Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists

[Carlton Banks]

Gotta back up RealBitcoin here, these charts are usually totally off point.

Who can seriously argue that Gandhi, Mandela, Chomsky and the Dalia Lama promoted socialist economics that was non-Authoritarian! Presumably the South African people of the 1st ANC government in the mid-90's paid their taxes without having to be asked, right!?! Wrong! It's impossible to redistribute wealth without authoritarianism, so it's just plain fraudulent to even suggest it's possible.

Equally, the top right quadrant features some bizarre entries. Neither Bush, Thatcher or Blair were really economically "right" ("economically liberal" is the correct expression). Thatcher and Bush promised tax cuts that were only ever appreciably applied to the corporate sector. Blair was involved in tax increases and extended wealth redistribution. All 3 campaigned on being economically liberal, sure! No-one should have been surprised when they gave economic freedom to one group only: their crony buddies. That's not freedom, and all three were heavily disliked, at home and abroad.

[RealBitcoin]

Gotta back up RealBitcoin here, these charts are usually totally off point.

Who can seriously argue that Gandhi, Mandela, Chomsky and the Dalia Lama promoted socialist economics that was non-Authoritarian! Presumably the South African people of the 1st ANC government in the mid-90's paid their taxes without having to be asked, right!?! Wrong! It's impossible to redistribute wealth without authoritarianism, so it's just plain fraudulent to even suggest it's possible.

Equally, the top right quadrant features some bizarre entries. Neither Bush, Thatcher or Blair were really economically "right" ("economically liberal" is the correct expression). Thatcher and Bush promised tax cuts that were only ever appreciably applied to the corporate sector. Blair was involved in tax increases and extended wealth redistribution. All 3 campaigned on being economically liberal, sure! No-one should have been surprised when they gave economic freedom to one group only: their crony buddies. That's not freedom, and all three were heavily disliked, at home and abroad.

Yes, and also Socially Conservative =/= Authoritarian.

Having a solid family and some traditional values is not Stalinism.

The pope cant be left wing because he is essentially a monarch sitting on billions of dollars worth of land of the catholic church not planning to redistribute that.

Merkel is socially liberal, and essentially a socialist in economic terms.

Friedman is not very economically liberal, i think he still supports central banking and fractional reserves.

The leftists on the left-botton quadrant were also a joke, you cant be socially liberal while demanding forced redistribution of wealth. That makes them pretty much more authoritarian than the ones above them, because they mask their evil intentions under the disguise of freedom.

[DooMAD]

Gotta back up RealBitcoin here, these charts are usually totally off point.

Who can seriously argue that Gandhi, Mandela, Chomsky and the Dalia Lama promoted socialist economics that was non-Authoritarian! Presumably the South African people of the 1st ANC government in the mid-90's paid their taxes without having to be asked, right!?! Wrong! It's impossible to redistribute wealth without authoritarianism, so it's just plain fraudulent to even suggest it's possible.

Equally, the top right quadrant features some bizarre entries. Neither Bush, Thatcher or Blair were really economically "right" ("economically liberal" is the correct expression). Thatcher and Bush promised tax cuts that were only ever appreciably applied to the corporate sector. Blair was involved in tax increases and extended wealth redistribution. All 3 campaigned on being economically liberal, sure! No-one should have been surprised when they gave economic freedom to one group only: their crony buddies. That's not freedom, and all three were heavily disliked, at home and abroad.

If the chart were referring exclusively to taxation, then sure, I'd probably agree with that.  But it also takes into account views on law and order, foreign policy, civil rights and so on.  If the chart was based purely on taxation and wealth, it would look very different.  Also, even if you want to dispute the placement of particular individuals, that's still a more reasonable standpoint than RealBitcoin's rather extreme opinion that the entire bottom-left quadrant doesn't exist.  

My point was simply that genocide and tyranny is by no means an exclusive trait of the left.  You might not like their economics, but you'd acknowledge Gandhi, Mandela, Chomsky and the Dalia Lama haven't committed any acts of genocide, right?

//EDIT: 


Slightly better?  It separates social authoritarianism from economic authoritarianism.  I suspect that's a bit closer to how the world looks from a purely libertarian economic viewpoint. 

[Carlton Banks]

Gotta back up RealBitcoin here, these charts are usually totally off point.

