you reside, by barrel of a gun, to have you banished from that society because you refuse to contribute what is considered to be a fair share to the commons needed for that society to exist?

It's absolutely a black and white answer. If you think some services can be provided at the barrel of a gun, that counts as a yes.

As for your question, it proves you don't have a private sector job. If you did, you'd understand that private sector workers get paid by contributing to society. People WILLINGLY give me money to build websites for them. I don't have to threaten them to pay for my services, whether needed or not. The fact that people pay me more than I even need for my standard of living, proves that I produce for others more than I consume.

Furthermore, being forced to contribute isn't a contribution at all. It's actual name is "armed robbery".

I realize that you are angry in being told what to do by a government.  I totally get that.

However, I think the anarcho-libertarian utopia can never exist.  I would be totally down with a society that doesn't need government, and everyone treats everyone fairly and nobody steals from eachother.  But the moment more than two people have to exist with each other, one will find a way to take something from the other. 

If my neighbor decides he needs my money, he could come to the door with a gun and demand it.   I could go mad max and try to shoot him before he shoots me, but I am glad that I paid a reasonable tribute to my local government so that there exist police that deter this from happening.

I could live in Somalia, and go mad max on the local warlord that shows up with his militia to demand tribute.  There I would have no choice but to capitulate or fight.

I live in the United States, and I pay tribute by mailing a check when filing my taxes.  It may be onerous, but it could be worse.   The rules are decided in a democracy rather than a dictatorship, and I am fine with that.  I realize that you are not OK with it.  We disagree.

But the world that is the ideal anarcho-libertarian utopia does not exist.  I've been to places in the Pacific-Northwest where entire communities live off the grid, but there are people with guns that are in charge, and those who don't follow the rules are made to leave. 


If you are an active tax-resister, then I hope you would be aware that if a client files a 1099 to report what they paid you, that the IRS may come after you.  I once did this, and when it caught up with me several years later, I paid the taxes with penalties rather than fight off government agents in a gun battle. 

I am not a public sector employee, and in fact, I run several businesses, and file a couple of schedule C's a year.   I pay my taxes because I don't want men with guns to come to the door, I'd rather work and make money than waging war against the federal government.  I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with being a public sector employee.

You totally don't. I'm not angry in the slightest - you wish...lol. I think you're projecting - you're angry that I don't care what the people you work for think. You're upset that the government you worship is being ridiculed and ignored, and the people doing the ignoring are totally getting away with it.


My experience is that the IRS is completely incapable of pursuing 1099 cases. I think you're lying about not being a public sector employee. You run several businesses? Name 'em. If you really do, you should be proud of them.

I think being honest is completely out of your nature, though. I can see your future, and its in my ignore box.

There is no anarchist/government. You have pinpointed the exact way of things. People with guns and power can do whatever they want against people with less power and guns.

Your neighbor coming to your house with a gun is the same thing as the government coming to your house with a gun. Some people pool their money for protection. But after some time you are no longer paying just for protection, you are also paying for whatever crazy ideas those with power may want. And the more money and power they get, the more insane things they can come up without your permission because there is no competition and no one else to go to for protection.

I have no affinity (or disaffinity) for Ayn Rand, but I don't see any hypocrisy.  She does not believe her money should be taken from her to fund the social security program.  Yet funds are taken from her.  In her old age, she accepts that money back.  What's wrong with that?  Why shouldn't she accept her stolen money back?

In her ideal world, no money would be taken from her, and she'd take none back.  In the current world, her money was taken from her.  She has every right to take it back.  No hypocrisy.

Complying with the law is not the same as worshiping the government.  I really don't care that you ridicule and ignore the government, that is your prerogative.  It's the attitude concerning that I don't join you in ridiculing and ignoring the government because I am more risk-adverse than you, that I find objectionable.

If you are proud of your work, you might want to list your customers, which would also allow government agents lurking in this forum to line them and you up for scrutiny.   I personally don't care, and if I were you, I wouldn't do it.   Believe that the IRS is incapable of pursing 1099 cases, think of me when you get that first certified letter.  I know that assumption to be false through personal experience.  Believe me or not, I am not going to post a scan of my notice from the IRS even if I could find it.

If you want to check out my latest business, look here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529430.msg5883) and thank you for giving me an opportunity to advertise in context.   With this low in bitcoin, my shirts are really cheap at the moment.


I'm sorry you feel that way, and I really don't hold any animosity towards you.  If I have lied in a provable way that doesn't violate my privacy (which I strongly believe in), please point it out.  I enjoy a good debate, and if you wish to no longer defend your position, then show some self-control and stop replying.  If your ignore box helps you do it, so be it.

[edit] Let me hit you with some math:  According to the IRS, they examine returns (or non-existent returns, based on reported W2 and 1099's) at a rate of about 0.7% in the income ranges 50-75K a year.  The bracket below that is about the same.   Thus, the chance that you will get caught not filing a return consistent with your 1099s is 0.7% for one year.   If you do this for the next N years, the chance that one of your returns will be examined is  1-(1-0.7%)^N.   N=5 years, that is 3.4%.  N=10 years, 6.7%.  N=20 years, 13.1%.  I'm going to guess you are about 25, based on your idealism; and that you will retire at 65.  At N=40 years, the risk is 24.4%.   Be aware of the risk going forward in your 1099 career, and sincerely, the best of luck on not getting caught.

It is the same distinction as between "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" versus "do to others what they do to you."

By accepting social security money, she causes the government to collect that amount of money from younger workers in the government-enforced ponzi scheme.

By not accepting social security, she would have, in a very small way, reduced the required amount of money taken from these younger workers, and remained true to her principles.

Some good points.  

People will always form communities and some sort of governance will naturally emerge.  We have this now in the US, we had this thousands of years ago in ancient Rome, as well as many many years before that in our hunter-gatherer days.  We are social animals and we form groups with shared codes of conduct because doing so is advantageous.  

What I find very interesting is the influence that the properties of money play in determining how governance will emerge.  I believe the fiat experiment that began in earnest in 1913--centralized money creation--was the dominant factor in the growth of large bureaucratic institutions like the NSA, IRS, EU, IMF, etc., as well as what gave birth to the welfare state.  

If bitcoin continues to grow, I expect that the way we decide to form communities and govern ourselves will begin to change.  Since bitcoin is decentralized, I believe we will see a return to smaller communities interacting with each other as they choose.  

Perhaps every political ideology can have its own community LOL   :D

Then we are in agreement.   I just so happens that I prefer to be in America, rather than a dictatorship or under the domain of a warlord, as I have some small influence in how things are decided through my vote.

But she had money taken from her when she was young to pay for the elderly of that time.  Ordinarily, she'd have used that money to save for her old age.

In her old age, she did not have that money, nor the returns from any potential interest/investment.  There's nothing hypocritical with her accepting it back.

A person might think that the FDA's monopoly on drug evaluation kills more lives than it saves.  Yet they would not be hypocritical in taking FDA-approved drugs.  It's the system they live in.  They're not obligated to sacrifice themselves in order to believe a market for drug evaluation would be a better system.

She came to America in '31.   She wouldn't of had to start paying until '35, when the program was instituted.   The first benefits weren't payed until 1940.   

Ayn Rand herself initially resisted in signing up for social security benefits, but was convinced by her lawyer.   This, to me, indicates she realized she was a hypocrite.   I don't recall her stating that she couldn't save up for retirement because she had to a pay a burdensome 2% social security tax on her earnings through her working years.  I'm really surprised that she couldn't survive on her continuing book royalties, unless she was in debt.