You seem to want more of an explanation in places that I feel that already that I have adequately explained. For example, my outlining situation 1 and situation 2 was to ensure with thread participants on this topic that we are talking about the same thing.. and some posters are trying to equate situations 1 and 2 (including yourself) that in my view should clearly and logically be understood as different... b/c the actor in situation 2 is different from the actor in situation 1 (which makes a very meaningful and material difference).
The difference does not change the situation. My four legged animal is brown. Your four legged animal is black. My four legged animal is a dog. It does not therefor follow that your four legged animal *is not* a dog. Theft is taking without permission. In both situations, more than adequately explained by yourself, permission is not given and taking occurs. It does not matter the why for that does not matter under the definition of theft. What it is about your situation 2 that does not fit the definition? Thank you Richy_T for such an apt example. Example 1: Let's say one four legged animal is a brown dog and the other four legged animal is a black dog Therefore both of them are dogs, and it may NOT make a difference in the situation and the two can be compared with one another. Example 2 one four legged animal is a brown dog and another brown four legged animal is a grizzly bear (or a lion) You are trying to suggest that example 1 and example 2 are the same, but they are NOT. In example 1, you will be closer to having similar situations unless the actual dog breed or the color matters for whatever application. Sometimes the color will matter, depending on the application, and some times the breed could matter, depending on the situation, even though both are dogs. In example 2, you certainly have the same color and the fact that both are animals, but if the application is which one would you would trust to leave overnight as a pet to snuggle on the sofa with your 1 year old kid, then you may realize there is a material difference between the two. The difference does matter especially when we are talking about the concept of theft and government and taxes. I question why we seem to be caught up in arguments about definition.. what lack of meaning to this discussion... .NO? In any event, I have NO issues with exploring various possible discussions on a broad array of topics, so long as they do NOT devolve and continually repeat into the ridiculous and silly realm.... such as continuing to assert that governments are the same as thieves b/c they make you pay taxes. I would laugh, if it were NOT causing me to cry over such need to repeat what to me seems obvious.  Asserting "Taxes are like theft because they involve taking without permission" leaves room for reasonable men to argue and come to an understanding about each others positions and can be enlightening. What is the nature of ownership, taking, permission. How strict is the definition etc. Asserting "Taxes are not like theft because I believe taxes are not like theft" leaves nowhere to go and is the reason people are finding discussing with you frustrating. And I can assure you that my academic credentials are sufficiently reasonable that you won't make me feel insecure about them. YES... your academic credentials are so great that you want to continue to pursue a topic that I have NO interest in pursuing. Surely, you can answer your own questions above.. to the extent that they make any difference to my earlier points. Maybe in some kind of parallel universe you are correct, and government does equal thief? I am sure that we can find a large number of examples that either governments or government officials have acted like thieves, but so what? Those kinds of facts do NOT cause all governments to be same as thieves or taxes to be a form of thievery. Additionally, the concept of government equaling thief may be interesting to you, and to others in this thread, and feel free to discuss that topic, without me. However, if you engage in such topic on this thread, I may chime in; however, I am inclined to think that I said as much as I need to say on the topic in order to make my point. Maybe I will think of something else later, but at the moment, I cannot think of anything further that I need to say about the topic. |
|
|
|
Overstock CEO just emailed 41.7 people about Bitcoin and why he believes in it! That is bullish! (It is the Wired article that came out a while ago about him. It is a good article BTW.)
I feel sorry for whoever the 0.7 person was. Yeah... he he he  I thought that fact was very sad too, until I opened up the attachment and saw that he had e-mailed 41.7 million of his closest friends.. something like that. He is one popular dude to have that many close friends. I did NOT get an e-mail, so I am NOT in such intimacy with him. ...I provided explanations for my various assertions...
Can you show me where, please? Have you not been paying attention? It's because any other perspective is silly and ridiculous. QED. EXACTLY.... if you cannot see the logic of the obvious, then it seems likely that you gotta go study up on some basics and possibly to work on your analytical skills... .. Maybe take a few classes or practice reading, writing and math.. things like that. The brushing up is going to vary from person to person.... ... and I suppose my main point here is that if you cannot see the difference between a thief and a government, and we CANNOT get beyond that basic logical point, then why are we wasting time to engage in a discussion that is NOT going to get us anywhere.... Clearly, I consider the two to be different, and clearly I feel that I need NOT explain anymore than I already have about why the two are different. In any event, I have NO issues with exploring various possible discussions on a broad array of topics, so long as they do NOT devolve and continually repeat into the ridiculous and silly realm.... such as continuing to assert that governments are the same as thieves b/c they make you pay taxes. I would laugh, if it were NOT causing me to cry over such need to repeat what to me seems obvious. |
|
|
|
...I provided explanations for my various assertions...
