Should? Why?
Why ? Because if revenue is not able to be raised by Govt./Councils etc thru taxation then the kind of things that taxation (at least partially) funds today - namely, social services - would not be funded at all by the private sector/wealth. Its not profitable. Welcome to the jungle.
Well, not really.
What do you want to fund? There isn't a single example of anything that people on their own can't do. Sure, some things might be difficult or mildly inconvenient, but government adds no value. They are middle-men seeking rent.
ISPs are a great example of private companies offering services. The government doesn't do that. If anything, they make the situation worse by allowing cartel behaviour.
Roads? That problem has been solved. Besides, the government doesn't provide roads to everyone anyways. (I have relatives that have had the state refuse to build roads on their street.)
But, other examples just get long and tedious.
For things like state controlled health care, it's a disaster.
Not in the UK - the NHS is a much loved, albeit underfunded, part of the fabric of British society.
Underfunded? Or do you mean they piss away so much money and create overbearing regulations that hike costs so that they further piss money away to the point that providing decent service is near impossible?
That's probably much more likely than "being underfunded".
Canada has this problem - the same issue as the UK. A 1-payer system where they piss money away and force people to go abroad to get health care. 1% of people.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/16/report-tens-of-thousands-fled-socialized-canadian-medicine-in-2013/Lots of horror stories.
Meanwhile, when doctors stop taking state insurance and just charge for their services, they drop prices by over 50%.
"Free" health care is anything but free. But only if you look at the evidence and not the state propaganda.
If anything, the inability of the state to steal wealth from people because they use bitcoins will only make Bitcoin more attractive.
It might short term - to a certain type of free market evangelist - but over the medium term it will make it untenable as any kind of a serious alternative to fiat currency.
I'm not sure why you say that. But I think that starving the state is a good thing. Less wars, etc. etc.
I can see that BTC is attractive to a certain brand of anarchism and/or free market laissez faire capitalism (though I'd have thought the two were mutually exclusive tbh - ironically)
Very much. If you don't believe in using violence to get your way, then Bitcoin is a godsend.
But for me the decentralised nature of BTC is today attractive via its ability to bypass the wests banking system's Ponzi scheme that only serves to urinate on the shoes of the masses - and then tell them that its raining - and makes them pay for the rain
AMEN to that!
Well... probably more like urinating in their faces, but potato potato.
I'm rooting for the collapse of the bankster ponzi sham.
Not because it provides the means by which none of us will have to pay any more tax.
Well, I'm also rooting for the demise of the state and for voluntary, non-violent interaction. So, I'm hoping that more and more people use Bitcoins and other crytpo currencies to avoid having the state steal from them.
I'm hoping that Bitcoin helps starve the kleptocratic, fascist police state that we have. I want it to die. Salt & burn its bones.
And to be honest, the only people that would back that concept would be the 1% who control 80% of the wealth.
I think that's a separate issue from just taxation.
The 1% have used the kleptocratic ponzi sham of the banksters and state to steal wealth from everyone else. We need to get rid of their mechanism of theft before we can ever begin to actually enjoy the fruits of our labours. Right now, they enjoy the fruits of our labours. We are little more than animals that they farm for profit. We are tax and debt slaves to be whipped and slaughtered as they see fit.
Show Posts
FPjK4pMs6McHEGbe1qHq8ALKtKknvLGm2e
