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.

My comment is merely responding to inadequacies in previous descriptions about how we are supposedly to transition from the current state of affairs into some utopian individualistic world that is being described by posters like Billyjoeallen - in his assertion that we should just get rid of government and everything will be better in terms of "freedom."

Your quote of me is somewhat out of the context of the ideas being discussed.  Surely, it is easy to get garbled up with these various arguments being presented, and from the garbled /fragmented sections attempt to figure out what is being said.

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.  If there are NO rules to protect, and there are too many people living in dense areas, we would likely devolve into survival of the fittest b/c there is NOT enough resources to go around and the current resource distribution remains extremely skewed.  If we got rid of government, then we would likely experience redistribution through brutal means. 

I am NOT suggesting that human nature is to kill one another.  However, if we immediately got rid of government and received the world that BillyjoeAllen was postulating, we could NOT magically transition from our current world to his utopian state of individualism without some bad things happening to the weak and the poor and the elderly.  More or less, that is the context of my comment.


This is NOT a scenario that I am wishing for, and in fact, I am continuing to suggest that if we are going to transition to some world without government (or even lesser government or more widely distributed government), then we need some kind of plan for that transition, rather than mere bare assertions (without plans) that we need to get rid of government.

Like I suggested, you have NO examples.  Let's discuss again in 2-5 years or however long it takes to run a few pilot sessions of these assurance contract scenarios.  Hopefully, when we discuss NEXT time, you will be able to provide examples of actual public entities, such as cities, counties, states or nations that have implemented these kinds of arrangements in their treatment of various public goods, benefits and/or services or at least run assurances contracts through their measures.

Wealth disparities have more to do with regulating and taxing the rich and the companies... rather than questions about coercion... You are really myopic and misplaced in your thinking if you are wanting to view the world through levels of coercion.. and then in the end your conclusions do NOT even seem to correlate with reality.... they are pure speculation with what appears to be your own definition(s) about what constitutes coercion.

Octaft: 

I believe that you are giving Billyjoeallen much more credit than he merits.  I have nothing against Billyjoeallen as a person and I am sure that he is representing ideas that are shared by others; however, he is discussing matters in such a pie in the sky world that it is very difficult to take the various arguments and proposals seriously.   

Billyjoeallen is espousing ideas very similar to a lot of libertarians in their various views of government.  They have NO meaningful solutions, and want to shoot first and ask questions later - which is likely going to really screw things up for a lot of people.  There are these various goals that may be good in their hypothetical frame to allow for more individual freedom and autonomy.  And, I share some of those values; however, I remain fairly confident that we do NOT achieve them by running rough shod over the role and contributions of government. 

For example, there were a lot of libertarians who thought that it was so wonderful to have the USA government shut down for several weeks to attempt to prove some kind of point about NO need for government.  And, really, that government shut down was one of the stupidest gambles that could have lead to much worse catastrophes than what had occurred.... it was like reckless disregard for a variety of impacts.     My main point here is that I have NO problem with vision and attempting to accomplish meaningful changes to society and even getting rid of various aspects of government - especially if there are potential substitute institutions that could be implemented.  However, I tend to suffer from a fairly high level of irritation when some of these anti-government or less government ideologies strive towards dismantling without having any real meaningful plan(s) or visions that encompass values beyond their own small circle(s).

That is all fine and dandy that you are attempting to be more specific with a proposed direction that could be applied - assurances contracts.  So I appreciate your efforts in that direction.   NONETHELESS, I remain a little bit unclear about how these assurance contracts may work in various applications in the real world - apart from your fantasy world - such as in a city or a county or a state or a nation. 

Definitely, I am NOT opposed to potentially innovative and creative avenues to establish new social arrangements - that may even be beyond our current  thinking about societal arrangements.   I will caution you that ideas to throw out the current governmental arrangements (including taxes) - prior to testing out new arrangements would be very problematic and negatively impactful to a lot of people.  So I would NOT advise jumping into any pie in the sky arrangement without some data about how it plays out in the real world.

