Fuck California, and fuck New York while we're at it; may as well cut the shit and go full-on dictatorship.

You have this backwards; government is an extension of the people, not its originator.  It's sick people who create a sick government, not the other way around; governments have no power outside of that which the people give them.  Conspiracy junkies are the people who don't like the sick people--potentially sick themselves but at minimum aware of it--and want others to stop being that way; to them, the sick society is indeed conspiring against them, but the explanation as to why is not evident to some so we get whacky theories born from such ignorance like illuminati or bilderburg or patriarchy (as a group, rather a system) etc.

Why would they label IS as evil?  They're doing the same exact things, just wearing a different banner.

Commander-in-chiefs don't need permission; they'll pretend congress or a constitution can control them as long as it benefits them but when they really want to do something, they just go ahead and do it anyway.  Heck, Lincoln was one of history's biggest offenders, nearing dictatorship levels of control, and he's revered as a hero by most.  Recently, Thailand's military overthrew its gov (coup d'etat), for the 2nd time, because the military couldn't agree with the politicians actions.  They don't care, if they need to take control, they will; they have the physical force to do so at any time.  Only issue is that it's inefficient to operate this way; a happy citizen is a productive citizen which will yield great tax crops, but dictatorships make for very unhappy citizens and the game of confidence comes crashing down in a short time period (look at any dictatorship's economy to see how it happens: Hitler's Germany, USSR, NK, you name it.)  You need the facade that government is remotely healthy for people in order for the warlords to turn a profit, and so a part of the facade is to pretend like your powers are limited.

Don't be fooled; it doesn't matter what congress says if the head the military disagrees.  What is congress going to do, get its own military?

finshaggy.blogspot.com

FinShaggy


Well-known for: Bitcoin Town

Bitcoin-hotep


Same person?

We could always threaten to kill their corporate leaders if they leave

Perhaps what you mean to say is, there has to be some kind of incentive for them to stay; one such incentive is to loosen up on the empire-level regulation and tax-rates for everyone, so people can actually breathe easy and do, well, business again.

There is one alternative, however, if nothing budges: the complete socialization of business.  Of all I've read on the subject, that has a 100% chance to turn out very badly for everyone involved; by very badly, I mean widespread cannibalism because everyone's starving and can't do a thing about it.

The reason why "don't let them back in" is not a valid disincentive is because, if they wanted to be in, they wouldn't be leaving in the first place; you may not have noticed, but America's not exactly on the road to the golden ages.  To further tax them even while they don't operate in America is like taxing a Swedish company because they might be an American company someday; if they're not American anymore, leave them alone.  If I was them, I'd liquidate and start fresh; it's reasons like that America was formed in the first place, taxation without representation and a fucked up banking system.

Thanks for the chuckle

I'm not surprised, considering women are primarily raised to be housewives and mothers.  Someone's gotta raise the kids, and the mother is in the best position to do so being the one with the breast milk.  Anyway, that means the market is over-saturated with women who have these skills (thus lower wages), but not the skills the market desires like engineering, for example.  If you look at any engineering class, it's predominantly male; males are raised to be bread-winners and need an edge in the market to do that, ergo they're far more common in careers which will make money: they respond to the market directly, whereas women typically don't take such risks (some do, certainly, but many don't; the woman must give up her ability to have children for however long she pursues a career, the man does not.)

This would lead to a discrepancy between the wages of male and female; it's certainly no conspiracy against women as the feminists might postulate, as I don't believe parents are consciously aware of what they're doing when assigning roles (nor do I believe there exists an illuminati-esque entity with a specific vendetta against women.)  However, the newer generations whose parents largely gave up those traditions don't have these problems as great, and those people are on equal footing in terms of gender, so it's odd to see so many young feminists; what exactly are they railing against?  Perhaps less time spent on ideology and more time spent on valuable skills would resolve their problem, but again I refer to differences in parenting.

Thank you!