Who can seriously argue that Gandhi, Mandela, Chomsky and the Dalia Lama promoted socialist economics that was non-Authoritarian! Presumably the South African people of the 1st ANC government in the mid-90's paid their taxes without having to be asked, right!?! Wrong! It's impossible to redistribute wealth without authoritarianism, so it's just plain fraudulent to even suggest it's possible.

Equally, the top right quadrant features some bizarre entries. Neither Bush, Thatcher or Blair were really economically "right" ("economically liberal" is the correct expression). Thatcher and Bush promised tax cuts that were only ever appreciably applied to the corporate sector. Blair was involved in tax increases and extended wealth redistribution. All 3 campaigned on being economically liberal, sure! No-one should have been surprised when they gave economic freedom to one group only: their crony buddies. That's not freedom, and all three were heavily disliked, at home and abroad.

If the chart were referring exclusively to taxation, then sure, I'd probably agree with that.  But it also takes into account views on law and order, foreign policy, civil rights and so on.  If the chart was based purely on taxation and wealth, it would look very different.

To be fair though, I was only referring to the economic aspects. I don't mean to oversell the criticism; I'd be happy if they emptied everyone from the bottom left into the top left, replaced "left" with "socialist" and "right" with "capitalist", moved Blair Bush and Thatcher into the socialist half, then filled in the bottom left with just "Hippy communes".

even if you want to dispute the placement of particular individuals, that's still a more reasonable standpoint than RealBitcoin's rather extreme opinion that the entire bottom-left quadrant doesn't exist.  

My point was simply that genocide and tyranny is by no means an exclusive trait of the left.  You might not like their economics, but you'd acknowledge Gandhi, Mandela, Chomsky and the Dalia Lama haven't committed any acts of genocide, right?

I actually entirely agree with RealBitcoin, that bottom-left corner is near enough a logical fallacy.

Not sure about the Lama, but Mandela actually committed several acts of organised violence when campaigning in the 60's, and a young Gandhi just so happened to work as a soldier drafted in to help the British suppress an uprising in, coincidentally, South Africa. The pacifist Gandhi killed unruly civilians, allegedly. Pretty sure there are no such skeletons in Noam Chomsky's cupboard though, lol

[RealBitcoin]

Look the main characteristics leftists share is the failure to recognize natural limits of the universe.

Leftists have a fanatical "borderless" worldview, and think that a utopia will come where everyone will just sit on the beach smoking a pipe and chasing beautiful girls all day.


How is this manifested in Bitcoin?

• Large blocksize = Leftists fail to recognize that a 2mb blocksize renders node operators a huge burden because they actually have to manage their own limited resources
• Whining about big fees = Bitcoin fees are like 10 cent compared to like 4-5% + 5$ at major card company payments, yet they still complain that it's too much and cant make this tiny sacrifice for the benefit of bitcoin
• Wealth redistribution = In altcoins, people constantly while about premine, and would love equal redistribution of coins, and sometimes even extend this to bitcoin as well
• Democratic Bitcoin = they constantly want to push for a democratic governance of bitcoin, whining about Core, and they want to essentially "steal" away the rights from Core (that is their private property) over their property. Also complaining about Blockstream, and inventing bogeyman stories about them.
• Conspiracy theories about Blockstream = yes I saw many people here inventing conspiracy theories about Blockstream and the devs that work for them, this is a classical propaganda tool of the left to discredit good people
• Censorship = this is their favorite tool, just see how many posts have been censored at /r/btc
• Lying to fit the narrative = yes they don't shy away from this too, people have been caught fabricating nonsense statistics about the bitcoin network to push for a hardfork
• 5-year old behavior = when caught in the bullshit, they get angry and turn their back on bitcoin, and start attacking it, for not fitting their personal ideas. They are not loyal to bitcoin if they cant shape it into their worldview, and become enemies of bitcoin very quickly.
  
  
  

So yes ladies and gentlemen, this is how the left operates in Bitcoin, these are all leftist doctrines/ styles and we can see them all in this forum and elsewhere.

[Carlton Banks]

Yes, and also Socially Conservative =/= Authoritarian.

Having a solid family and some traditional values is not Stalinism.

Here's where I'm having a problem. Is it inconsistent or hypocritical to be socially conservative about some issues and socially liberal about others? Because that's me.


And I think you're helping to reveal another flaw in this layout; socially conservative from the perspective of the family unit is, as you say, not authoritarian (it is collectivist though! but I' ll let that go for now...)

But social conservatism can be authoritarian, if you apply it top-down and not bottom-up. Criminalising homosexuality or recreational drug use are good examples.

