If the minimum reason a government exists....

[Bitcoin Oz]

is the protection of property what is the point of its existence in a world where property and contracts are unenforceable ?

People can steal your coins and there is nothing the state can do to get them back. Bitcoin and the state are mutually exclusive because if bitcoin exists the purpose and excuse for government flies out the window.

In this case you may as well use the mafia to break peoples legs. But if a government exists it will prevent the mafia from doing so...

You can see in this scenario that a government existing when bitcoin does prevents retaliation and protects criminals. They can steal your coins but the government prevents you from seizing the criminals property to reimburse the victim.

[ECore]

The government doesn't exist to protect your property. That's YOUR job.  It's the police dept. job to investigate any wrongs, but what you are implying is that you are throwing your wallet out into the street and the gov'ment is supposed to be there to guard it.

The federal government exists for infrastructure and defense, not to hold your hand in your financial decisions.

[Rudd-O]

The government doesn't exist to protect your property. That's YOUR job.  It's the police dept. job to investigate any wrongs, but what you are implying is that you are throwing your wallet out into the street and the gov'ment is supposed to be there to guard it.

The federal government exists for infrastructure and defense, not to hold your hand in your financial decisions.

To the extent that I was informed, you are mistaken. Allegedly the whole point of the government is to provide protection -- this is what is known as "duty of protection" that you get in exchange for your "duty of allegiance" that you owe to the government. And yes, this "duty of protection" allegedly extends to your property. Why do you think theft and fraud are statutorily codified as crime?

Now, to be fair, government has repeatedly stated that they owe no such "duty of protection" (look up the Marc Stevens talk called Delusions). This means that the reason given by people doing business as "government" to boss you around and violently punish you when you fail to fulfill your "duty of Allegiance" is obviously a false reason -- in short, that they are operating nothing more than a massive criminal scam under color of legitimacy.

But we knew that already.

[Richy_T]

Various governments around the world exist for lots of different reasons.

Unfortunately, for some reason Bitcoin seems to attract a few extremist nutters who worship Property (and money) above all else as their god, and equate most forms of 'community' and organisational structures with Satan. They see Bitcoin as a useful tool that they can misuse to promote their crazy utopias.

If property is such a terrible thing, why do the statists want to take it so badly?

[Rudd-O]

Various governments around the world exist for lots of different reasons.

Unfortunately, for some reason Bitcoin seems to attract a few extremist nutters who worship Property (and money) above all else as their god, and equate most forms of 'community' and organisational structures with Satan. They see Bitcoin as a useful tool that they can misuse to promote their crazy utopias.

If property is such a terrible thing, why do the statists want to take it so badly?

Because they're lying, or they're hypocrites, or they want the use of property for themselves but not for others, or... well, insert any corrupt reason you can think of.  It's the same shit pie that Catholicism sold to everyone ("be poor, give all your money to the church because property is bad"), just shrinkwrapped in a new statist package.

[myrkul]

is the protection of property what is the point of its existence in a world where property and contracts are unenforceable ?

People can steal your coins and there is nothing the state can do to get them back. Bitcoin and the state are mutually exclusive because if bitcoin exists the purpose and excuse for government flies out the window.

In this case you may as well use the mafia to break peoples legs. But if a government exists it will prevent the mafia from doing so...

You can see in this scenario that a government existing when bitcoin does prevents retaliation and protects criminals. They can steal your coins but the government prevents you from seizing the criminals property to reimburse the victim.

You've got maximum and minimum mixed up. But other than that, you've a good point.

[tbdunamis]

Who says that the reason for a government to exist is the protection of property?  From what I've learned, the reason for the existence of government is the protection of people from those people who seek to cause harm.  If people would come to the place of agreement that telling the truth resolves everything, while causing harm resolves nothing, then government would become obsolete.  Of course, those who take offense at the truth tend to interpret that as being harmed by it, and respond with harmful retaliation to the messenger.  This in turn not only justifies the existence of government, but creates the conditions for it to proliferate in the varying aspects of people's life.

[Richy_T]

The reason for the existence of government is that some people want to tell others what to do and profit off the fruit of their labor. Anything else is post-hoc rationalization. This is why some of the founding fathers attempted to defang the government as much as possible and why they had so much trouble doing so.

