It's not about "being gentle", the only thing I'm objecting to right now is going on a repeated rant about how I'm just ignoring everything instead of doing any counterarguments to the things I did address.

However, I will go back and specifically address the following stuff. In full context for some reason. Some if it I know I addressed already, some of it I ignored for good reason, but by golly if it's what you really want, I'll do it. I'm nothing if not an unrelentingly caring, helpful, generous, friendly, humble, gregarious, and all together decent, intelligent, and good looking individual.

I'm not hiding or accusing. I just edited it out of your post to demonstrate a good reason why I don't quote you in full.

If I came off as saying that absent government all poor people will be taken care of by private charities that emerge, then I apologize. That was not my intention, but I think my position is now clearer. Throwing a tantrum about my position not being immediately clear and accusing me of doing it intentionally is a bit silly.

Here's a good example. I edited out the ad-hominems and left the relevant portion of your post.

You haven't provided evidence that my responses failed to address your points.

Edit: Better example.

Why are you afraid to quote me in full?
I have responded to everything you've written, and have not once cowardly edited out your quote.
It's simple really.

Rather than repeat my self, I'll just repost a few of my earlier posts which you chose to ignore. Respond to this with empirical data instead of rhetorics. I know all of your talking points; I've heard it all before. I even have a copy of the talking points prepared by Americans for Prosperity three years ago for Tea Party and paleolibertarian operatives, where words like theft and murder were highlight in bold. What I haven't seen/heard/read is, evidence that support these talking points. I sometimes laugh when people tell me they want a smaller government, but don't even know the size of the government. The first thing they always zoom in is on welfare for the needy, despite the fact that it constitutes less than 0.1% of the budget. They are just so eager to start slashing off the evil gubmen, as if there is some magic pill, a single, cure-all panacea for a series of complex issues (fyi, bashing the inefficiencies of the federal government is not evidence that income taxes should be abolished.) Anyway, here they are.








And, in response to your aim of cutting welfare spending to zero and possessing "tremendous sympathy",


Please, don't repeat your opinions or talking points again. Let's move this discussion forward instead of going round in circles.

ps: Read the Declaration of Independence again. This time, instead of focusing of specific words that you think supports your theories, focus on the message behind the entire declaration. Once you've done so, then you may once again condescendingly ask me to read the same document.

pps: Then fix it, as I've said twice before, instead of trying to replace everything with a logic-defying theory that cannot even stand scrutiny. And I literally spill cigarette ash on my keyboard reading your Somalia example.

The right way to defend your position is to respond to what I say and point out specifically how my arguments don't address your points. Not repeat yourself over and over again and pretend I haven't addressed anything. It's reminiscent of a child throwing a temper tantrum and just repeating what he wants over and over.

You understand for democracy to do what you want it to do 51% of people have be altruistic? Just because you can't see the link doesn't mean I'm arguing in a circle or diverting attention.

You think you corrected me.

I did not. There are real world examples of the effects anarcho-capitalism have on economies which are fantastic, but it is not a "utopia".

Do you understand that saying anarcho-capitalism helps the poor is not the same as saying that poor disappear under anarcho-capitalism?
Why do you keep saying I have some kind of logic gap by saying that the poor are helped, but not all poor are always helped?
Do you see that there is a spectrum of "helping the poor" where at one at there are no poor because it has been completely taken care of and on the other end of the spectrum everyone is poor?
You understand that I'm arguing that anarcho-capitalism places us in the spectrum closer to no poor than democracy?
This isn't a "logic gap". You are trying to paint me into some absolute position of "no poor utopia" that I didn't take.

I'm not ignoring anything that I think is relevant, if you think I missed something point it out specifically and I'll address it.


What point? The point about Bill Gates? I did address it.

Irrelevant. Stop trying to paint me into a utopian position. My position is not that *EVERY* orphan will be adopted. My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can.

"The Baining also derogate sexual intercourse, because it is natural, although they apparently engage in enough of it to keep their population going. They consider adoption to be the ideal form of parenting, because to raise someone else’s child is less natural than to raise one's own. At the time that Fajans studied them, 36% of the children were adopted. In Baining tradition, if someone asks to adopt your child it is not polite to refuse their request. In many ways, the Baining are the ideal Puritans, even though they have no particular religious traditions and do not give religious reasons for their beliefs or behavior."
The Baining are totally free of orphans and even adopt more from neighboring villages, and have no government. Though again, this is actually not relevant to my position.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201207/all-work-and-no-play-make-the-baining-the-dullest-culture-earth
You mean "Fix it my way or move to a different country".