The pope cant be left wing because he is essentially a monarch sitting on billions of dollars worth of land of the catholic church not planning to redistribute that.

Lol, indeed. Probably the most conceited of the bunch, but I guess, in a strange kind of way, you've got to admire the sheer balls behind the Catholic Church; they managed to create an enormous soft-empire from nothing except some stories about an invisible man. Religion: the original and best mind control.

Merkel is socially liberal, and essentially a socialist in economic terms.

Not that familiar with Merkel, but you have to really want to find out about her, as I'm pretty sure she doesn't even speak to the press in any language except German (which I'm not very good with).

Friedman is not very economically liberal, i think he still supports central banking and fractional reserves.

Mmmmm, Friedman is a shady character to say the least. He does indeed support the central banking ponzi, the whole Chicago school is just Keynsianism with some healthy layers of diversionary garbage concerning money supply. Not that monetarism isn't useful per se, but when your applying it to fiat, it's one of those cases of not seeing the elephant in the room. Even Friedrich Hayek got tainted with this stuff. It's ironic too, Augusto Pinochet is actually on the chart, and who was it that devised Pinochet's fascistic economic policy? None other than Milton Friedman.

[DooMAD]

I suspect a large source of contention comes from the fact that Libertarian views work exceedingly well in Bitcoin, but in the wider world, it's more of an ideological standpoint than a practical one.  The only "tax" in Bitcoin is the miner fee, which is important to maintain the network we all use.  But if you support the abolition of tax in the fiat world, you're effectively asking yourself to be removed from it.  

For example, unless you've recently developed wings, are a full-time shut-in, or a hermit that lives in the woods, chances are you use public roads and pavements.  Whether you walk, drive or get the bus, you require use of something that taxation paid for.  Taxes that maintain the network we all use.  So if you genuinely believe tax is theft and should be completely abolished, are you going to personally build your own private road network to connect all the places you need to travel?  Would you set up toll booths every few hundred yards?  Are you going to advocate using technology to track road users via GPS so you can charge them by the amount they personally use public roads?  It might sound good at first, but then centralised surveillance on that scale doesn't really seem to gel with a socially liberal outlook.  So, instead, pragmatism kicks in and you realise that there are legitimate cases for taxation, like the miners fee, because we all use that network.

[franky1]

• Large blocksize = blockstream lovers fail to recognize that a 4mb blockweight renders node operators a huge burden because they actually have to manage their own limited resources, compared to just 2mb
• Whining about big fees = Bitcoin fees are like taxes and blockstream lovers want that to increase on chain tax to bait people over to offchain
• Wealth redistribution = In altcoins, but not bitcoin.. people constantly whine about premine, and centralized store and thats why they are happy to not have it in bitcoin, and instead keep to bitcoins standard method of distribution (pools)
• Democratic Bitcoin = consensus is decentralised bitcoin, core do not own bitcoin. core is just core. bitcoin is a network of many different 'brands' check out cores own github
  

  What is Bitcoin?
  Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority: managing transactions and issuing money are carried out collectively by the network.
  

  Also complaining about Blockstream, who are tied to banks (fact, research hyperledger and PwC)
• Conspiracy theories about Blockstream = call out any negative details about blockstream gets you shunned for highlighting such negatives. call blockstream the positive utopian dream of dominance wins you a contract to shill for them
• Censorship = this is their favorite tool, just see how many posts have been censored at /r/bitcoin
• Lying to fit the narrative = blockstream lovers do this alot. first rule about loving blockstream dont talk about blockstream negatives and fight those that do
• 5-year old behavior = when caught in the bullshit, they get angry and turn their back on bitcoin, defending blockstream, They are not loyal to bitcoin if they cant shape it into blockstream view, and become enemies of bitcoin very quickly.
  

[DooMAD]

