So, anyone want to place bets as to which currency gets to the "Cheaper to use directly as toilet paper than to buy toilet paper" stage first, the Dollar, the Euro, or the Yen? I bet on the US Could be a safe bet because the smallest Yen paper bill is 1000 (~10 USD today), and the euro has similarly valued smallest paper bill. Those coins could be rough. On the upside, they're reusable, just wash 'em off. |
|
|
|
Your cash is buried in a field.
You bury your cash in a field? The IRS takes mine from my paycheck before I ever get it. My exact point. myrkul is peddling the notion that if you are paid in Bitcoin, you are not subject to tax on your income. But if you are an employee, that's nonsense. Depends on who you work for. If you work for someone willing to pay you in bitcoin, it's likely that you also work for someone willing to not report your earnings. Another benefit of bitcoins. Employer buys bitcoins, isn't legally required to pay taxes on them until he turns them back into cash. |
|
|
|
...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.
Judge locks you up. Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000. You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both. Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field. Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation? Bitcoin is in a brainwallet, and cash is buried in a field. If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it. As long as I have selected an unguessable passphrase, ain't nobody taking my bitcoins without my say-so. lol your "say-so" while you rot in jail makes it voluntary? In both cases, you remain in jail until the authorities have what they want. The Bitcoin is no more secure than the cash. And in both cases, I am costing them money, instead of earning them money. The benefit of bitcoin is that they can't get it unless I decide to give it to them. Three hots and a cot, on the state dime, while my money's safe in my head. Repeat after me: I am not your piggybank. So you are agreed that the cash and the Bitcoin are equally safe. Fine. Uhhh... nooo.... If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it.Can't do that with bitcoins. I'll even tell them where the money is: 1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja Come and get it.  |
|
|
|
As a specie we are territorial. And violent force is the most effective form of influence in nature. As for monopoly - I hope it will be harder to achieve with sound monetary system.
That's my point. A currency like bitcoin will destroy the monopoly that the State requires. |
|
|
|
...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.
Judge locks you up. Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000. You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both. Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field. Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation? Bitcoin is in a brainwallet, and cash is buried in a field. If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it. As long as I have selected an unguessable passphrase, ain't nobody taking my bitcoins without my say-so. lol your "say-so" while you rot in jail makes it voluntary? In both cases, you remain in jail until the authorities have what they want. The Bitcoin is no more secure than the cash. And in both cases, I am costing them money, instead of earning them money. The benefit of bitcoin is that they can't get it unless I decide to give it to them. Three hots and a cot, on the state dime, while my money's safe in my head. Repeat after me: I am not your piggybank. |
|
|
|
How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commonsSorry, I think I'm missing your point? How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tragedy of the Commons got to do with this? My point: If all land is held "in common," the people who use that land have less care for it. Think about it: Would you throw a Styrofoam cup onto your front lawn? Yet, many people litter while driving down the road. I used to live in a student dorm. I did my best to keep the common room clean, because I felt it was a social obligation to do so. A social obligation to the community, so to say. My own room, however, I'd treat however the fuck I felt like. Sometimes that meant it was a huge mess. But I don't really think either your road/front lawn example nor my public/private room examples are the best examples in regards to the tragedy of the commons. As is common with people who espouse communist views, you have a social view of the world, and act socially. I have a sad (from your point of view) fact to relate: You're a rarity. Any system which relies on your view being in the majority will fail, and fail horribly. This is not theory. This is established, historical fact. But there is a ray of home in all this: In a system of private ownership, people who wish to act socially, can, and may aid others as they see fit. You just can't force others to do so. See, the funny thing is that you seem to use the tragedy of the commons in the exact opposite way as I would. To me, the tragedy of the commons proves that we need regulation. How else are we gonna stop the seas from being overfished? How else are we gonna stop global warming? How else are we gonna stop the rainforests from being cut down? All of these things are perfect examples of the tragedy of the commons; it's perfectly rational economic behaviour for anyone to fish for fish, fly a plain or cut some wood, but if everyone starts doing it, it would end in disaster. That's why we need regulation. The answer to that is the same in all cases: Overfishing? Private ownership of the seas will allow (and encourage) the owners to prevent overfishing, as that will cut into the future profitability. Rainforests? Private ownership of the land will allow people who wish to, to conserve that land in it's natural state. Global warming is a much larger issue, and deserves it's own conversation. Suffice it to say that if we're going to change anything about the global climate, it needs the full cooperation of the entire planet, not just a few governments. As to your other two questions: Yes, we can't all live on the Champs-Élysées (even if all land is held in "common"). That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most. Ok, who should I buy the land from, then? From the guy who ownes the land right now? How did he get to own it? By buying it from someone else? How did that guy get to own it then? If we go back far enough, someone must have just claimed the land at some point. Land was always there, nobody created it, so at some point somebody must have just declared the land to be his, almost certainly by using force upon those who disagreed. And now we have to pay for it to get it back? No. Fuck that. Somebody used force to get it in the first place, we can use force to take it back. As I said, there are two legitimate ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation (Declaring, by occupying first, that land to be his), or voluntary sale. Allowing people to come along and take land by force equates to no property rights at all, and war of all against all. Land was always there, it was created by no one. It should therefore be owned by either no one, or by everyone. You shouldn't be able to claim it anymore than you should be able to claim the air we all breathe, or the water in all of the rivers and all of the oceans in the world.
Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but land belonging to nobody causes strife, and land belong to "everybody" causes strife. Only when land belongs to "somebody," can there be peace. Now, how do we get to decide who lives on the Champs-Élysées? I propose we let the market decide, BUT without any indiviual profiting from it. Whoever is willing to pay most gets to live there, but WE THE PEOPLE get to spend the money on something WE THE PEOPLE want to spend it on. This could be schools, hospitals, bridges, a policeforce, or whatever we decide it to be.
Sounds nice on paper. What happens if 50% of the people want to spend the money on a hospital, and 50% on a school? Which half is right? And, to make matters worse, where are you going to put it? Also, I got to agree with bonker, just because you don't want violence to exist or even won't use any violence yourself (ever), that does not mean nobody else won't either. If you believe that, that to me seems like a very naïve worldview to be honest.
Tsk... Just because I don't consider violence a legitimate means to gain property doesn't mean it won't happen. Just that it is legitimate to resist violence with violence. Vim Vi Repellere Licet. |
|
|
|
I guess it depends on definition of state.
Violent territorial monopoly on force. |
|
|
|
...snip...
I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force.
Judge locks you up. Demands 500 Bitcoin and $50,000. You are not leaving jail until the Judge has both. Your bitcoin is on a USB stick and your cash is buried in a field. Exactly how is your Bitcoin safer than your cash from confiscation? Bitcoin is in a brainwallet, and cash is buried in a field. If they know where to find the cash (through surveillance, a snitch, whatever), they can dig it up and take it. As long as I have selected an unguessable passphrase, ain't nobody taking my bitcoins without my say-so. |
|
|
|
*Deep breath*
A factory takeover is always a peaceful, organized process if the profiteer being deposed has the good sense to gtfo, and doesn't call in the riot cops, instead opting to let the rightful owners, the workers, take over.
All right, we'll start with the easy one. What makes them the "rightful" owners? There are only two ways to legitimately acquire property: Original appropriation (homesteading), or voluntary purchase. Secondary appropriation, or "squatting" is only valid on abandoned property. Certainly you're not claiming that the factory owner (or shareholders) abandoned the factory? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is like any other income - if the government knows about it, it will be liable to tax.
Liable... but not accessible. A bitcoin world or more generally a public money supply currency world clearly means MORE taxes than before. After all, if you cut off the source of income which is printing money as debt, governments will be forced to take more taxes to maintain roads, etc. Bitcoin income is MORE accessible to taxation, because the block chain doesn't lie (though of course under the table transactions will always be possible). Maybe more liable, but as I said, not accessible. Unless you know of a way you can reach in to my wallet and take my coins? Yes - put you in jail until you pay your debts. Exactly like happens with all other forms of income. I'm don't know why you cling to the bizarre notion that income from Bitcoin is some way special in that the taxman can't take it. If he knows about it, he can tax it. Bitcoin is just another currency from that point of view. I don't understand why you cling to the silly notion that bitcoin isn't different. I have to willingly give up the money. Every other currency, they can take by force. |
|
|
|
I don't pay taxes... I'm net receiver...
Also known as a dependent slave. No wonder you're so pro-State. How do you know he is not an anarchist? if everyone was a net receiver the state would collapse. Because he's spoken in defense of the State, before, in other threads. |
|
|
|
A friend was telling me there is a program that depending on which password you give it at bootup it will
load different encrypted partitions....
TrueCrypt can do that. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is like any other income - if the government knows about it, it will be liable to tax.
Liable... but not accessible. A bitcoin world or more generally a public money supply currency world clearly means MORE taxes than before. After all, if you cut off the source of income which is printing money as debt, governments will be forced to take more taxes to maintain roads, etc. Bitcoin income is MORE accessible to taxation, because the block chain doesn't lie (though of course under the table transactions will always be possible). Maybe more liable, but as I said, not accessible. Unless you know of a way you can reach in to my wallet and take my coins? |
|
|
|
Anyhoo, police in my sate can download all your text messages if they have the whim after pulling you over. You might be hiding drug deals, even if there's no extraordinary reason to suspect it!
Of course there's reason to suspect it. You're not in a uniform, are you? |
|
|
|
Saying that money isn't real is like saying that words aren't real. But words are real... I use them whenever I write or speak. You could even say that I am using words when I read or listen. But words aren't real, really. Just like money, they're representations. In other words,  The properties of money can be summarized as: scarcity, fungibility, and convenience. The properties required of a commodity to be used as money, yes. Semantics, I know. But words, though they are not "real," do matter.  |
|
|
|
That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most. There is a third way of acquiring land: aggression. Maybe you missed it: That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale.
We don't recognize aggression as a valid means of acquiring land. |
|
|
|
Gold on the other hand is "usable" by anyone, hence it has value to anyone/everyone.
That's another necessary quality. |
|
|
|
Japan is a very strange country as it's basically a vassal state since the USA wrote their constitution after WO2 (which is still in effect) making it unconstitutional for Japan to wage war. For the last ten years or so people are starting to increasingly loudly question the constitution. It will be interesting what happens in the next ten years. "Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is a clause in the National Constitution of Japan that prohibits an act of war by the state. The Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947, following World War II. In its text, the state formally renounces war as a sovereign right and bans settlement of international disputes through the use of force. The article also states that, to accomplish these aims, armed forces with war potential will not be maintained, although Japan maintains de facto armed forces, referred to as the Japan Self-Defense Forces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_ConstitutionAnd the JSDF is pretty much a joke, from what I hear. |
|
|
|
Like a Baws. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