Why didn't they have a choice?

edit:
@rugrats, I had no idea that guy was involved with the picture, i just thought it was funny and it was ignored here fast.. i almost missed it.

Sorry if people feel like their being ignored here.. the feedback is appreciated, just not the constant accusations of lying about alt accounts i have or coins i made before..
and of course Mr obsessed with digitalindustry.. that crap sure derails the topic hard and fast.. maybe that is their goal ?
hmm...
I wonder if the mods would sticky some info for me ? and that would be..
- Spoetnik never made a coin and has one account.

because the amount of forum comments here that accuse me of it is ridiculous, same goes with the Trust Rating crap jabs.

We can agree on that.
You don’t understand what I’m talking about when I say that altruistic people have conditions concerning altruism, and it’s mind blowing to me that this isn’t self-evident
If someone is going to be altruistic there are MANY conditions;
1.)   The altruistic person actually has to have the means to be helpful to other people.
2.)   Other people need to exist that need help, AND aren’t currently getting help.
3.)   Other people that need help should be cooperative with getting help.
4.)   Those people that need help, are cooperative, actually need to be able to be helped.
Altruism exists in *reality* it’s not some kind of metaphysical state of mind that pre-exists any kind of rationality.
Taxation conflicts with 1. The welfare state conflicts with 2.
Because the federal welfare state didn’t go anywhere in the meantime and because people can’t adjust their spending habits based on the perturbations of our aristocratic overlords.
And who was pushing Americans to put money into housing? What agencies made it affordable? Do you think that maybe there was a tie to government somewhere in there?
YOU believe people are already altruistic. If democracy does ANYTHING it’s with a 51% majority. You already believe that most people in the United States are very altruistic people. They’re willing to be raped up the ass by Uncle Sam just so the poor and helpless can be saved. I don’t have to make that point, you’ve already accepted that it’s true. Again, you seem very confused about which side of the fence you’re on with this issue.
This reminds me very much of the concept of the seen and the unseen that Bastiat wrote about. We can all see that Bill Gates exists today. We can’t see how many Rockefellers don’t exist today. I can’t rewind history and play it back like I’d like, I can just appeal to logic by stating that people like Bill Gates could always exist, but other people that would only have succeeded absent government intervention would not exist by definition. Rockefeller’s rule was he would tithe 10% of his earnings, so the benefit that he had for the poor depended heavily on him succeeding in business, and not having his income taxed into oblivion. You might try to argue that he’d have “given” more to the poor if it was taxed out of him, but that’s a hard case to make considering, again, he gave more to the poor than you or any of your ancestors combined even if you and all of your ancestors ate nothing but dirt and gave everything else to the poor. His contributions were also designed to be more effective than government schemes, which was only possible by virtue of the fact that it was his own money.
Every time you do something without permission from any authority but your own, you are acting under Anarchy. System D would be the largest economy in the world if it were measured as one.
Also, complete anarchy, when tried, tends to do better than the governments prior.
http://mises.org/daily/5418/anarchy-in-somalia
Hitler was elected.
I’ve been talking about anarcho-capitalism since the beginning. Try to keep up.
Charity is necessary even in an anarchist society, but the greatest contribution to the poor has always been businesses acting in their own self-interest.

If you haven’t noticed, private charities do exist.
Again, I don’t have to prove that enormous amounts of altruistic people exist. That’s your position.

Yes, I have the temerity to ask you to read relevant subject matter. I know, I’m a bad person, but maybe one day I can get past these weaknesses of mine.

None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible aren’t actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them?

What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it “collateral damage”?
I guess that’s just altruism existing outside of reality again.
Haha! That’s rich.

Let’s go with 225 years old.

So to be clear; 51% of people are altruistic enough to provide badly for 400,000 orphans, but those same 51% that voted for the bad support those children are getting today, would not exist absent the government?

I would suggest that maybe most people don't go out of their way to help people because they expect the government to take care of it. That's pretty reasonable considering the United States Government spent $3,450,000,000,000 in 2013, since that's about twice as much money as you would need to give each of those orphans $50,000 every year for 90 years (in a one year budget, I remind you.).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/tables.pdf

As far as straw man arguments go, yours must be the weirdest I've encountered in a long while. Give it another try.