Can you show me where, please? It is likely true that I have been giving short shrift to aspects of this topic regarding role of government and/or the equating of government taxes with theft; however, in the past couple of days (or has it only been 1 day?), I have provided several fairly lengthy explanations of my various assertions... and each of my posts speak for themselves in terms of the extent to which I provided justifications therein. You can easily read each and every one of my various posts.. and judge for yourself. However, I suspect the fact that you did NOT appreciate my description of situation 1 and situation 2, then likely you are NOT going to appreciate my other descriptions, which I remain of the position that each of my post is meant to be self-sustaining in the context of the thread. You seem to want more of an explanation in places that I feel that already that I have adequately explained. For example, my outlining situation 1 and situation 2 was to ensure with thread participants on this topic that we are talking about the same thing.. and some posters are trying to equate situations 1 and 2 (including yourself) that in my view should clearly and logically be understood as different... b/c the actor in situation 2 is different from the actor in situation 1 (which makes a very meaningful and material difference). Maybe you will come to the conclusion that I have NOT adequately explained myself through my various posts or that I have NOT adequately justified the points that I was attempting to make in my various posts. Or, maybe you are of the opinion that my tone has NOT been kind and gentle enough. I assure you that I have NO ill feelings towards you or towards anyone else participating in the discussion of this topic; however, as I have repeated, I cannot understand why we continue to discuss this topic b/c it seems that we have each had an opportunity to make our points. Also, as asserted by Octaft, the burden does NOT seem to be on me to explain any further than I already have. Further, if you want, we can continue our communication regarding this topic by PM - since truly it does seem to be transgressing far afield from the topic of this thread. |
|
|
|
[snip]
I am NOT opposed to change, and I am NOT opposed to lessening government or getting rid of it, in the event that better systems can be established. Bitcoin can certainly assist in the direction of providing freedom to greater numbers of people and transparency to monetary and/or other transactional systems.
This is nice to hear and I assure you I am trying to understand your position and have a good debate. What bothers me now is your reaction to the idea of "taxation = theft". When this was mentioned you went into a rather angry tirade stating over and over again, that this concept is so ridiculous, that it shouldn't even be taken seriously, but nowhere have I seen you actually explain why. I think this is a hint to why we differ, even though I could put my signature below your quote up there. It seems that to you government = society (or a meaningful representation thereof). Which, incidentally to me represents a concept so absurd and obviously untrue, that it shouldn't even be taken seriously. I won't explain why, though. If queried, I will repeat again how ridiculous it is  Yes, if the topic of this thread concerned the role of government in society or some discussion such as that (or how to transform to a government society), then I would be more than willing to engage in such discussion, if I had the stomache to be involved in such a thread. Surely, a variety of topics may come up in a thread, and the discussion of such topics spiral much further away from the thread. Here, I believe that I have sufficiently explained my concerns about attempts to equate theft with the government as being inadequate at best and silly at worst.... Likely, the topic of taxation or the role of government may come up again, and we can discuss further at that time. Why do we need to belabor points that clearly have been adequately addressed? and if we either do NOT understand each others points or we do NOT agree, then we can still move on b/c I feel that I am just repeating myself, and I do NOT feel that I have any obligation to explain my position any further than I already have explained. I think that on the face of the matter, your bare assertion that situation 1 and 2 are substantially similar is illogical, incomprehensible and unworthy or serious discussion... Even though the two situations may appear to be similar, they are NOT.. which should be obvious and clear on the face. I think that i adequately explained this over and over and in sufficient detail without having to have the need to elaborate about the obvious, and I do NOT see the point of continuing such a silly-ass discussions if some people continue to think and to argue that taxes and thievery are the same things.... b/c posters like this are living in a sort of parallel reality of LaLa land and a simplistic world to be making such basic assertions to attempt to equate situations that are clearly NOT the same.... even though they "feel the same."