So my question to you is whether you know of any examples in which these assurance contracts have been applied in the real world  (NOT just hypothetical)... the larger the scale of the application the better - such as a city of 50,000 people or even better a metropolitan area of several million people - however, any example may be useful towards their consideration and how they play out in real world application.

If you do NOT have any examples of application, then you are really talking pie in the sky that is MUCH TOO premature for serious consideration in today's world and even in our conversation here.... Then I would suggest that it would be good to work towards achieving application of some of these ideas in order that we can talk realistically.. and NOT just in fantasy... and  we can compare and contrast how these hypothetical concepts play out.

This is a very pretty chart; however, it make nearly no fucking sense. 

A chart like this is NOT going to help anyone to think more clearly about the situation of the role of government about solutions about what to do in order to accomplish more fair and equitable societies, whether we are talking about distribution of wealth or the role of government to establish community objectives.  Also, it places labels that also make little sense and suggest that these various leaders fit squarely within some kind of paradigm.

It's pretty, though.

It seems that you are missing some essential elements in your quick rendition of the facts and the ramifications of borrowing or printing.

In essence what has happened since about the 1980s is that the US Government has increasingly let the rich off the hook.. by decreasing and decreasing taxes... .accordingly, instead of taxing them, the government borrows from them... which is really a bunch of bullshit.

Certainly, many of us here agree that there are a lot of messed up aspects in the current arrangement and how our tax money is being used.  Also, regular people are having to bear more and more of the burdens of failure to tax the rich.

NOW, you are throwing in the concept of Democracy.  I doubt you understand the concept b/c from your past comments , you do NOT seem to understand the idea of community and public good.  Accordingly, I would venture to put forth that democracy has something to do with giving votes to people in spite of their having money.  Therefore, if you let poor people actually vote, they are going to chose to have some things that are good for the public, and even rich people will vote to have certain protections for their property, so the poor people do NOT up and take it away from the rich people.  Various public goods and interests are protected through democratic processes - which also requires money (likely taxes, unless we come up with some other means to accomplish the same).

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.

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.. Individuals like that, just seem to want a free ride to have the benefits of various infrastructures (NOT to recognize the existence of such infrastructures), so it is just a waste of time and energy to explore possibilities of "voluntary" charities for guys who seem to want a free lunch.

Billyjoeallen: 

I must congratulate you, at least, for coming full circle back to the original postulate and re-emphasizing your point that you are of the belief that the government is the same as a thief - merely b/c they are levying taxes against your "involuntarily."     I really wished that you could find some island to live upon, b/c you  would like to stay detached from society, or at least that is what you are saying that you want.  But when push comes to shove, you likely do NOT want to live on an island by yourself, and instead you want to enjoy the fruits of various infrastructure but NOT have to pay your fair share.

Surely, I would like to pay as little as possible as well; however, I realize that it is my responsibility to pay, even when I do NOT get a direct benefit.  Anyhow, simply asserting the government is the equivalent of thieves demonstrates that you DO NOT appreciate either the various roles of government, and your logic remains very fuzzy to equate government with a ceo, such as Karpeles, who seems to have used his position of privelege and access to the money of others to be irresponsible at best and possibly engaged in fraud (has NOT been alleged, yet).

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)

Here you show the extreme nature of your thinking and how detached you are from the real world in some kind of ideological attempt to have some fantasy society in which there is NO taxes...(or compelled  charity), and in such a world, supposedly, necessary public services will still be carried out... ... OTHERWISE, we will truly be living in a survival of the fittest, dog eat dog world... Most people would NOT want to live in such a society.

This is sloppy thinking if we are of the belief that new investors need to buy in 1BTC increments.  New investors can buy in at whatever amount that they want or they feel justified.  Probably, a more important measurement is BTC's market cap, and whether there is room for expansion from about an $8 Billion dollar market cap to some new and higher value.  To me, a $100 billion market cap seems to be fairly conservative, once we get the choo choo moving along a little further... or get a little upward momentum, at some point... which seems that we will be progressing in that upward direction in the near future.. this year, and also 2015...