Also, your suggestion implies that altruism and altruistic people are holding back because someone else, i.e., the government, is doing it. That's not altruism.

Altruism exists regardless of any circumstances. Suggesting that altruism will suddenly emerge in the absence of a government is, forgive my language, breathtakingly delusional.

For the record, the welfare spending for the U.S. in 2014 will amount to $264.4 billion. That includes unemployment assistance, food programs, foster systems and many others. Walmart and Exxonmobil generate almost twice as much in revenue annually, and these two companies actually enjoy preferential tax rebates. As a percentage of GDP, the figure has been on a downward spiral for the past three decades.

Altruism exists whether or not the unfortunate party is being helped? Whether or not the unfortunate party is actually unfortunate? Whether or not the person knows about any kind of unfortunate circumstance that happened?

What do you mean that "Altruism exists regardless of circumstances"?

Did you miss my post about Rockefeller? That man gave, of his own free will, more than you or any of your ancestors made in their entire lifetimes put together (Adjusted for inflation). That's not even including the incalculable benefit to mankind that his company was; Standard Oil.

Also, the basis of Democracy is that 51% of voters ultimately know what's best for the rest of us. For anything altruistic to come out of it, you have to presuppose that at least 51% of voters are altruistic. So you've already said that altruistic people already exist in vast quantities! I am not quite as optimistic as you are, but clearly you're a bit confused about which side of the fence you're on.

If only we could get that spending to fall to 0% of GDP.

The point isn't that it's going to appear, it's that it already exists, but many people don't do anything because their wealth is being pillaged, and they expect the government to take care of it.

I'm not under the illusion that when people exist in anarchy that all problems disappear; The lame walk, the blind see, and healthy food is piled like mountains on every street corner.

When people are free to do as they like and to be commensurately rewarded for their efforts, then people will work for the benefit of their neighbor even if they think they are acting in their own self interest. Wonderful prosperity occurs, but it's not magic.

The world is not going to end if government stops interfering in people's lives. The sun will still rise, crops will still grow, and people can still deal with eachother. There was absolutely astonishing improvement in the lives of the poor long before the "great society" projects of the 1900's.

The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor

In the free market there may be less dollars dumped into programs to help the poor, but what is put into charities would be far more effective per dollar, and would certainly out-do our current ineffectual schemes by a wide margin.

Altruism should mean that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now.

Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others.

When exactly will these mythical altruistic people emerge? By your own words, they won't suddenly emerge if we abolish taxation. I've also clearly addressed that altruism and altruistic people do not set conditions before helping people. Yet you're going back to the same argument - altruism is absent because " they expect the government to take care of it."

Why? That's not altruism, which is the central core of your argument. Nevertheless, I'll bite, once again.

When former President Bush enacted his massive tax cuts in 2001 (effectively the largest since the Hoover days), the federal government lost about $6.6 trillion in revenue over an 11-year period. By your logic, shouldn't these extra income also resulted in an explosion of charitable contributions during the time? It didn't though. Despite being flushed with cash, there were no significant increase in charitable contributions from individuals and corporations over the last decade.

You know where the money went? Stock market and monetary instruments speculations, including subprime mortgage bundles which ultimately led to the worst American economic crisis in 80 years. And yet, self-professed paleolibertarians keep on insisting that if we abolish taxes and cripple the government, people will magically start being altruistic. I've asked this question before, even to Justin Amash. No one has been able to give a proper answer beyond rhetorics and quoting Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Mises or Bastiat.

Are you for or against anti-trust laws? And how does it relate to Rockefeller's altruism? Let's make it more current though. Look at Bill Gates. As of now, he is the biggest philanthropist in the history world. In a few decades, his Foundation's continued activity will also elevate him above Rockefeller, after inflation adjustment. I doubt there have been many Americans, if at all, who have paid more taxes than Gates. But like Rockefeller, he plans to give out all of his wealth to charity. That's altruism. And fyi, he works alongside governments of various nations - now.