And this after you put taxation and theft side by side and basically described them in the same words? I am inclined to believe now that you are trolling in some sophisticated manner, otherwise this huge overreaction would seem to me to be the defense mechanism of a very dearly held dogma. You can believe that I am trolling all that you want, but such beliefs are ill founded. I provided explanations for my various assertions, and the fact that you don't agree with my assertions or you do NOT understand my points does NOT a troll make. Yes, I recognize that in the bitcoin community there are a lot of people who are hostile to the concept of government and hostile to the idea of taxation. I am of the belief that it is pie in the sky for people to believe that in the short term bitcoin is going to allow for major transformations in these regards to either get rid of government or to get rid of taxation. However, I do recognize that bitcoin has a lot of potential to transform society in a lot of meaningful ways, including but NOT limited to transforming government, taxation, individual liberties and transparency. |
|
|
|
You are saying that situation 1 and situation 2 are clearly similar and that this should be the point of our discussion.. for me to supposedly need to defend why situation 2 is different from situation 1. I think that it is illogical and silly for me to have to argue with some silly notion that these two situations are the same, when clearly, they are NOT the same - even though both situations make you feel the same way.. robbed.
I think the only possible germane difference is the party demanding the funds. YES!!!!! Germane and essential. Creates a whole different set of facts, meanings and outcomes. It is like having sex by oneself or with someone else. In the second situation, with someone else, we complicated circumstances and the potential of making a baby. The second situation is materially different from the first, even though the two situations may feel similar. A community acting to get you to pay your fair share contribution into the community is NOT the same as someone taking money from you
The critical terms here are "community" and "fair share". If I can't opt out, it's not a community, its a gang. Again, reverting into bad logic when coming to the belief the community is ganging up on you. Also, "fair share" is very much up for debate. If the "community" decides that a "fair share" is 100%, are you cool with that?
Yes. These kinds of discussions are had all of the time concerning fair share. We have had times in fairly recent US history in which the marginal tax rate was more than 90% for the wealthiest among us. There are various factors that go into considering tax rates, and maybe circumstances may require 100%, but likely very rare circumstances. You are creating very extreme scenarios if you are suggesting that 100% would be or should be accepted as normal. Personally, I am of the sense that the very wealthy in the american society (the top 1-5%) have NOT been paying their fair share of taxes, and that is a very significant reason why a large number of americans are currently being screwed and gouged in a variety of ways. Also the very wealthy have been receiving various subsidies that they do NOT deserve... and are leaching off of the american people and that is also a very significant reason why a large number of americans are currently being screwed and gouged in a variety of ways. |
|
|
|
You are doing the one thing everyone else is supposed to be doing! +1 nice charts Thanks guys, good to know I'm in the right place for this stuff! If my speculations are at all accurate...I'm very much looking forward to the next few months Thanks a lot for the projection bpnave!! I get the sense that many of us, here, are engaging in a kind of best guestimates of the future.. I see that you are projecting, more or less, a break out in the summer time-frame... (june or july-ish) So my question is whether we expect to go above $1,200 at that point? and then will we stay at some point in which the lows are higher than the previous high? meaning that the lows would thereafter remain higher than $1200. Surely, I get the sense that sufficient BTC infrastructure and networking around bitcoin is allowing for such price break outs and higher highs and higher lows... .which would also bring with it, less volatility. |
|
|
|
this summer might make me a millionaire  In the ball park, how many coins do you believe it will require to accomplish being a bitcoin millionaire by this summer? 100? 200? 500? or some other quantity? In the most optimistic scenario, I could see the potential of 200 coins making a person a bitcoin millionaire by this summer - however, I have visionary trouble with predictions of any fewer than 200BTC accomplishing the millionaire objective by this summer. Based on what I know at the moment, that's my lame prediction of a best case scenario for this upcoming summer. |
|
|
|
There are people in this thread who want to continue to proclaim that taxation is the same as theft, which we should recognize on the face of it how preposterous and absurd a claim that remains ;;; but NONETHELESS some people in this thread want to argue regarding basic and silly points, like that..