I'm very happy to have pleased   Thank you for the opportunity!

What are parents for anyway?

This is known as the black & white fallacy: in reality, many cryptocurrencies will--and already do--co-exist, you have absolutely no reason to use just one of them alone.  In fact, there is a natural disincentive to use bitcoin as it lends too much power to the "early elite" so to speak; people really hate for other people to be wealthy, apparently, so they'll likely use other crypto and treat bitcoin like we treat gold now: savings, just for the fact that it's the most used--thus most trusted--crypto to date.  It's funny to think of bitcoin as a savings money now since it has just wild swings, but by the time this money is worth enough to actually be the issue you think it will be, its swings will have died down considerably.

I recall, but not the name, an existing or perhaps planned system of payment which would allow merchants to accept all (or rather, most) crypto easily without having to do any extra work, and then get the crypto they want out of it, similarly to how bitpay can turn bitcoin into fiat for merchants who don't want to handle bitcoin.  This would make it dead simple to have all the crypto you want, without having to worry about being forced to use bitcoin in the fear that someone else will profit from your participation.  Your fear that there can be a super-rich elite born from this money should be settled; you should, however, remain prudent about the fact that the rich can still use government to get super-rich, as they always have, even if a new currency is being used widespread.


I have no idea what you mean here; instead of the market, would you rather your wealth be assigned by a central power?


Then why do you fear people will continue to use bitcoin?  Simple market knowledge shows you why this doesn't happen: there's a natural disincentive, as I outlined above.  The only way it can happen is through force.



Right; they're deserving of something because they own said something.  They own it because of their "guts".  They are not entitled to their something because of their guts, they are entitled because it is their property.


Worried about a hypothetical that can't happen?  You're lying somewhere in this quote.


Dictatorships are not caused by money, they're caused by submission to wartime planners.  As outlined above, there is a natural disincentive to stop using a currency if there's fears of helping a small elite become too wealthy.


So invest for the long-term.


Your card can get stolen easily from your wallet, or by forgetting it somewhere: most transactions under $50 don't require a signature, and security codes and card expiry are incredibly small concerns...for the thief as well.  With bitcoin, you can protect your wallet with a password, and prevent all transactions without this password.  Oh god, the headache of remembering a password   I can see why you're in love with the idea of a card: considering you're the type to base your ethical theory on how equal or unequal people's wealth are, you never plan on owning a business in your life, so it's easy to miss how bitcoin evens the playing field between the two.  Cards are a great expense to business at very little or no cost to the consumer; it would be weird for you to not prefer it that way, even if it's a power disparity (hey you're against those, right?  Or is it just when you're on the wrong end? )

Bitcoin transactions are instant, by the way; the confirmations just ensure that the transfer is legit.  I assume you've never once spent bitcoin at an establishment or even an online retailer or you'd know that they take no more time than a debit card transaction, as far as the consumer is concerned.  Furthermore, bitcoin transactions are reversible for the consumer: if the consumer gets dicked over on an order, the merchant can easily send the money back out of his own will.  The problem you have is that the merchant can't be forced at any given time within 30 days, which is a pretty awful way to do business (a lot of money is lost through these types of frauds.)  And yes, you can have your bitcoin stolen as with any medium; it's just how it goes with property.  It is, however, a disparity between the two to mention it for one, but not the other.  For bitcoin, this is mitigated simply by not keeping too much BTC on your "spending" wallet; everyone is familiar with the concept of checking and savings, things in savings can't be spent easily; likewise, bitcoin has cold wallets and wallets, the former of which is hard to spend.  I'm certain this will be streamlined as time goes on (coinbase now has something called a "vault" where money goes in, but doesn't easily come out.)


It's probably better that we not use credit; that has led to many wealth disparities, which you seem to be against.