You say this as if a significant form of anarchist government has ever existed; as if there have been occasions in history where fully functional anarchist geo states or communities exist; as if humans are not communal, social creatures that will naturally create a form of government. From the dawn of time, some form of government have always existed. This is an undeniable fact. From patriarchy and other forms of social hierarchy-based leadership, to tribalism, feudalism, warlords, aristocracy, monarcy (hereditary and later, divinely inspired), theocracy, democracy, republicanism, oligarchy, sultanate, caliphate, parliamentary monarchy, communism, socialism, Maoism - I could go on.

After trials and errors stretching several millennia, democracy, regardless of its form, has proven to be the most stable, productive and compassionate form of government. And we're supposed to throw all this away based on some theory and philosophy that has never been able to withstand scrutiny, never mind produce empirical evidence to substantiate its assertions?

Regardless, whatever do you mean by "The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor."? Don't you still require your "altruistic people" to help the weaker members of society?

We exist in a free market economy right now. What's stopping the emergence of such charities right now?

The government is you, me and other people like us. They are not some alien beings or members Alex Jones' ruling 20 families. Fix the government, from outside or inside. Don't let organizations like ALEC write bills for your Congressmen. Pressure your Congressmen to repeal acts like Citizens United which allows companies to secretly fund political campaigns. Despise the war? Make it known, like the Flower Generation. They achieved results, despite the almost universal ridicule they received.

If you have heard a grown man crying because he can't feed his hungry child, then you wouldn't be so cavalier about cutting off aid to them.
If you have spent time with orphans, you would be filled with fear at the thought of them left unprotected, uneducated and unfed, and you wouldn't be so eager to stop money going to orphanages.
If you have spent time with an old woman left on the streets by her children, then you wouldn't begrudge the money spent giving them shelter and feeding, and you wouldn't be callously insisting we should stop paying taxes.
There is absolutely no justification at all to stop aiding people in need. None.

None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible aren’t actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it “collateral damage”?

FUD's as the unit ? now i like that idea
I was thinking NIK's LOL

(1) Yes.

(1)The point isn't that it's going to appear, it's that it already exists, but many people don't do anything because their wealth is being pillaged, and they expect the government to take care of it.

Another important point about Rockefeller and others like him is not only was he generous in the absence of government intervention, but that he was tremendously concerned about actually fixing the problems that led to the poverty to begin with. He favored education over handouts, for example.

When your own personal money is being spent, you are much more concerned about how that money is being spent. When the government does it, people are by-and-large disinterested in actual results. It doesn't matter, for instance, that drug rehabilitation is almost totally ineffective. We just keep dumping money into schemes that try to fix these people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html

Of course there are private business' that do the same stupid practices, but the difference is they are paid by people with their own money, not by stealing from everyone at large to pay for it. Medicaid will sometimes pay for it, Medicare will cover it if it's accepted, and just go to your local Community Mental Health organization to find out all the different schemes they have to try to "help" drug abusers and alcoholics that are total wastes of time, effort, and money in the long run.


(1)This is a "Straw Man argument" because you're arguing a position that I didn't take. I never said that if we got rid of government all the sudden every single orphan would get adopted.

I'm not under the illusion that when people exist in anarchy that all problems disappear; The lame walk, the blind see, and healthy food is piled like mountains on every street corner.

When people are free to do as they like and to be commensurately rewarded for their efforts, then people will work for the benefit of their neighbor even if they think they are acting in their own self interest. Wonderful prosperity occurs, but it's not magic.


2. It's pretty difficult to engage in counter-factuals. I don't know what Rockefeller would have said under government tyranny, but what I can guarantee is that he would not have been able to succeed to the extent that he did under the government intervention that we see today.
Because of anti-trust laws Standard Oil would have never come to be, he would never have gotten the wealth that he did, and so he couldn't possibly decide how to contribute his own money (Again, because he wouldn't have it).

3. Wow, I'm so glad you wrote this. When I say that "People think armeggedon will take place if government steps aside" sometimes I think maybe I'm not giving people enough credit, but clearly that stereotype is true for at least one person.

The world is not going to end if government stops interfering in people's lives. The sun will still rise, crops will still grow, and people can still deal with eachother. There was absolutely astonishing improvement in the lives of the poor long before the "great society" projects of the 1900's.