It's actually extortion, which is a form of theft. I'll try to lay it out. Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant. srcCoercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force, and describes a set of various different similar types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response. These actions can include, but are not limited to, extortion, blackmail, torture, and threats to induce favors. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. srcCan you really tell me with a straight face that taxation is not extortion?YES. I can tell you with a straight face that you are coming at this question with fuzzy logic. YOU seem to be so much focused on yourself that you fail to consider that there are community considerations and you, supposedly, are part of that community. YOU seem to be case in point someone who wants to set forth trivial arguments to mislead and to distract us from the main issues regarding meaningful discussions about the role of government. You pigeonhole all government taxes and actions as some sort of guilty by association and NO good deeds are being done by these taxes b/c they are taking money from you.. and somehow, you are likely of the belief that these services and benefits should be left to the private sector to some how miraculously carry them out.. on a voluntary basis.... YOU are communicating EXTREMISM without a foundation in reality... if you are trying to equate the community interests to be the same as the thieving interests of a criminal. YOU are also likely the kind of guy that is so against taxes and community contribution, that he needs to be forced to pay his fair share into the community b/c you are NOT very likely without being begged to contribute on your own. Maybe if someone kisses your feet, then maybe you will possibly decide to contribute a little bit to the community. You are so busy thinking about yourself that you fail to understand the variety of community needs that government fulfills to service people who are NOT in the same circumstances as yourself. Maybe if we had only a million people in the world, we could get away with each person self-sustaining and having his/her own plot... but we do NOT live in such a world.. and there are communities.. and also an existing status quo that needs to be accounted for and transition if we are going to change to some other societal arrangements that may be able to accommodate approximately 7 billion people. What is fuzzy about my logic? Seems pretty binary to me - either a given act fits the definition, or it doesn't. Why can't you follow through to the logical conclusion? Your logic is ridiculous, and is NOT worthy of serious contemplation. More or less, you are saying: Situation 1) A robber comes up to you on the street and points a gun at you, and he says give me your money or there will be negative consequences. You are fearful for your life, and you see that the thief seems capable of causing negative consequences upon you. Therefore you give the thief your money, and you feel resentful about it b/c the thief had placed you in such a position to have to give up your money b/c you did NOT want to suffer the negative consequences that were being threatened. Situation 2) The government comes up to you, and says if you do NOT pay your taxes you are going to go to jail and your freedom is going to be taken away if you do NOT pay your taxes. YOU are going to duly suffer and the only way NOT to suffer is if you pay your taxes. The government surely seems capable of carrying out its threat, and you value your freedom. Accordingly, you pay your taxes even though you feel resentful about the fact that you had to pay your taxes... but the government forced you into such a situation by threatening you.. just like the robber did in situation 1. You are saying that situation 1 and situation 2 are clearly similar and that this should be the point of our discussion.. for me to supposedly need to defend why situation 2 is different from situation 1. I think that it is illogical and silly for me to have to argue with some silly notion that these two situations are the same, when clearly, they are NOT the same - even though both situations make you feel the same way.. robbed. I could give a flying fuck about how you feel about being robbed b/c you have to pay taxes.. so what.. this is NOT about how you feel. A community acting to get you to pay your fair share contribution into the community is NOT the same as someone taking money from you (that is NOT the community, but instead an individual actor or even a gang or even a corporation.. but clearly not the community). I think that on the face of the matter, your bare assertion that situation 1 and 2 are substantially similar is illogical, incomprehensible and unworthy or serious discussion... Even though the two situations may appear to be similar, they are NOT.. which should be obvious and clear on the face. I think that i adequately explained this over and over and in sufficient detail without having to have the need to elaborate about the obvious, and I do NOT see the point of continuing such a silly-ass discussions if some people continue to think and to argue that taxes and thievery are the same things.... b/c posters like this are living in a sort of parallel reality of LaLa land and a simplistic world to be making such basic assertions to attempt to equate situations that are clearly NOT the same.... even though they "feel the same." Why do we need to discuss this further? makes no sense to me. |
|
|
|
NOT only is the article NOT new, but the article is a month old. I find it a bit irritating when posters place links in threads, but they do NOT make any comment to provide any context for the reason for the link... like for example, what does the article mean to you? Why is the article relevant to this thread? The four bubbles described in that article could imply that we are going to move into another BTC bubble? or what does it mean exactly? Do you think that we are going to have less volatility in the future? Do you believe it? Other factors could suggest that bitcoin is going to crash.. no? Do recent events, within the last month (such as the Mt. Gox situation) affect the predictions of the month old article? |
|
|
|
There are people in this thread who want to continue to proclaim that taxation is the same as theft, which we should recognize on the face of it how preposterous and absurd a claim that remains ;;; but NONETHELESS some people in this thread want to argue regarding basic and silly points, like that..