Certainly, there are going to be varying degrees to which services will be provided depending upon how necessary the contributors believe the services to be.  There are public benefits in many services that are regulated, as well.

We could name almost anything.

Water, gas, electricity, airwaves, hospitals, schools, security, policing, military, busses, trains, planes, labor, financial...


It is a quagmire.. and each service has its own various argument and priorities.  I still DO NOT see the point in getting into a big discussion of each of these... b/c even posters are getting into arguments about whether bitcoin is the solution to all of this mess.. ... and in my view bitcoin is NOT going to solve these kinds of matters in the near-term - however, it is likely that bitcoin could contribute towards various solutions, since many of us on this thread (especially those who are long-term bull-ish on bitcoin) realize that bitcoin is likely to transform many aspects of societal interactions.

I seem to recall that this whole conversation about the role of government came from the statement that theft and taxes is the same... .. and NOW the conversation has devolved into a full blown discussion of the role of government and whether services would be provided voluntarily, in the event that there were NO government.

YOU are NOT saying anything NEW here.  We know that there are a lot of problems with the american government and its printing of money to give to the rich.

This governmental system could implode in the coming weeks or it could take 10-50 years.  I would wager, that it is pretty likely that a large majority of the current governmental disfunction is going to hobble along for a good 20-30 years.... However, NO one really knows the future, exactly...   And some unexpected events could totally change the trajectory

Well put, Octaft. 

I was going to make some similar point about pie in the sky about some of the simplistic points that some posters are making when they believe that "public" services are going to be voluntarily picked up by private entities in the event of NO government.  And, our example need NOT only be roads, but that is a good one just to illustrate a point on one topic.

Accordingly, in order to evolve in that direction of potentially less government (whether we can ever make it to NO government would be another story), we would need to plan, rather than willy-nilly elimination.

In the world of trading, at the time of the transaction, both parties believe that they are winners.  ONLY afterwards does one of the parties, realize that s/he has bet wrong.





EXACTLY... Why discuss it?  We have differing opinions on a point that is NOT really related to the thread.

O.K. we are NOT getting anywhere, and I do NOT want to waste additional time on these various arguments that some people believe the solution to all woes is to get rid of government and the sooner we do it, the better.... what a disaster in the making.








You are NOT correct to think these various points b/c these are NOT my points.  

Regarding your first point:  I am saying that currently we have a whole system set up.  WE can have all kinds of future set-ups, so merely getting rid of government in the short term is NOT any kind of meaningful solution.  There may be ways around all kinds of societal set ups that do NOT require government.  I am NOT for government, merely for the sake of government.






It is possible for both well intended people to do good and bad intended people to do bad through government.  In fact, there are a lot of good intended people involved in various aspects and various roles in government.   So what is your point, here, exactly?






Many individuals have set goals to make certain influences in life - including influencing the direction of the government.   And, sometimes these kinds of focuses have resulted in meaningful changes to government.  Individuals can do these kinds of things, but it is likely rarely a product of any one individual but rather teaming up in various ways to accomplish objectives. Personally, I would rather spend my time in other ways, and I have made my various dents in life.... individually and as a part of various groups. Whether I will continue to make any dents will depend upon how I focus my energies.  At the moment, I have NO current intention on making any meaningful dents in the direction of government - b/c I am planning for future travels - however, my life trajectory could change b/c of turns of events that are NOT expected.






There you go... trying to minimize anything I said by asserting my ONLY argument has been...   I made several points - and repeatedly asserted that I did NOT want to get into these kinds of discussions about the role of government... Weren't we talking about thefts and mt gox at some point?

You seem to be getting caught up... in some physicality.. and I would think part of this "where" question is physicality and part of it is a state of mind and acceptance of the community in which you live.  Maybe you could attempt to live in nature somewhere... like in alaska.... .. anyhow, if we live in modern society we partake in the roads and the schools and the hospitals and other forms of infrastructure... Difficult to get around these things.. and also difficult to make credible claims about "I built this" when your building depends upon others and depends upon infrastructure.