...
I'm surprised that COLLECTIVISM (Socialism) is so popular among people interested in Bitcoin. As told over and over above, Socialism takes by force the property of the productive, and gives it to the governing class (who the bulk) and the lazy (who get some crumbs for political support).
The most fundamental right of anyone is the right to be left alone (unmolested).
I'm assuming you're talking about taxation. Just about every country levy taxes. It's not unique to socialism. There are some exceptions, but they've got some rather odd justifications that cannot be universalized. The United States has a higher level of maximum taxation than most countries with a history of social democratic governments. Socialism creates a ponzi scheme economy. They all know that the pension system and endless welfare cannot be funded by taxation, so it feeds on itself and creates a ponzi economy. The financial ponzi scheme is inevitable under a socialist economy. Unless you want to choose North Korean economics with 50% yearly inflation and wiping out bank accounts every 2 years. At least North Koreans are honest about it, and dont try to hide their ponzi in financial derivatives. ? Poorly financed pension systems are not exclusive to countries with socialist governments. One of the things that weighed down GM and Chrysler in the 2008-2009 financial crisis was their massively under financed pension obligations. So they were bailed out with the tax-payers money. Nor do all countries with socialist governments have poorly financed pension systems. In fact, much of Europe have had comprehensive overhauls of their pension systems to make them more sustainable in the future. As for your admiration of North Korea, I've got nothing. |
|
|
|
...
I'm surprised that COLLECTIVISM (Socialism) is so popular among people interested in Bitcoin. As told over and over above, Socialism takes by force the property of the productive, and gives it to the governing class (who the bulk) and the lazy (who get some crumbs for political support).
The most fundamental right of anyone is the right to be left alone (unmolested).
I'm assuming you're talking about taxation. Just about every country levy taxes. It's not unique to socialism. There are some exceptions, but they've got some rather odd justifications that cannot be universalized. The United States has a higher level of maximum taxation than most countries with a history of social democratic governments. |
|
|
|
i'm canadian so i couldn't calculate the fee properly.
Let me guess, you're going to blame the metric system? |
|
|
|
We need unanimous consensus with this fucking idiot!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Geeeez!!! I can't believe I invested money in this shit!!! GOD DAMN!!!!
He's never concealed who or what turns him. We've all got our wee idiosyncrasies. Wee? One of the two devs at the wheel of this shitshow has renounced science! |
|
|
|
"Who cares what the frauds running the Vatican these days say? Evolutionism is still no more credible than it has ever been.
By the way, the Sun really orbits the Earth, not vice-versa.
Oh, and neither topic is really overly relevant to religion, so it's somewhat silly to expect any religious organizations to comment on the whole either way." You've got to be fucking kidding me!!! We need unanimous consensus with this fucking idiot!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Geeeez!!! I can't believe I invested money in this shit!!! GOD DAMN!!!! |
|
|
|
And some are like "ohh something needs to get done"....Then roll it out  this crap has been plaguing BTC for a while now.... and nothing seems to stick in the minds of the powers to be  One of the criticisms is that SegWit has a lot of new and untested code. So if you rush it out you get "oh no this must not be used, it's unsafe". Plus you are labeled irresponsible. If you test it out thoroughly (as you should), you are attacked for " dragging the issue unnecessarily, just get on with it and release it". So whatever they do, they'll get flamed. It doesn't change anything. No, that's not true. All those things are good reasons to release a can kick. 8 months ago. |
|
|
|
What was it Gavin said about young Skywalker? Poisonous what what? |
|
|
|
sabotage
 |
|
|
|
i'm fairly certain this drop is pricing in Core/Blockstream 's hard headedness
I don't care what solution they agree on just get something done! hard fork whatever lol lol true well HOPEFULLY they can get segwit going in time but if they either don't get it out in time or it does not effectively increase block size by much, these devs are toast! Anyone bothered to look into that accidental HF it caused on the testnet? |
|
|
|
Thank you for this. Looks like newcomers trying to displace first (or second, or third) movers.
Bitcoin isn't really giving it much of a fight. |
|
|
|
holy shit wtf is going on?
All that priced in potential ....poof! |
|
|
|
Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!
You can do it!