It's actually extortion, which is a form of theft. I'll try to lay it out. Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant. srcCoercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force, and describes a set of various different similar types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response. These actions can include, but are not limited to, extortion, blackmail, torture, and threats to induce favors. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. srcCan you really tell me with a straight face that taxation is not extortion?YES. I can tell you with a straight face that you are coming at this question with fuzzy logic. YOU seem to be so much focused on yourself that you fail to consider that there are community considerations and you, supposedly, are part of that community. YOU seem to be case in point someone who wants to set forth trivial arguments to mislead and to distract us from the main issues regarding meaningful discussions about the role of government. You pigeonhole all government taxes and actions as some sort of guilty by association and NO good deeds are being done by these taxes b/c they are taking money from you.. and somehow, you are likely of the belief that these services and benefits should be left to the private sector to some how miraculously carry them out.. on a voluntary basis.... YOU are communicating EXTREMISM without a foundation in reality... if you are trying to equate the community interests to be the same as the thieving interests of a criminal. YOU are also likely the kind of guy that is so against taxes and community contribution, that he needs to be forced to pay his fair share into the community b/c you are NOT very likely without being begged to contribute on your own. Maybe if someone kisses your feet, then maybe you will possibly decide to contribute a little bit to the community. You are so busy thinking about yourself that you fail to understand the variety of community needs that government fulfills to service people who are NOT in the same circumstances as yourself. Maybe if we had only a million people in the world, we could get away with each person self-sustaining and having his/her own plot... but we do NOT live in such a world.. and there are communities.. and also an existing status quo that needs to be accounted for and transition if we are going to change to some other societal arrangements that may be able to accommodate approximately 7 billion people. |
|
|
|
When consensus is bearish (everyone has sold already), it is time to buy. Like now, I see that there is very little downside and explosive upside in as little as 2 months.
Btw. I am in the process of coauthoring (with sirius) an e-book about "History of Bitcoin Economy". What would you like to have discussed?
That is great!!! When is the e-book coming out? Are you going to discuss potential government attempts to undermine BTC, and the fact that governments may see their abilities and efforts as very difficult to regulate and/or stifle bitocin given the P2P nature of it... which will cause governments to likely employ covert tactics to attempt to undermine bitcoin (and or to attempt to keep it in check) while appearing that they are NOT attempting to undermine bitcoin? Also, another aspect of government is that various members of government are very confused about bitcoin.. and do NOT really know what to do.. b/c bitcoin seems so small and insignificant... relative to other markets.... such as gold or fiat currencies.... Also, interesting to know about decisions within the government about how to treat confiscated coins... could they use these coins to manipulate BTC, and have governments considered these kinds of tactics. |
|
|
|
How much do Americans move the Bitcoin markets? All of the good news that I've seen come from the US doesn't seem to impact prices much.
Even though some posters here have asserted that this kind of good news in the USA and these network and infrastructure future potential of bitcoin has already been factored into the current price of bitcoin, I believe, somewhat to the contrary, that the multiple good news is going to, someday soon, cause an enormous increase in the price of bitcoin in order that bitcoin is going to catch up to where it needs to be in order to be a much more stable and viable financial instrument. In this regard, any BTC prices that reflect a BTC market cap of less than 20 billion dollars demonstrates to me that we are getting bargain basement BTC prices b/c in the very short term, maybe within a year or so, BTC's market cap will likely surge to at least $100 billion.. and that would signify BTC prices around $8000 per BTC. In other words, the continued good news in the USA is going to make it more and more difficult for whales, bots and/or manipulators to keep BTC prices down... So, even if the good news in the USA does NOT have a short term positive effect on BTC prices, these continued pieces of good news good news is going to allow for the choo choo to come more easily at some point soon. |
|
|
|
Well this thread sure isn't the best playground to hold this debate, it's moving too fast. [snip]
However, that does NOT mean that we are going to agree that we should throw away our existing system, prior to the more broader implementations of these various innovations.
I do not advocate the "throwing away of our existing system". In fact, here is what I advocated some posts ago: I advocate the movement towards the anarchy part of the spectrum. Not in any violent, preferably not even sudden manner, because I think that would cause confusion and suffering. I do this because I am convinced that decentralized/voluntary/anarchistic forms of societal organization are far superior to centralized forms in terms of their efficiency.
I can see why you would project that thought at me. As with any group of people, dogmatic, oversimplifying people seem to be a vocal majority among anarchists. [snip]
if you are proposing another system, then let us know what that would be exactly and how it would play out.