There is if your average consumer is being paid in crypto, Mr. "What if bitcoin takes over the world?!"  You can't look that far into the future, then ignore it completely; this is a very poor argument on your behalf.  Yes, it's true that all crypto has little incentive to the average Joe, since the average Joe only really cares about the path of least resistance of which bitcoin is not it.  However, there are many previously outlined benefits to using bitcoin--if lack of a central authority is not enough, then there's probably not a lot someone can do to convince you otherwise.  The central authority has far more wealth than you do, btw; is this a "necessary wealth disparity"?  Or do you believe you're special in that very few people care about wealth disparities?


Bitcoin doesn't seek to circumvent those things, it is not a conscious being.  Satoshi's purpose for Bitcoin was to operate without a central authority, which has clear benefits that you haven't acknowledged or are simply unaware of.  Most important of all, because bitcoin is not centrally regulated (though it is regulated by the protocol, mind you,) it cannot be inflated, therefore it cannot be used for the purposes of empire, thus wars must be paid for in the here and now, rather than by selling off the future, ergo the world is, by and large, a much more peaceful place to live as wars are too expensive to wage.

I'm not saying people should use a product they're uncomfortable with for the strict purpose of future benefit (because deferral of gratification would be a sign of intelligence ergo an unreasonable standard for most people), but I am saying it's a cause worthy enough to advocate.  Many people can't be convinced logically of the usefulness of an item, they remain skeptical no matter what; many do it because other people are doing it and they don't want to be left out.  That's fine, but in order for that to occur, you need people and businesses to use an "inferior" product so it can get enough infrastructure to function as a direct and improved replacement to the monetary system of today, including all the benefits of cards and such, and all of which are possible without a central governing authority.  Doesn't have to be bitcoin specifically; all cryptos are very similar, and I suspect many will be in use in the future, not just one as you've concluded.  I don't care how similar bitcoin becomes to mainstream banks (nor was this ever its specified purpose to be averse to banks), so long as there's no benefit to tampering with it (everyone jumps ship to another crypto the moment the update to increase the bitcoin supply is released), then we have a product that has the potential to change the world for the better.


I hope by now I've explained exactly why this quote is irrelevant; there's nothing to fix (aside from popular opinion) and no cause to worry about a major wealth disparity.  Bitcoin does not operate like fiat, although I'm sure government might try to force usage of one or the other.  So long as nobody has to use bitcoin, you never have to worry about a wealthy bitcoin elite; there will be plenty of wealthy bitcoiners, no doubt, but none that'll rule the world without the help of a third party.


I will refer you to your initial black & white fallacy at the top of the post: all cryptocurrencies are wordly and many new ones are being developed all the time.  You're trying to superimpose fiat onto bitcoin, and it doesn't work.  There will never be a one world crypto, because there will never be two people exactly alike, let alone billions!


Thank you for removing yourself from the liberal echo-chamber for a moment; I invite you to study some Austrian economics here, to help balance your views: https://mises.org/Literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Bucket_Challenge

There's something weird in that article; can you spot it before it disappears?

NSFW btw

That's really neat, but to be fair, the eastern religions are very loosely correlated with western religions; I'd consider them more in-line with western philosophy than anything.

Why are they still trying to spin this like it's a racial problem?  What does it matter that the teenager was black and the police officer was white?  Intentional distinction is more racist than the event they're reporting on.   It's like they're trying to stir up more trouble than there exists.

Seems okay to me; if you play the game of coercion, it's only fair you should lose at some point.

Well, it has been quite some time, and they don't seem to have made any mention of it.  Perhaps we could email them again and see if their minds have changed.  Doing a short search, it seems bitcoin is a touchy subject with Kickstarter:

http://www.nebel.tv/no-bitcoins-at-the-kickstarter/
http://www.coindesk.com/kickstarter-pulls-bitcoin-the-movie-project-two-weeks-after-launch/

Here's an interesting bitcoin-related proposed alternative to Kickstarter: http://swarmcorp.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Also check out these works from Molyneux: Everyday Anarchy, and Practical Anarchy