"The thesis of his first Essay on Population, publish in 1789, was that dreams of universal affluence were vain, because there was an inevitable tendency for population to exceed the food supply. 'Population, when unchecked, in creases in geo-metrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in arithmetical ratio.' There is a fixed limit to the supply of land and the size of the crop that can be grown per acre. Malthus spells out what he sees as the fateful consequences of this disproportion:
 'In the United States of America, where the means of subsistence have been more ample ... than in any of the modern states of Europe, the population has been found to double itself in twenty-five years...'" -Henry Hazlitt, The Conquest of poverty.

Of all the things you can say about the 1700's under free market capitalism, the one thing you cannot deny is that food production skyrocketed. (Despite Malthus' incorrect fearmongering nonsense.)
Malthus is literally freaking out because of how much free market capitalism helped feed everyone, including the poor.

https://mises.org/books/conquest.pdf
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=74

4. The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor. Rockefeller was a tremendous benefactor, but his company did far more for the poor then even he gave in charity.

5. In the free market there may be less dollars dumped into programs to help the poor, but what is put into charities would be far more effective per dollar, and would certainly out-do our current ineffectual schemes by a wide margin.

6. It was founded in defiance of tyranny. Read the declaration of Independence.


7. I have spent decades with people whose profession it is to work with these people and I can tell you my perspective has only strengthened over time.
I have tremendous sympathy. There are so many people in this world that have gotten beaten into the dirt by circumstances completely out of their control, and often have nowhere to turn.
The question isn't about whether or not these people exist, or whether or not these people need assistance, the question is about "How do we best help these people so that our time, money, and effort isn't wasted?"
8. The government has proven time and time again that there are only two things that it is good at;
1.) Wasting your time, money, and effort.
2.) Sending young men off to kill or put in cages other men, women, and children; Innocent and guilty alike.

Edit: Woops, had the quotes all mixed up.

Add LOL and FUD, since most coins are fuelled from those algos.

AND get the FSB, Federal'naya sluzhba bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii outa there asap!

I'm saying thats what i've seen, specifically in Central Kalimantan. If you don't think i'm capable of determining this that's fine with me, in which case i highly recommend you go and see for yourself. Just because it doesn't appear in western historic literature doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Malaysian government is significantly less corrupt (and more functional) than Indonesian government which is why i referenced central Borneo(Kalimantan) instead of Malaysian Borneo. Where abouts in Guangdong did you stay?

I can't remember names of specific communities and google maps doesn't have anything aside from the major cities listed. I flew into Palangka Raya and spent a few months riding motorbikes around and staying with locals, visiting schools/orphanages and teaching children amongst other things.

The government does nothing except extract taxes in alot of those places (it really is nothing more than a mafia, watch "the art of killing" for a better idea of what goes on) sometimes not even that and the people have very little in the way of financial wealth yet they still do better at looking after underprivileged than we do.

He's saying that the same people who are doing it now will continue to do it but instead of putting tenders to government for funding, they will be directly funded by people. The argument could be made that in the absence of a violent (and inefficient) monopoly claiming responsibility for remediation of a VERY important issue, the quality of care that underprivileged get will be significantly better without them.

Depends on what society you're talking about. What i've noticed whilst travelling is that in countries where governments are too corrupt to provide welfare, the communities look after the underprivileged themselves... In fact, i would say that the safety net is far better in some cases. The deciding factor is resources really.

I Wholeheartedly agree with your aspirations! I think that it is essential to strive for the best possible morals and ethics. I that unless we can all agree on an objective (not a subjective culturally biased) and universal standard for ethics based off something that we all know gets results and works ie:the scientific method, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.

There are such frameworks out there already if you choose to take that long arduous path to self knowledge, but doing the right thing is never easy.

Do me a favour, spend some time in central Borneo or rural China. You'll realise that people can and do solve these problems without government interference.

Altruism exists whether or not the unfortunate party is being helped? Whether or not the unfortunate party is actually unfortunate? Whether or not the person knows about any kind of unfortunate circumstance that happened?

What do you mean that "Altruism exists regardless of circumstances"?

Did you miss my post about Rockefeller? That man gave, of his own free will, more than you or any of your ancestors made in their entire lifetimes put together (Adjusted for inflation). That's not even including the incalculable benefit to mankind that his company was; Standard Oil.

