Okay so...

You pay taxes, and then you get your taxes back.  Minus all the fees to make the taxation system work.  I know there are people on this planet who are nodding their heads as if nothing is wrong with this picture, but I'll say what's on my mind:

1. If the economy in which this is taking place was healthy, people would have no need to receive "free money"; there would be more than enough work to go around.  Because this is even taking place, I'll assume this isn't the case, leading to the next point:

2. If the economy is not healthy and people are going hungry/homeless, the solution is to improve the economy, not take from the wealthy (who are using the very same force the people are to get "free money" to remain wealthy) and then give to the poor Robin Hood style; while Robin Hood was celebrated among the people, he didn't solve the problem of the wealthy having an incredible amount of power, who would then, even after Robin Hood's passing, and even while the man was alive, still be able to exploit the impoverished.

3. You're still stuck with a bad economy and are now increasingly dependent upon the state as a child is dependent on his mother.  The visage that the state is the "good guy" and big wealthy business owners are the "bad guys" is perpetuated, despite the two entities being inseparable.  The citizens are then happily ignorant and have no reason to oppose those in power.  You're still not allowed to immigrate to Switzerland, and thus:

4. Switzerland increases the pressure of other nations to follow its lead.  Switzerland is then on a pedestal, the model state; with the prospect of "free money", the poor of other nations will demand from their states the same.  The state would then increases control (or in my language, eliminates liberties) to comply with these demands--not as though they aren't already doing this.  Some people then cry "1984 isn't supposed to be a manual for the future" and most people won't hear it when they're getting paid with stolen cash to stand by while their liberties erode.

---

Anyway, the more apparent solution is to fix the underlying problem as to why the economy can't support everyone: this evolves from questioning how one man can live as though he does the work of a hundred men, while a hundred men cannot earn enough to live the life of one.  The solution is split into two directions, as I see it: workers will either take control of business, i.e. syndicalism, or they will ask for the scraps of the wealthy and receive a pat on the head for playing their game named politics.  By the looks of it, the people of Switzerland are losing this fight, and worse yet, cannot even see it for themselves.  If they were at least aware they were getting sucked into a trap, it would be one thing, but they're accepting it like it's one step closer to a utopia.

There's a fine line between a utopia and a dystopia; the difference is in whether you live in one, or you're allowed to live in one.

My dwolla account was useless the moment I could no longer use it to fund my Gox account (with that said, my Gox account was useless on that same day lol)

Oh well!  Localbitcoins hasn't let me down thus far.

He could, but he would piss off the other nations he and his predecessors borrowed from.

Anyway, the debt of the state is not the debt of the individual, so it doesn't really matter to me; my share of this debt is $0.

They haven't really said anything about it.  This depends, then, on your view of the role of the state: does the state have a vested interest in keeping its own currency #1?  If so, then yes, the state views Bitcoin as dangerous, and will inevitably stop its growth, likely by outlawing businesses from using it officially, to ensure the dollar remains king.  If the state is viewed as a benevolent entity, then one might say they will adapt to Bitcoin for its superior qualities, and allow it to flourish, or perhaps outlaw it in the name of public safety, perhaps to stop terrorist activity or something similar.

AFAIK the closest official statement about Bitcoin was in the form of FinCEN guidance, and they can't make laws, they only give advice.  From what I've observed so far, the state has shut down various exchanges for they did not comply with various regulations.  Otherwise, I've not noticed any action from the state in regard to Bitcoin.

So far, this is in considering the state.  Considering the government that occurs outside the state, I've not seen very many people actively oppose Bitcoin; I have seen several who claim to really not like it (typically followed with "It's a ponzi scheme!") but I've yet to see any actual business openly oppose Bitcoin.  Most claim they want to understand Bitcoin more before they integrate the currency into their business.  Weighing the amount of businesses and individuals who either accept Bitcoin as of right now or are considering using it, against the amount of people and businesses who have outright said they do not want Bitcoin (or anyone else to use it for that matter), the general consensus is that Bitcoin is good and deep in the green, or in the very least, is not detrimental to people as a whole.

This isn't such a stark contrast, then; the government from the state vs. the government from the people are generally aligned here: "What's Bitcoin?"  It's true; most people yet do not have an opinion about Bitcoin, nor has the state given any real statement on the matter.

I'd give it some more time before making a real judgment call; the currency is only 4 years old after all.  By the ten year mark, we should have a very clear understanding of where Bitcoin is going.  I also apologize if I've missed something recent; I've not kept a close eye on Bitcoin for a month or two now.

I haven't done much research but from what I've heard so far:

Few people can get it right now because their gov-owned website is horrendous and won't let most people sign up for it (but this shouldn't be surprising.)  Those who have gotten through have realized that it is generally both more expensive (!) and covers less (!) than what their employers already offer; in other words, it's a waste of time and money.  Three cheers for the state.