I really feel like debating Bitcoin with someone who just keeps asking me "yes OK I understand it is decentralized, but WHO RUNS IT? WHO CONTROLS IT?" I have told you, that I am advocating movement towards anarchy. How would you describe the "system" of anarchy? You don't, because there is no one single system. The point I keep repeating here is that you and I do not know what particular system would be better suited to our needs, nor do we know how a system change would play out and to claim we do is to engage in humongous hubris. It does not follow, though, that there can be no such system. The thought, that the best possible system can be devised by a person or a group seems ridiculous to me. I am saying that we should treat society more like an organism, which grows from the inside out, than a mechanism, which is assembled from its constituent parts according to a central plan, to fulfill certain functions.Incidentally I am all in favor of this: However, that does NOT mean that we are going to agree that we should throw away our existing system, prior to the more broader implementations of these various innovations.
I have suggested this before: to simply "cancel" the government right now would probably prove disastrous in the short term. The culture, the infrastructure, practically everything is not ready for this, because there are no alternatives ready. Government has a too dominant role in most important areas of human life. In many of them they ban competition. Before we can transition to any kind of hypothetical government-free state, these alternatives need to be created first, otherwise the transition might prove too painful. Quitting cold turkey might not be advisable in this state of high addiction to government. What I am saying is let us work on creating these alternatives. If you do not wish to participate, I sympathize (but why are you involved with Bitcoin, I wonder?). You keep asking me to provide proof that they can work, but how can I do that? We need to try, to find out. Besides, I have already stated that it might indeed be the case, that governmental organizations have been a necessary part of civilization until the advent of the internet. But I feel that with this technology at hand, we need to re-test this belief. I have provided no "proof", nor real life examples, just a bunch of concepts and explanations, speculations and musings on why self-organizing, decentralized systems exhibit properties of emergent order and why that might be a good thing to apply to society. What more can I provide? I don't have your desired thought out central plan how to achieve decentralization. Should I go on about how Wikipedia is superior to the Encyclopedia Britannica due to its decentralized nature? Anyways, I'm happy for you that you seem to be quite content with the current system. Hope you can appreciate people trying to explore alternatives and tolerate their sometimes heretical thoughts while they do so. In the end if the result is having more freedom of choice, you'll be better off to. Or is the freedom of choice between different flavors of government enough for you? Largely, I agree with many of your points that you made in the above post - except to the extent to which you are summarize my position in various ways. Personally, I am getting the sense that you are NOT mis-describing my points on purpose..... , but you are in good faith attempting to respond. Surely, there appear to be several variations within positions that want to get rid of or to minimize government. In that regard, your position seems to differ somewhat from other libertarian or anarchical frame works, , which I had NOT been attempting to get into those kinds of quagmires of discussions. I am NOT opposed to change, and I am NOT opposed to lessening government or getting rid of it, in the event that better systems can be established. Bitcoin can certainly assist in the direction of providing freedom to greater numbers of people and transparency to monetary and/or other transactional systems. I recall that this current line of discussion regarding the role of government began with the assertion that taxes are like theft and then further implications that the government is like a pack of thieves. I chimed in that portion of the discussion to point out the extent to which that kind of thinking is fantastical and really lacking in meaningful logic (over simplifying the state of taxation and the role of government). Surely there are a lot of flaws in government and abuses and misuses of taxes about which I agree, and my intention has NOT been to get into those kinds of discussions in order to point out that theft and taxes are NOT nearly the same thing.... and we have been having near meaningless communications on the topic, ever since. There are people in this thread who want to continue to proclaim that taxation is the same as theft, which we should recognize on the face of it how preposterous and absurd a claim that remains ;;; but NONETHELESS some people in this thread want to argue regarding basic and silly points, like that.. |
|
|
|
You seem to be suggesting that government impedes innovations...
OK, real world example: Government mandates catalytic convertors. Auto manufacturers develop lean-burn engines that have pollutant output similar or better than that provided by catalytic converters and are more efficient to boot. Lean-burn engines are not compatible with catalytic converters so are shelved. There are many of this kind of thing if you keep your ears open but I'm not going to sit here and read a list to you. Edit: Enough of this here anyway. Wrong thread. Yes.. of course, we could list a large number of examples of where things go wrong, and your after the fact attempt remains insufficient b/c it fails to provide a context. We can also list a large number of examples of government funding that created innovation. These examples do NOT prove points, unless they are described in a context and have some overall applicability to what is being argued. |
|
|
|
It......
OH... that makes sense.   |
|
|
|
Doge Coin is a gimmick, the only lesson here is that there is still an opportunity for a new coin to gain a huge userbase fast.
Therefore; I still believe that the biggest threat for bitcoin is a new coin being launched by a collective of big companies who already have a huge userbase, infrastucture, marketing tools, capital, and most importantly, trust!