• Large blocksize = Leftists fail to recognize that a 2mb blocksize renders node operators a huge burden because they actually have to manage their own limited resources
• Whining about big fees = Bitcoin fees are like 10 cent compared to like 4-5% + 5$ at major card company payments, yet they still complain that it's too much and cant make this tiny sacrifice for the benefit of bitcoin
• Wealth redistribution = In altcoins, people constantly while about premine, and would love equal redistribution of coins, and sometimes even extend this to bitcoin as well
• Democratic Bitcoin = they constantly want to push for a democratic governance of bitcoin, whining about Core, and they want to essentially "steal" away the rights from Core (that is their private property) over their property. Also complaining about Blockstream, and inventing bogeyman stories about them.
• Conspiracy theories about Blockstream = yes I saw many people here inventing conspiracy theories about Blockstream and the devs that work for them, this is a classical propaganda tool of the left to discredit good people
• Censorship = this is their favorite tool, just see how many posts have been censored at /r/btc
• Lying to fit the narrative = yes they don't shy away from this too, people have been caught fabricating nonsense statistics about the bitcoin network to push for a hardfork
• 5-year old behavior = when caught in the bullshit, they get angry and turn their back on bitcoin, and start attacking it, for not fitting their personal ideas. They are not loyal to bitcoin if they cant shape it into their worldview, and become enemies of bitcoin very quickly.
  

• Large blocksize = blockstream lovers fail to recognize that a 4mb blockweight renders node operators a huge burden because they actually have to manage their own limited resources, compared to just 2mb
• Whining about big fees = Bitcoin fees are like taxes and blockstream lovers want that to increase on chain tax to bait people over to offchain
• Wealth redistribution = In altcoins, but not bitcoin.. people constantly whine about premine, and centralized store and thats why they are happy to not have it in bitcoin, and instead keep to bitcoins standard method of distribution (pools)
• Democratic Bitcoin = consensus is decentralised bitcoin, core do not own bitcoin. core is just core. bitcoin is a network of many different 'brands' check out cores own github
  

  What is Bitcoin?
  Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority: managing transactions and issuing money are carried out collectively by the network.
  

  Also complaining about Blockstream, who are tied to banks (fact, research hyperledger and PwC)
• Conspiracy theories about Blockstream = call out any negative details about blockstream gets you shunned for highlighting such negatives. call blockstream the positive utopian dream of dominance wins you a contract to shill for them
• Censorship = this is their favorite tool, just see how many posts have been censored at /r/bitcoin
• Lying to fit the narrative = blockstream lovers do this alot. first rule about loving blockstream dont talk about blockstream negatives and fight those that do
• 5-year old behavior = when caught in the bullshit, they get angry and turn their back on bitcoin, defending blockstream, They are not loyal to bitcoin if they cant shape it into blockstream view, and become enemies of bitcoin very quickly.
  

*Sigh*

This is precisely why Carlton had the right idea with his first post in this thread:

The left/right isn't a political spectrum, it's a divide and conquer tactic, whereby liberalism gets split into economic liberalism and social liberalism, and then one side is fed arguments about why the other is the source of all problems.

The best approach is to never use the left/right concept, as you're always going to look like a reflexive partisan, one step away from using the non-argument "you're just one of them!"

That's exactly what just happened here.  You both approach the issue from your own opposite views, becoming completely divided by it.  Chances are, both interpretations are slightly dishonest and the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle.  Just keep it simple and agree that everyone is free to run the code they want.

[MHopkins]

I am a Hero of Bitcoin, I have been on this forum for almost 3 years, with an older account that I lost before creating this one. In my 3 years of Bitcoin journey

Dude, you just contradicted yourself, right there.

[Hazir]

BTW I don't think democracy is any better than dictatorship, they are both flawed.

When majority of people is proven to be idiots then democracy is the worst possible system. Anyways we don't have any true democracy anymore, everything is manipulated.

What if Satoshi didn't leave and stayed with us as bitcoin leader? Can you imagine what will happen under his guidance? His word might be deciding factor in disputes...

[franky1]

What if Satoshi didn't leave and stayed with us as bitcoin leader? Can you imagine what will happen under his guidance?

adam back is proclaiming to be satoshi 2.0 by saying bitcoin is his property..
blockstream want a dictatorship

here is a blockstream owned website. re-writing the past to suggest adam back created bitcoin via his "hashcash" prior to satoshi
https://21.co/learn/proof-of-work-using-hashcash/#hashcash-the-key-to-nakamoto-consensus

all the subtle name drops

in 2004, Hashcash was used by cryptographer Hal Finney to build Reusable Proof of Work (RPOW), a pre-Bitcoin cryptocurrency that likely heavily influenced Satoshi Nakamoto.

all the subtle over selling

and it was pioneered by a program called Hashcash.