Also, the basis of Democracy is that 51% of voters ultimately know what's best for the rest of us. For anything altruistic to come out of it, you have to presuppose that at least 51% of voters are altruistic. So you've already said that altruistic people already exist in vast quantities! I am not quite as optimistic as you are, but clearly you're a bit confused about which side of the fence you're on.


If only we could get that spending to fall to 0% of GDP.

The point wasn't about spending in particular. The point is that our government overlords spend a tremendous amount of money and they have almost nothing to show for it. That maybe it's rational to think that the government could take care of what they claim under their sphere of influence given their colossal budget.


It's kind of surreal to read this. It's like looking at a man beat his slave and then saying, "You know, the problem here is asymmetry". I'd say, "I agree I suppose, but shouldn't we end slavery?"

Isn't that kind of the moral crux of the issue? Molyneux calls it the "gun in the room", akin to the elephant in the room. Sure we can have debates about whether or not we should send people out to murder dark skinned people in the far east, and sure it's totally fine to discuss whether or not we should put people away for life for having certain herbs in their pockets, but can we have the discussion about whether or not this entire political system is justified? Not among "polite" company.

What's worse is if you want to just be left alone on your own property. Men in silly blue costumes will come and take you away for not paying for permission to live on your own land, or maybe you weren't paying them "their cut" of your salary. Either way, that's enough to put you into a rape cage. Bizarre, immoral.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2014-111
Washington D.C., June 3, 2014 —

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the co-owner of two Bitcoin-related websites for publicly offering shares in the two ventures without registering them.

An SEC investigation found that Erik T. Voorhees published prospectuses on the Internet and actively solicited investors to buy shares in SatoshiDICE and FeedZeBirds.  But he failed to register the offerings with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws.  Investors paid for their shares using Bitcoin, a virtual currency that can be used to purchase real-world goods and services and exchanged for fiat currencies on certain online exchanges.  The profits ultimately earned by Voorhees through the unregistered offerings totaled more than $15,000.

Voorhees agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying full disgorgement of the $15,843.98 in profits plus a $35,000 penalty for a total of more than $50,000.

“All issuers selling securities to the public must comply with the registration provisions of the securities laws, including issuers who seek to raise funds using Bitcoin,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.  “We will continue to focus on enforcing our rules and regulations as they apply to digital currencies.”

For most people it is not about paying taxes or not paying taxes, it is a matter of paying too much because much of the money is wasted.

As for taxes being too high the main problem with government is the incentives.  There is no incentive to end things that are no longer needed.  A government program can be started at the drop of a hat but it can be next to impossible to end a program when it is no longer beneficial.  That asymmetry is the problem.

So to be clear; 51% of people are altruistic enough to provide badly for 400,000 orphans, but those same 51% that voted for the bad support those children are getting today, would not exist absent the government?

I would suggest that maybe most people don't go out of their way to help people because they expect the government to take care of it. That's pretty reasonable considering the United States Government spent $3,450,000,000,000 in 2013, since that's about twice as much money as you would need to give each of those orphans $50,000 every year for 90 years (in a one year budget, I remind you.).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/tables.pdf

We can agree on this. I'm absolutely perfectly okay with you paying taxes. Pay all the taxes you want.

@Spoetnik

In terms of adoption I don't see how it could fail, what are you thinking in terms of algo's, rewards, etc.

Here's a little logo pic as well

I've never meet a Bitcoiner in real life that was perfectly okay with paying taxes.

fairly distant concepts.  I believe they refer to that as 'Paleoliberal'.

I certainly don't hate Libertarians.  I used to go to meetings at CATO institute when I lived in Washington, DC.  I also work with the NJ Libertarian's party on their Open Government Project.  So I like many normal Libertarians and people who fight for open government.  The guy who runs that project files lawsuits to gain access to government records.  He doesn't go around making a bunch of hyperbolic comments and meme's or attaching himself to a technology in order to promote himself.

After having a few tweets with Erik Voorhees today, rather than going through yet another libertarian debate, I figured- let's get tactical.

The bitcoin political ideology has been identified before.  It's called Neoliberalism.

do bitcoiners call themselves Neoliberals?

i don't have any stake in uro, but if you had seen the massive FUD campaign that was launched at that coin you wouldn't be writing this. it was absolutely brutal and no single person or even a whole community managed to contain it. check the closed threads and read it up for yourself.

i really hope for all the supporters that the project turns out to be no scam and becomes a giant success.