Anyway, why must someone be considered moronic for not having health insurance?  If health care was both affordable and necessary at all times in a person's life, surely insurance would be simply an extra provision; what separates health insurance from an individual merely setting aside a portion of their check for when they need it?

Final Fantasy 7, Ocarina of Time, Star Ocean 2, Super Mario World, Legend of Mana...

But mostly FF7.  It's surprisingly relevant to today's world, where corporations and the state are basically inseparable and the only people trying to do something about it are called terrorists and hunted to such an extent that the corporate state actually kills an entire sector of people to squash them, among various other world-ending tactics that would've happened with or without the demonized main characters.

I don't like it.  I don't like any nation but America takes the cake for having the most corrupt, overreaching and powerful state with the most passive, sheepish (albeit paradoxically angry) people.  What they're putting in the water is working.  I'm on the first plane out once I can save enough, which is tough since they keep taking what little I earn to pay for the lives of people who I've never met and pay their own debts that have nothing to do with anyone; any entity which makes no money but forms a debt (and lets not even get to how big this nation's debt is) is essentially saying, "We spent your money frivolously and now you're going to pay for it."  And then we wonder how we're going to pay off all this debt like it's supposed to be our problem, which is twice as funny knowing that we won't be paying for it, it's future generations; to support the state is to sell your kids to debt, and you will be supporting the state, or else.

America: "I drink the kool-aid and so should the rest of the world."

I don't hate them.  I just wouldn't say anything to the police or otherwise if I woke up and they had "mysteriously disappeared" one day, at least not until the next day when I was done doing nothing the previous day; there's a lot of work involved in napping and proselytizing liberty, and finding time in my busy schedule for the feminists and environmentalists has always been both a challenge and a chore.  Upon being asked "Where have all the feminists and environmentalists gone?", I would probably say, "Sorry, what's that?  I can't hear you over my making toast, but if you come back in fifteen minutes I think I will have some free time and a clearer head," but of course by the time fifteen minutes had passed I'd have escaped the house through a back window to hide in my end-of-the-world happy room several feet beneath the Earth, in the hopes the officials would inevitably get bored and give up on trying to ask; I have enough provisions down there to last me up to a month so I think I can outlast them.

But that's not to say I hate the people.

Yes, but this would be free trade, and if we had this, the world would be a lot better than it currently is.  There are always strings attached, and ultimately it boils down to the biggest nation having the better deals and the louder voice, as their military can always wipe out your military so it's in your interest to cut them a really nice deal on whatever it is you're exporting, and take the higher price "because we're pals" when importing--and if you don't like that, tough bananas.

And if nothing else, they can just claim ownership over your plot of land.  What are you gonna do, fight back?

So, no, you will not enjoy both freedom and free trade among authoritarian nations; you will have to sacrifice your freedoms in return of not being pelted with bombs if you decide not to comply with the bigger nation.  Because of these conditions, you will need an organized society capable of being controlled to ensure these demands are met "to keep the peace", thereby requiring a leader and whatnot, all the same luxuries of every other authoritarian society.  The project to create a nation of freedom deteriorates into a resort for the rich and elite, as those with money squeeze their way into politics and write their doings legal (since they otherwise would be under extreme scrutiny), and as the lower class complains, perhaps even protests, they can really do nothing but, at the very end, begin a revolution and overthrow the current rulers to be replaced with another with the same intent, but he has a nice smile and just happens to have a lot of money and promises to help the poor, you know, all the lies politicians come up with to stay in power.  The cycle repeats indefinitely, until the people of the largest nations decide to stop funding the war machine and take control over their own lives, where the free-nation project becomes a moot point anyway, perhaps even a danger to the now free societies who must defend against the remaining states, including this one, with a leader completely out of touch with his people and a large enough military (at the cost of everything else, running a debt greater than his people can pay off in a generation) to ensure nobody can overthrow him easily, and ready to attack any vulnerable nation, seeing the stateless societies as "fair game".

Anyway, this is how I see it panning out.  If you can think of a way to make this operate without the influence of other nations, you might have something.

My contrarian brother!

Not gonna happen, unless you're into primitivism; this is the only way you could avoid having to interact with other nations, since they have all the goodies you'd want to live a comfortable, modern life.  Self-sufficiency only goes as far as you have the materials necessary to create, and no island is going to have everything.

My answer was "fruit".

Stop judging me.

You're just some kind of sarcasm God, aren't you?

()

Well aren't you original.

Great song

Yes; this is the normal behavior of a person whose request has been fulfilled and does not want to waste anyone's time who might be interested in a job or offer that has already passed, so there's a high chance it would defer potential viewers.

This one makes my head hurt.

Learn the difference.

There is no such thing as ghosts.

How hard would it be for Rowling to get into the head of a 12-20ish year old male wizard?  Why, I'd say it's nigh impossible...girls can't do that!

I'm curious--what does "bucking-up into manhood" actually look like?  Are you saying he acts in an unprofessional manner, or?  I know Stefan is emotional, but I also see this to be linked with his personality, or in other words, out of his hands to fix.