[myrkul]

The reason for the existence of government is that some people want to tell others what to do and profit off the fruit of their labor. Anything else is post-hoc rationalization. This is why some of the founding fathers attempted to defang the government as much as possible and why they had so much trouble doing so.

And why they failed so miserably.

[CountSparkle]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

[myrkul]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

The Mafia do the same things governments do, and they're typically politer about it when they do.

[myrkul]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they also provide schools for normal children whose parents don't have enough money for "home schooling"? What about hospitals for normal non-rich people? Orphanages for normal kids without huge inheritances? Asylums for crazy people without rich relatives, and all those other unprofitable things that Capitalism is unable to provide?

If I had all day, I could probably come up with at least one hundred unique services that governments do but Capitalists won't do, even in a political vacuum, because they're inherently unprofitable. Well, I suppose one could, theoretically donate to 100 different charities, individually inspect their operations and finances, and kindly volunteer to pay extra because of all the other people who don't want to... But I thought Capitalism was supposed to be so much more efficient than a mixed system with some Capitalism and some Socialism -- what gives??

First off, you haven't come up with one service that capitalists wouldn't provide, much less one hundred. If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

Secondly, why the need for one person donating to 100 individual charities? Couldn't 100 people, each donating to a charity, provide the same benefit, more efficiently, as 100 people each donating to 100 charities? Seriously. The box. You are stuck inside it.

[myrkul]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they also provide schools(1) for normal children whose parents don't have enough money for "home schooling"? What about hospitals(2) for normal non-rich people? Orphanages(3) for normal kids without huge inheritances? Asylums(4) for crazy people without rich relatives, and all those other unprofitable things that Capitalism is unable to provide?

If I had all day, I could probably come up with at least one hundred unique services that governments do but Capitalists won't do, even in a political vacuum, because they're inherently unprofitable. Well, I suppose one could, theoretically donate to 100 different charities, individually inspect their operations and finances, and kindly volunteer to pay extra because of all the other people who don't want to... But I thought Capitalism was supposed to be so much more efficient than a mixed system with some Capitalism and some Socialism -- what gives??

First off, you haven't come up with one service that capitalists wouldn't provide, much less one hundred. If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

I already listed four. Furthermore, those are mostly umbrella terms covering a variety of more specific non-profit services. The onus is on you to debunk, if you can. Why must you be so arrogant and stupid?

No, you listed four services which you think cannot be made profitable. I say again: If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

[TheButterZone]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they also provide schools(1) for normal children whose parents don't have enough money for "home schooling"? What about hospitals(2) for normal non-rich people? Orphanages(3) for normal kids without huge inheritances? Asylums(4) for crazy people without rich relatives, and all those other unprofitable things that Capitalism is unable to provide?

If I had all day, I could probably come up with at least one hundred unique services that governments do but Capitalists won't do, even in a political vacuum, because they're inherently unprofitable. Well, I suppose one could, theoretically donate to 100 different charities, individually inspect their operations and finances, and kindly volunteer to pay extra because of all the other people who don't want to... But I thought Capitalism was supposed to be so much more efficient than a mixed system with some Capitalism and some Socialism -- what gives??

First off, you haven't come up with one service that capitalists wouldn't provide, much less one hundred. If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

I already listed four. Furthermore, those are mostly umbrella terms covering a variety of more specific non-profit services. The onus is on you to debunk, if you can. Why must you be so arrogant and stupid?

Blablahblah: "If I can't think of a way to make these general services profitable, THEN NOBODY CAN!"

That is the height of arrogant stupidity.

[ElectricMucus]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

[myrkul]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

[ElectricMucus]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.
I say: Today's non-profiting organisations do not need the Government. But if they were to rely on capitalism that would raise some issues when aiming for a class-free society.
They should rely on gift culture instead.

[myrkul]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.

So, you're basically saying the same thing: that they could not be made to turn a profit at low prices. Why? What barriers do you see to, say, low price schooling?

[TheButterZone]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.

So, you're basically saying the same thing: that they could not be made to turn a profit at low prices. Why? What barriers do you see to, say, low price schooling?

The government itself. Namely, taxation and regulation.

[myrkul]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.

So, you're basically saying the same thing: that they could not be made to turn a profit at low prices. Why? What barriers do you see to, say, low price schooling?

The government itself. Namely, taxation and regulation.

Well, yes, that's my stance, but I'm more interested in his.