Such a new coin can potentially surpass bitcoin in market share quickly.
Remember, the average user doesn't care about decentralization or privacy, etc., they will use the most common and popular one.
The only way to avoid this potential threat for bitcoin is to gain mass adoption before such a coin is launched.
However; it is to be seen if such a 'collective big companies' coin will ever be launched, since it is probably more convenient for big companies to just implement bitcoin without to much effort.
In case of failure, it is only bitcoin that has failed and they can drop bitcoin again.
While as they implement their own coin, this will cost considearable more effort and dedication and will impact their reputation negatively in case of failure.
Surely, this kind of threat is possible; however, wouldn't they run the risk, if they do NOT implement well, then the attempt merely springs bitcoin into greater success and greater market share and greater fame? Even with a lot of capital, it would be difficult to quickly mimic distributive network and even the confidence of neutrality that bitcoin has. |
|
|
|
I believe here: Octaft had presented a hypothetical -asking how much charity BillyjoeAllen would be willing to lock into to pay to cover public interest/benefits etc. BillyjoeAllen responded that he does NOT want to pay anything into such a system b/c it is his money.
I was merely responding and suggesting that such a world of people NOT contributing (assuming that Billyjoeallen is imagining a world in which everyone is on their own) would result in deterioration of social cooperation and forms of barbarianism.
You don't even understand the mistakes you're making, do you? Another amorphous comment fishing for some technicality and failing to engage with substance.. also attempting to engage in personal attacks. without providing any substance. IN other words, what are you referring to..? explain yourself rather than providing some puzzle that is meant to show your brilliance. |
|
|
|
I was merely attempting to refer to Octaft's hypothetical in which he seemed to be attempting to describe a preset amount (such as 30%). Something like this could be either compelled or voluntary... I was merely playing along with the hypothetical... but I admit that I may have lost the point about whether such a hypothetical was going to compel such contributions or leave them up to individuals.
There is no such thing as compelled charity. If it is compelled, it is not charity. Surely, we must all realize by NOW that certain individuals, including Billyjoeallen (based on his earlier comments), is NOT going to contribute if voluntary ... unless such a charity meets all his likely impossible to accomplish and vague parameters..
I realize no such thing. I see nothing that he has said that has any relation to his willingness to pay voluntarily to charities. That is all in your imagination. I expect that he deliberately avoided making any such mention specifically to hook you with you biases and prejudices. By the way, would you mind stating your definition of the word "theft"? I would love to hear what that is.Again, you seem to be engaging in some kind of lame attempt to distract, and to cause me to perform work on your terms. Maybe you have control issues, or a failure/refusal to engage in a meaningful dialogue? Likely, we should all realize by now, that our definitions of theft are likely NOT materially different from one another. We have been engaging in discussions of government and whether a government is necessary to carry out varying functions. These varying functions are NOT theft, merely b/c some people feel that they do NOT want to contribute... or they want to set their own terms. It is NOT really clear how either you or Billyjoeallen want to contribute. To me it appears that anything short of complete voluntary will cause people like you to opt out of paying.. but surely you will be wanting to get some of the benefits... such as clean air or such as material goods like fancy cars or speedy tubes. IN FACT, probably the need for prison and fines and tax penalties are exactly made for people like you and billyjoeallen b/c if you are NOT coerced into paying taxes, you will NOT contribute. YOU have to be forced. |
|
|
|
These are are real fantasy land examples, if you are of the belief that you could establish infrastructure and/or practices to accomplish either one of these without some kinds of community consensus (in other words govt-like input)
Naked assertions are so tiresome. You have a tendency to remove relevant context from my quotes... Here, my quote above came from a point in which I was referring to your assertion that we are going to achieve flying cars and magical tubes, but you failed therein or even subsequently to describe how those innovations could be accomplished in some world free of government. You seem to be suggesting that government impedes innovations... So Yes, you seem to be making naked assertions. My point, on the other hand, is NOT making any assertion, but merely asking you to provide some clothes for your assertion(s), which in later posts you pretty much admitted that these assertions were mere examples of the vast possibilities of a world without government. Nearly, pure speculation on your behalf, no? Also, your subsequent criticism of my response is to attempt to get me to do the work for you to suggest that I have some kind of obligation to provide evidence to back up my assertion(s), when I am merely questioning the adequacy of your assertions. MY point ids, if you are going to make an assertion about flying cars or magical tubes, then give us some context about how that will work, in your perceptions of world possibilities...,. without such context, your description of possible worlds seem pie in the sky... |
|
|
|
Many would consider what we have to be working, isolated echo chambers aside. For those people, the burden of proof is on YOU on why we should change, and the burden of proof is on YOU on as to why we're wrong, and why we should go through a huge upheaval to meet the desires of a small minority of people.