So you are in a gulag...? Dont like it? No problem just grab a passport and leave. I'm sorry, I was not aware of that he's in a gulag. Good to see he's got internet. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you don't live in my country so don't blame me if there are people in your country who want to prevent you from becoming an involuntary sex toy for the bigger boys, or that there are people ready to stitch you up afterwards.
It was an example and of course you avoided the moral question with your "don't blame me" juvenile non-answer. For the sake of argument just assume we do live in the same geographical area under it's government. Now answer my question. Why can't you respect another persons freedom to opt-out of paying for something just because YOU find value in it? I'll try, but I fear we'll constantly fall back to this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o (thx macsga) Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. In order to enforce this freedom you need violence. You'll soon find that, as I tried to hint at earlier, you'll need a monopoly of violence. What you've suggested earlier is sometimes called the state of nature, but more accurately to be thought of as a state of war. Now... a monopoly of violence can be a rather depressing thing if it's randomly applied. So you'll want a rechtsstaat or some kind of rule of law. This is best achieved in a democracy. But not just any democracy, you'll want a representative democracy with separation of powers between the courts, the lawmakers, and the ruler. Ok, so far, so good. Now you have a sound foundation for regulating society in a way that secures the freedom of every citizen. But what is freedom? Now we're back to what I mentioned in the beginning. Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. That is the extent and limit of your freedom. If you go beyond this you're causing harm to others. More precisely there is negative freedom. Freedom from being arrested for no good reason, freedom from being caused bodily harm, freedom from persecution, freedom from being deprived of property for no good reason, etc. But there are also such a thing as positive freedom. That is, the freedom to realize your own potential by actually being enabled to pursue the opportunities you find in a society with negative freedom. This must be ensured by having access, in a real way, to education, healthcare, etc. Where the actual lines are drawn are decided by the politics of the system. But to answer your question: if you retreat from your civic duties to be "left alone" you're infringing on the freedom of others and damaging this entire construct aimed at ensuring the freedom of all. Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!
You can do it!
Yes, the old "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. This would imply that because I was born into it (without choice btw) that I'm actually making my choice to live under the system simply by staying. Well, things aren't that simple. Borders are imposed on people and largely close off to immigration. A lot of people honestly do not have the luxury of immigrating. The other thing that makes this argument completely fucking stupid is that most people that would make this argument, would also have some empathy for the American Indian or other groups that had previously inhabited an area BEFORE the new population forced it's will upon them. If you can see how absurd it is to impose a system on the existing population, than it's not that big of a leap to see why it's just as ridiculous to impose a system on anybody simply because half the population votes for it. This is similar to the typical Christian who that claims they choose to accept Jesus of their own free will, meanwhile the religion itself is clear that if you reject Christ you are going to hell. At best it's a cruel illusion of choice. I know, it's a ridiculous argument. And I'm not a big fan of the "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. But you actually cried out "No freedom to leave!" so I was curious to see what your response was. It's not unheard of for libertarians/anarchists to look for virgin territory. |
|
|
|
-snip-
“My basic thesis was this: anyone who was dumb enough to think that they could make money reviewing television shows would pay $49 dollars for a training program,” said Hill. “And anyone who is that lazy will never complete the training program. So they’d just give up and I could sell a $2 dollar training program for $49.”
It worked: he made about $100,000 in three months. (At that point the crowd gave him an ovation... -snip-
http://betakit.com/montreal-angel-austin-hill-failed-spectacularly-before-later-success/Canadians... and they wonder why the entire world hates them.  Bomb Canada!  |
|
|
|
There's a slight difference between someone offering transport and someone offering violence. It's very difficult to control violence without a monopoly.
Right, so because YOU can't possibly fathom how something would work without a monopoly that means that violently imposing taxes over the people in a certain geographical area is the only possibility? Again, Socialists always know what's right for everyone! My point was narrowly aimed at your idea for replacing the states monopoly of violence. Violence is not well suited for the free market. In essence all that I am asking is that you respect my right to opt out of paying into YOUR system. You might find it great. Maybe I don't and I'd rather be left the fuck alone to buy security or healthcare. What is so hard difficult about that, besides the fact that you desire to control people? The whole goddamn argument comes down to voluntary and involuntary relationships. The state that only allows one option and no freedom to opt out is no better than the slave master who claims what he's doing is virtuous because his slaves are allowed to walk around his fenced in 5 acre property. No freedom to leave!
