Things getting interesting once we past $100

[nobbynobbynoob]

Yes, indeed, $100 is less than chump change these days.

And, of course, vvic et al are totally on the money (ahem). Taxation is violent robbery.

[Explodicle]

I don't like taxes either, but as far as I know, most Bitcoin users aren't anarchists, they are Libertarians (I'm a moderate Libertarian), so why not pay the tax? The government may be to large, but you are still getting a service and need to pay what you owe.

Very few libertarians support transaction taxes like income/sales/gift, instead sometimes favoring either donations, pigovian taxes, natural resource taxes, or property taxes. Even summarizing it that much doesn't represent everyone, it's like herding cats.

In the end, being moderate libertarian is like being a little pregnant. Something is either moral or immoral. If you think the idea of gov is morally okay, then how do you draw the line between gov and non-gov? And why the government cannot be absolute? Why democratic majority cannot kill minority? Why certain actions on part of some people are evil (theft, threat of murder), but on part of others are moral (taxation, arrests)?

For me at least, the difference is pragmatism. I'm open to the idea of anarchy but I'm open to nuclear experimentation too. Makes sense in theory, could be great, but let's test it somewhere that isn't my home.

[Bitobsessed]

How do I avoid uncle sam to stick its hand in my cookie jar and takes the tax share?
What if I don't report it?

Face to face trades.

Of course, not paying your share into a system that you benefit from makes you a freeloader (or at the very least a leech).

I'll gladly pay the transaction fees/withdrawal fees of trading my bitcoins into USD and then transfering USD to my bank account.
I'm paying  my share to the system I benefitted from, BTC that is. I didn't benefit from USD.

So you don't use roads?  You don't take advantage of the electrical grid?  You aren't protected by the US army?  You won't receive social security?

/devilsadvocate

No, I will never see my social security.  And I have worked hard for a long time only to give money to freeloaders.  It's my turn now.

[jubalix]

Yes, indeed, $100 is less than chump change these days.

And, of course, vvic et al are totally on the money (ahem). Taxation is violent robbery.

you know what your right, 10K$ or 1000$ is the new 100$,

[oleganza]

In the end, being moderate libertarian is like being a little pregnant. Something is either moral or immoral. If you think the idea of gov is morally okay, then how do you draw the line between gov and non-gov? And why the government cannot be absolute? Why democratic majority cannot kill minority? Why certain actions on part of some people are evil (theft, threat of murder), but on part of others are moral (taxation, arrests)?

For me at least, the difference is pragmatism. I'm open to the idea of anarchy but I'm open to nuclear experimentation too. Makes sense in theory, could be great, but let's test it somewhere that isn't my home.

Would you try to answer questions about morality of the government? Why some human beings can take by force while others cannot?

Regarding testing: you are living in anarchy already. Each time you negotiate with people, each time you protect/insure yourself peacefully without threatening anyone or being threatened directly, then you enjoy natural anarchy. I bet you don't vote with your friends where you go drinking and then force minority to obey? Government intervention takes very small part of your personal and professional life, the rest is total anarchy based on mutual respect and negotiation. Now my question is: why do you give a special role to government and what do you fear if it goes away?

[Razick]

I don't like taxes either, but as far as I know, most Bitcoin users aren't anarchists, they are Libertarians (I'm a moderate Libertarian), so why not pay the tax? The government may be to large, but you are still getting a service and need to pay what you owe.

You do not "pay" your taxes. The taxes are taken from you. It does not matter if you send the wire transfer yourself. You do that because you want to avoid more severe penalty and direct confiscation and arrest.

As long as property is taken from you under threat of murder (if you try to protect yourself against the policeman, you'll be shot down, so every law is basically a threat of murder), it does not matter how many goodies you get back. Because whether you like the goodies or not, you are not in control of that. If you like your fire department, good for you, but it's not a result of your choice, it is done without your input whatsoever. And whatever "voice" or "vote" you have is not what you were using to establish the fire dept, but it is *given* to you in a limited way to serve the interests of those who define how to use the budget.