Please tell me more about how I would go about producing this kind of proof? I hope you don't mean "talk about it"? For the extent of your attempts to lecture about this topic, you surely are pleading a high level of failure to understand. It seems that both Octaft and I are repeating this theme in various ways to suggest that you cannot just make bare assertions about something being preferred without showing how it applies in real life... where has it been done... Is there a pilot program being applied somewhere? You are providing nothing. In the meantime, we have thousands of examples of various kinds of governments and their application... too numerous to list. Neither Octaft nor I are embracing these various governments as being the solution, but each of us have been saying that if you are proposing another system, then let us know what that would be exactly and how it would play out. We would NOT remove the whole US Government systems and asparatuses without having a plan. Since it seems to be your idea to remove the government, then it is your job to come up with the plan, NOT those of us who are NOT proposing such removal. You are truly pulling this summary of my previous statement(s) out of your ass. Sorry to be so crude in my description of what you seem to be doing, but I have NOT made any assertions about human nature in ways that you are attributing to me.
I am truly sorry, but you seem to be misunderstanding me here. I reckon English is not your primary language? I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I have stated that I have often seen this argument being made, as well as what sort of ideas usually follow. This doesn't necessarily mean, that you hold these same ideas, right? Well, to be fair, I find your way of expressing yourself confusing and I'm not quite sure what your points are most of the time. Please don't take this as an attempt to insult you. Yes, YOU can attempt to search for some kind of weakness all that you want. YOU are grasping at straws.... B/c you do NOT understand demonstrates a point that we are engaging in a fruitless battle, here, and it seems best that we just leave this topic until some point that you are able to come with some more concrete ideas or life examples or something beyond pure speculation and hypotheticals. Look, guys - octaft and JayJuanGee. I have done this many times and I can see where this is going. You'll be asking me to provide proof that some other system would be better. You will ask me how this other system would work, how it would achieve this or that. And I'll be replying that I do not know, after which you will probably feel like you "won the debate" because I can't produce any counter arguments. When in fact my argument is precisely that I do not know. Neither do you. And that is the reason why none of us should be in charge of all of us. The point is that having one single system is a bad idea. Multiple choices are needed.
Currently, we do NOT have one single system. There are a multitude of varying kinds of government systems in the United states... both on the federal level and then even more numerous examples on the local level. You seem to have a tendency to oversimplify your rendition of facts and fail to provide specific examples or discussion points which provides very little confidence that you are attempting to accomplish anything beyond speaking in generalities.... which is a big waste of our time. Self organizing systems and Emergent order exist in life all around us. Utilizing them for the full benefit of society just runs counter to our prevailing culture and financial status quo. I'm at a loss to explain this to you. If I knew how a free and decentralized society would organize itself it would cease being the superior option, because we could just go ahead and do exactly that, right now. Do you see what I mean? The superior alternative quite obviously is something you and I on our own can't think of, that is why it is superior. You are familiar with the concept of synergy, I presume? There is nothing wrong with attaching references to wikipedia articles, and I have NO problems with the concepts described within the articles. These concepts can be applied to existing systems or can be used to revise existing systems. This is one of the reasons why the technology behind Bitcoin is so powerful. There is absolutely no way to predict all the ways how it will be used, by whom and for what purpose. People through trial and error, will come up with innovations so astounding that we probably can't even imagine them right now. They can innovate, without permission, because the technology is open source and decentralized. Yet here we are, on bitcointalk, proclaiming the superiority of decentralized open source financial technology, when in fact so far there has been little evidence that it is better right now. I find myself constantly amazed by the amount of bitcoiners who just don't seem to get this.
I believe that a lot of people involved in bitcoin already seem to agree on these points that bitcoin has the ability to assist us to reorganize society and to adopt truly revolutionary changes in the way that people interact or even the distribution of benefits in society. So long as bitcoin continues to exist, these kinds of innovations (yet to be known precisely) are going to continue to come about. We can agree that these kinds of innovations are taking place and are going to continue to take place. However, that does NOT mean that we are going to agree that we should throw away our existing system, prior to the more broader implementations of these various innovations. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