I'm pretty sure you don't live in my country so don't blame me if there are people in your country who want to prevent you from becoming an involuntary sex toy for the bigger boys, or that there are people ready to stitch you up afterwards. Edit: No freedom to leave! Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!! You can do it! |
|
|
|
You missed my point so badly it's just laughable.
You are like a slave owner trying to justify slavery by pointing out the fact that your slaves are somewhat healthy and well fed. You are completely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY IS FUCKING IMMORAL BECAUSE YOU ARE STEALING A PERSONS PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT. Can I make it any clearer for you?
If slavery is defined as stealing 100% of a persons production. Then at what percentage is not called slavery? Socialists would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery. So taxing people (stealing their productive output) at 100% is slavery, but at 80% or 50% is somehow magically morally acceptable because people voted for it. I'm just calling BULLSHIT!
You are confused. Slavery is not "defined as stealing 100% of a persons production" nor are there any socialists who "would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery". Nor is taxing people stealing. If you find taxes morally reprehensible then you can make that argument and that should suffice. If you find different forms of socialism morally reprehensible you can make that case and see if it sticks. This constant mislabeling of things you don't like as slavery, theft, and similar by right wing nutters extremists enthusiasts confuses the issues and will consistently lead you astray. Here's a couple definitions from a dictionary. slavery /ˈsleɪvərɪ/ noun 1. the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2.the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into workSo yes having absolute power over another persons fortune would qualify as slavery. I stated it as controlling their productive output. Keeping slaves can be done in a number of ways. It doesn't always mean chains, whips, and beatings like in the movies. Black slaves in America were not always treated THAT badly, but that doesn't mean we can excuse the idea whereby one person seeks to control another. I don't give a shit what free handouts my slave master gives me, I care about the freedom of choice, which is non-existent with government taxation. I'm not a fan of that definition, but it doesn't fit your definition anyway. "[A] civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune" is not the same as "stealing 100% of a persons production". Nor is the second definition much closer. Especially when both definitions state that this relationship is person to person. When a state wields that kind of power it's called something else. |
|
|
|
Ok then you need absolutely no rule, a free currency of course, like btc.
And how do you protect citizens? I mean what would prevent a company like Google to just hire some mercenaries and kill the potential competitors as there is no police and no government?
Who said no police? You can still have police run privately like a corporation. Basic policing like keeping the streets clean and emergency 911 calls can be easily done (and possibly more efficiently) than government police. You know in Japan the subway system has a maximum 1 minute delay and its run by private corps. When I was last time in government subway they always have a 10-15 minute delay. So you have to admit that private stuff is managed better, and when you call the cops because there is somebody in your house, then its a matter of life and death if they delay 15 minutes because they forgot to buy their donuts.And for personal protection, there are always security guards and security services available, you just cant afford it currently, but with low or no taxes I guarantee you it would be as cheap as buying a hamburger. There's a slight difference between someone offering transport and someone offering violence. It's very difficult to control violence without a monopoly. |
|
|
|
No problem. Selling bitcoin and buying gold.
Why? You got your cripplecoin. Now you stick with it! Oy yoy yoy  What? ETH is doing great. What's the problem?  Looks like it's only us shills left holding the bag. |
|
|
|
You missed my point so badly it's just laughable.
You are like a slave owner trying to justify slavery by pointing out the fact that your slaves are somewhat healthy and well fed. You are completely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY IS FUCKING IMMORAL BECAUSE YOU ARE STEALING A PERSONS PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT. Can I make it any clearer for you?
If slavery is defined as stealing 100% of a persons production. Then at what percentage is not called slavery? Socialists would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery. So taxing people (stealing their productive output) at 100% is slavery, but at 80% or 50% is somehow magically morally acceptable because people voted for it. I'm just calling BULLSHIT!
You are confused. Slavery is not "defined as stealing 100% of a persons production" nor are there any socialists who "would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery". Nor is taxing people stealing. If you find taxes morally reprehensible then you can make that argument and that should suffice. If you find different forms of socialism morally reprehensible you can make that case and see if it sticks. This constant mislabeling of things you don't like as slavery, theft, and similar by right wing nutters extremists enthusiasts confuses the issues and will consistently lead you astray. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