If this situation does not bother you, then why don't you allow me to unilaterally manage your money and buy you stuff without asking you first? If you don't want to give me such right, then why do you allow such right for gov, even though you never have given it explicitly? This just seems illogical.

In the end, being moderate libertarian is like being a little pregnant. Something is either moral or immoral. If you think the idea of gov is morally okay, then how do you draw the line between gov and non-gov? And why the government cannot be absolute? Why democratic majority cannot kill minority? Why certain actions on part of some people are evil (theft, threat of murder), but on part of others are moral (taxation, arrests)?

It absolutely does bother me. However, speaking for the US at least, there has never been a better for of government, and as corrupt as they can be, government is "a necessary evil."

Theoretically at least, the idea of the Constitution is to provide protection from the majority. I believe in a small government, free-market capitalism, a common-law based legal system (which the government must abide by as well as the people) and hard currency. That being said, I DO beleive in a government.

I am pretty much solidly Libertarian, but differ on a few points with the more hard-line (leaning anarchist) ones: I think (reasonable) environmental protection, anti-collusion and anti-monopoly laws, and large scale infrastructure development are legitimate purposes of government, I also don't have a problem with a military. Oh, and also a small last-resort (not to mention temporary except in cases of inability to work) safety net is a good idea.

Not to get off track here, but imagine aviation without regulations. As a pilot... I can't. Sure, the FAA goes too far, but I'd rather too many rules than none.

All that stuff costs money, and since I don't believe in tariffs except in retaliation for foreign manipulation and tariffs, taxes are just about the only way to do that.

Additionally, while I think that civil disobedience has it's place, I think that except in cases of clear injustice, citizens should work through the system. Democracy doesn't always work, but it's the best we've got.

[deathcode]

I don't like taxes either, but as far as I know, most Bitcoin users aren't anarchists, they are Libertarians (I'm a moderate Libertarian), so why not pay the tax? The government may be to large, but you are still getting a service and need to pay what you owe.

You do not "pay" your taxes. The taxes are taken from you. It does not matter if you send the wire transfer yourself. You do that because you want to avoid more severe penalty and direct confiscation and arrest.

As long as property is taken from you under threat of murder (if you try to protect yourself against the policeman, you'll be shot down, so every law is basically a threat of murder), it does not matter how many goodies you get back. Because whether you like the goodies or not, you are not in control of that. If you like your fire department, good for you, but it's not a result of your choice, it is done without your input whatsoever. And whatever "voice" or "vote" you have is not what you were using to establish the fire dept, but it is *given* to you in a limited way to serve the interests of those who define how to use the budget.

If this situation does not bother you, then why don't you allow me to unilaterally manage your money and buy you stuff without asking you first? If you don't want to give me such right, then why do you allow such right for gov, even though you never have given it explicitly? This just seems illogical.

In the end, being moderate libertarian is like being a little pregnant. Something is either moral or immoral. If you think the idea of gov is morally okay, then how do you draw the line between gov and non-gov? And why the government cannot be absolute? Why democratic majority cannot kill minority? Why certain actions on part of some people are evil (theft, threat of murder), but on part of others are moral (taxation, arrests)?

It absolutely does bother me. However, speaking for the US at least, there has never been a better for of government, and as corrupt as they can be, government is "a necessary evil."

Theoretically at least, the idea of the Constitution is to provide protection from the majority. I believe in a small government, free-market capitalism, a common-law based legal system (which the government must abide by as well as the people) and hard currency. That being said, I DO beleive in a government.

I am pretty much solidly Libertarian, but differ on a few points with the more hard-line (leaning anarchist) ones: I think (reasonable) environmental protection, anti-collusion and anti-monopoly laws, and large scale infrastructure development are legitimate purposes of government, I also don't have a problem with a military. Oh, and also a small last-resort (not to mention temporary except in cases of inability to work) safety net is a good idea.

Not to get off track here, but imagine aviation without regulations. As a pilot... I can't. Sure, the FAA goes too far, but I'd rather too many rules than none.

All that stuff costs money, and since I don't believe in tariffs except in retaliation for foreign manipulation and tariffs, taxes are just about the only way to do that.

Additionally, while I think that civil disobedience has it's place, I think that except in cases of clear injustice, citizens should work through the system. Democracy doesn't always work, but it's the best we've got.

Not going off topic here, but since you're a pilot... look at how expensive it is to fly thanks to those rules?
Then you wonder why a stupid fire extinguisher is like $150 for an airplane when you can get the very same one for a car for like $40...just to give you an example...
Insurance, liabilities, RULES...

[Razick]

I don't like taxes either, but as far as I know, most Bitcoin users aren't anarchists, they are Libertarians (I'm a moderate Libertarian), so why not pay the tax? The government may be to large, but you are still getting a service and need to pay what you owe.

You do not "pay" your taxes. The taxes are taken from you. It does not matter if you send the wire transfer yourself. You do that because you want to avoid more severe penalty and direct confiscation and arrest.

As long as property is taken from you under threat of murder (if you try to protect yourself against the policeman, you'll be shot down, so every law is basically a threat of murder), it does not matter how many goodies you get back. Because whether you like the goodies or not, you are not in control of that. If you like your fire department, good for you, but it's not a result of your choice, it is done without your input whatsoever. And whatever "voice" or "vote" you have is not what you were using to establish the fire dept, but it is *given* to you in a limited way to serve the interests of those who define how to use the budget.

If this situation does not bother you, then why don't you allow me to unilaterally manage your money and buy you stuff without asking you first? If you don't want to give me such right, then why do you allow such right for gov, even though you never have given it explicitly? This just seems illogical.

In the end, being moderate libertarian is like being a little pregnant. Something is either moral or immoral. If you think the idea of gov is morally okay, then how do you draw the line between gov and non-gov? And why the government cannot be absolute? Why democratic majority cannot kill minority? Why certain actions on part of some people are evil (theft, threat of murder), but on part of others are moral (taxation, arrests)?

It absolutely does bother me. However, speaking for the US at least, there has never been a better for of government, and as corrupt as they can be, government is "a necessary evil."

Theoretically at least, the idea of the Constitution is to provide protection from the majority. I believe in a small government, free-market capitalism, a common-law based legal system (which the government must abide by as well as the people) and hard currency. That being said, I DO beleive in a government.

I am pretty much solidly Libertarian, but differ on a few points with the more hard-line (leaning anarchist) ones: I think (reasonable) environmental protection, anti-collusion and anti-monopoly laws, and large scale infrastructure development are legitimate purposes of government, I also don't have a problem with a military. Oh, and also a small last-resort (not to mention temporary except in cases of inability to work) safety net is a good idea.

Not to get off track here, but imagine aviation without regulations. As a pilot... I can't. Sure, the FAA goes too far, but I'd rather too many rules than none.

All that stuff costs money, and since I don't believe in tariffs except in retaliation for foreign manipulation and tariffs, taxes are just about the only way to do that.

Additionally, while I think that civil disobedience has it's place, I think that except in cases of clear injustice, citizens should work through the system. Democracy doesn't always work, but it's the best we've got.

Not going off topic here, but since you're a pilot... look at how expensive it is to fly thanks to those rules?
Then you wonder why a stupid fire extinguisher is like $150 for an airplane when you can get the very same one for a car for like $40...just to give you an example...
Insurance, liabilities, RULES...

Yes, and if I was talking to a big government advocate, I would be making the same point, but the other side of the issue is that some rules are needed. I want rules that keep the airspace safe. Midair collisions and untrained pilots are a big risk.

It is pretty sad though. My instructor was installing sunshades in his airplane and had to have an A&P mechanic sign off on it and submit a "Major Modification Form" to the FAA.

[Explodicle]

In the end, being moderate libertarian is like being a little pregnant. Something is either moral or immoral. If you think the idea of gov is morally okay, then how do you draw the line between gov and non-gov? And why the government cannot be absolute? Why democratic majority cannot kill minority? Why certain actions on part of some people are evil (theft, threat of murder), but on part of others are moral (taxation, arrests)?

For me at least, the difference is pragmatism. I'm open to the idea of anarchy but I'm open to nuclear experimentation too. Makes sense in theory, could be great, but let's test it somewhere that isn't my home.

Would you try to answer questions about morality of the government? Why some human beings can take by force while others cannot?

Regarding testing: you are living in anarchy already. Each time you negotiate with people, each time you protect/insure yourself peacefully without threatening anyone or being threatened directly, then you enjoy natural anarchy. I bet you don't vote with your friends where you go drinking and then force minority to obey? Government intervention takes very small part of your personal and professional life, the rest is total anarchy based on mutual respect and negotiation. Now my question is: why do you give a special role to government and what do you fear if it goes away?

I get what you're saying about how all the free interactions I make are kinda "anarchy" already, but I specifically mean putting several rival security agencies in power over a whole country. I'd rather see how that goes with a group of volunteers on a seastead or a bitcoin island or something. For my neighborhood I'd rather have incremental, reversible changes over time so everyone can adjust.

[justusranvier]

Anarchy just means "without rulers" and it is an accurate description of how most people go about their daily lives. You don't have a ruler ordering you around all day telling you what to eat, who to be friends with, what career to pursue, who to marry, or what hobbies to choose.

The violent chaos that is generally associated with the word "anarchy" by proponents of the state is simply a description of how government operates. Amoral bloodthirsty sociopaths take what they want by any means necessary with no bounds on their ambitions other than what they can get away with.

They invent myths like the rule of law to keep you complacent and create scare stories about what would happen in their absence to prevent you from looking for alternatives.

[DavisWinn]

Ok I'm new here, but here's my take :  I agree that we need a minimal government and some form of taxes are needed to pay for that . But I want to know that they are going toward what they are supposed to . I would like them to be voluntary - that's right - VOLUNTARY. If you want my money to pay for a war , you're really going to have to sell me on it . If there is an imminent threat I'm sure most people would gladly cough up some dough ( or bitcoin as the case may be ) , but if you just want to take over some country with oil under it so Halliburton and friends can make money selling it on the open market - I'm gonna have to say no. You want to build a bridge - convince me.  You think we need more cops - convince me.

[Melbustus]

Anarchy just means "without rulers" and it is an accurate description of how most people go about their daily lives. You don't have a ruler ordering you around all day telling you what to eat, who to be friends with, what career to pursue, who to marry, or what hobbies to choose.

The violent chaos that is generally associated with the word "anarchy" by proponents of the state is simply a description of how government operates. Amoral bloodthirsty sociopaths take what they want by any means necessary with no bounds on their ambitions other than what they can get away with.

They invent myths like the rule of law to keep you complacent and create scare stories about what would happen in their absence to prevent you from looking for alternatives.

The word anarchy is too charged, and therefore fails to get the actual ideals across. People should just use "decentralized" instead; eg, "Decentralized Capitalism" instead of "Anarcho-Capitalism", and "I'm a decentralist" instead of "I'm an anarchist". etc...

[justusranvier]

The word anarchy is too charged, and therefore fails to get the actual ideals across. People should just use "decentralized" instead; eg, "Decentralized Capitalism" instead of "Anarcho-Capitalism", and "I'm a decentralist" instead of "I'm an anarchist". etc...

I think "voluntarism" is a great term.

Sometimes I use the term "atheism" to mean the same thing, since the story we're told about government has just as many supernatural elements in it as any bronze age zombie-worshiping cult you could compare it to.

[ErisDiscordia]

The violent chaos that is generally associated with the word "anarchy" by proponents of the state is simply a description of how government operates. Amoral bloodthirsty sociopaths take what they want by any means necessary with no bounds on their ambitions other than what they can get away with.

This!

Ever notice how popular speech has these fixed phrases saying "freedom and democracy" and "chaos and anarchy". Another example of bloody doublespeak in my opinion. It should be the other way around --> Freedom and anarchy as well as democracy (or any form of centralized government) and chaos. Why? Because imposition of order = escalation of chaos. Anybody paying attention knows this. The more you try to control something from the top down, the more you distort the original impulses behind whatever it is you're trying to control and all you end up doing is create more and more chaos. Until the whole thing blows up and the people responsible blame lawlessness and anarchy and we start over again. stupid people  

EDIT: yeah and I agree that a lot of the terms people use for political discussion just add to the confusion, either because they're charged and tainted by decades of misuse (anarchy, capitalism), twisted away from their original etymological meaning (fascism, liberalism, conservatism) or just flat out meaningless and misleading (political "left" and "right"). I'm a fan of describing ones political position in terms of how much one favors centralized power structures. Saying "I'm a decentralist" may sound pretentious but in the end it's informative. I describe myself as an anarchist mostly with people which I want to provoke into having a debate with me - and you need opposing viewpoints for that

[tiptopgemdotcom]

I don't like taxes either, but as far as I know, most Bitcoin users aren't anarchists, they are Libertarians (I'm a moderate Libertarian), so why not pay the tax? The government may be to large, but you are still getting a service and need to pay what you owe.

You do not "pay" your taxes. The taxes are taken from you. It does not matter if you send the wire transfer yourself. You do that because you want to avoid more severe penalty and direct confiscation and arrest.

As long as property is taken from you under threat of murder (if you try to protect yourself against the policeman, you'll be shot down, so every law is basically a threat of murder), it does not matter how many goodies you get back. Because whether you like the goodies or not, you are not in control of that. If you like your fire department, good for you, but it's not a result of your choice, it is done without your input whatsoever. And whatever "voice" or "vote" you have is not what you were using to establish the fire dept, but it is *given* to you in a limited way to serve the interests of those who define how to use the budget.

If this situation does not bother you, then why don't you allow me to unilaterally manage your money and buy you stuff without asking you first? If you don't want to give me such right, then why do you allow such right for gov, even though you never have given it explicitly? This just seems illogical.

In the end, being moderate libertarian is like being a little pregnant. Something is either moral or immoral. If you think the idea of gov is morally okay, then how do you draw the line between gov and non-gov? And why the government cannot be absolute? Why democratic majority cannot kill minority? Why certain actions on part of some people are evil (theft, threat of murder), but on part of others are moral (taxation, arrests)?

It absolutely does bother me. However, speaking for the US at least, there has never been a better for of government, and as corrupt as they can be, government is "a necessary evil."

Theoretically at least, the idea of the Constitution is to provide protection from the majority. I believe in a small government, free-market capitalism, a common-law based legal system (which the government must abide by as well as the people) and hard currency. That being said, I DO beleive in a government.

I am pretty much solidly Libertarian, but differ on a few points with the more hard-line (leaning anarchist) ones: I think (reasonable) environmental protection, anti-collusion and anti-monopoly laws, and large scale infrastructure development are legitimate purposes of government, I also don't have a problem with a military. Oh, and also a small last-resort (not to mention temporary except in cases of inability to work) safety net is a good idea.

Not to get off track here, but imagine aviation without regulations. As a pilot... I can't. Sure, the FAA goes too far, but I'd rather too many rules than none.

All that stuff costs money, and since I don't believe in tariffs except in retaliation for foreign manipulation and tariffs, taxes are just about the only way to do that.

Additionally, while I think that civil disobedience has it's place, I think that except in cases of clear injustice, citizens should work through the system. Democracy doesn't always work, but it's the best we've got.

Never been to another country, have you?  America has become quite a shithole.  You keep on chanting "we're number one" though.  How is crime?  Poverty?  Health care?  Human rights?  Civil liberties?  Infant mortality?    How do you compare to Norway?  Germany?  Switzerland?  Iceland?

[deathcode]

congratulate me!

[DobZombie]

CONGRATS!

[bowen151]

congrats!

don't forget to enjoy that serious money

Or hold on for another ride and hope for the next plateau

[Sword Smith]

congratulate me!

Very well. Congratulations! Now please congratulate me

[deathcode]

congratulate me!

Very well. Congratulations! Now please congratulate me

congratulations to everyone that resisted the urge to sell.. that trusted the coin, that fought the bears and believe that bitcoin will continue to develop and grow.
And yes, congratulations Sir Sword Smith!