Hashcash is a system that predates Bitcoin by about a decade—

Unfortunately Hashcash never became widely used—

[Carlton Banks]

For example, unless you've recently developed wings, are a full-time shut-in, or a hermit that lives in the woods, chances are you use public roads and pavements.  Whether you walk, drive or get the bus, you require use of something that taxation paid for.  Taxes that maintain the network we all use.  So if you genuinely believe tax is theft and should be completely abolished, are you going to personally build your own private road network to connect all the places you need to travel?  Would you set up toll booths every few hundred yards?  Are you going to advocate using technology to track road users via GPS so you can charge them by the amount they personally use public roads?  It might sound good at first, but then centralised surveillance on that scale doesn't really seem to gel with a socially liberal outlook.  So, instead, pragmatism kicks in and you realise that there are legitimate cases for taxation, like the miners fee, because we all use that network.

You're analogy is wrong.

Who's forcing you to use Bitcoin? No-one. It's a service that you use because you want to, not because you are forced to.


Maybe you're thinking: "but you still ave to use and pay for the roads". I use them. I don't pay taxes though, not even VAT most of the time.


And besides, this is the oldest objection to anarchism that exists: "who will build the roads?". All you're really proving is that you've not considered that a decentralised solution can be conceived. It can.

[franky1]

Who's forcing you to use Bitcoin? No-one. It's a service that you use because you want to, not because you are forced to.

carlton you're pretending and hoping blockstream dictatorship exists now. to try forcing 'terms of service' where if people dont like blockstream they can "F**k off". purely as a pre-emptive ruse to get blockstream the dictatorial control it desperately needs(to get continual investment), sooner.

even though your contract may be ending soon and blockstream may not get its next financial tranche, if blockstream doesnt become the  dictatorial ruler of the network.
i feel sorry that you are actually willing to suggest bitcoin network protocol becomes centralized purely for your own personal greed.
i feel sorry for you when you keep pretending that dictatorial ownership is active now, purely to try speeding up things to hope your contract gets renewed
i feel your on a contract due to noting your different mindset last year compared to this year (and occassional flip flopping)
i feel your contract is expiring soon because you have flip flopped your mindset recently, which may be due to knowing you wont be in contract soon so you have become conflicted with your own mindsets.
if you are not under contract then i guess you have never been a libertarian and always have been an authoritarian, desiring to become part of a dictatorial regime.

you are an obvious sellout, just like gmaxwell and your other chums that care more about a corporation then the decentralized bitcoin network.

you "might" be a liberal outside of contract. but it seems sunday nights epiphany, then mondays contractual blockstream rhetoric reveals that you are willing to sell out your own personal views.

so which is it. never being a libertarian, or being under contract selling out your (previous) personal mindset. aswell as selling out bitcoins ethos

[Carlton Banks]

right. Why is it that everyone in Bitcoin chooses the opposite of what you recommend Franky, despite you always being right?

If you really believed in what you are saying, you could have transcended all of this nonsense by simply becoming a market participant yourself: with your genius insights, you should be the king of cryptocoins? Yet you choose to hang around here all day every day saying nothing but "you're all dooooooooing it wroooooooong".

Why don't you want to use your superior knowledge to deal with all the better cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin without dictators, their puppets and mindless sheep running the show?

[franky1]

right. Why is it that everyone in Bitcoin chooses the opposite of what you recommend Franky, despite you always being right?

If you really believed in what you are saying, you could have transcended all of this nonsense by simply becoming a market participant yourself: with your genius insights, you should be the king of cryptocoins? Yet you choose to hang around here all day every day saying nothing but "you're all dooooooooing it wroooooooong".

Why don't you want to use your superior knowledge to deal with all the better cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin without dictators, their puppets and mindless sheep running the show?

why would i want to become king? there should be no king!!
dont you get it yet

bitcoin should be remain decentralized not made into a monarchy of the blockstream royal family
bitcoin should be remain decentralized not made into a dictatorship of the blockstream corporation with banker backing

wake up. have an epiphany. tear up your contract and stop defending blockstreams regime.
your only shooting yourself in the foot each time you attack bitcoins decentralization/diversity to defend blockstream

[Carlton Banks]

If you don't want to be king, what's with all this "listen to me or die" BS?







(and ROFLMAO at your egotism: "don't want to be" suggests "I could be, if I wanted")

Someone get Franky a cold glass of humility, lol

[RealBitcoin]

Here's where I'm having a problem. Is it inconsistent or hypocritical to be socially conservative about some issues and socially liberal about others? Because that's me.


And I think you're helping to reveal another flaw in this layout; socially conservative from the perspective of the family unit is, as you say, not authoritarian (it is collectivist though! but I' ll let that go for now...)

But social conservatism can be authoritarian, if you apply it top-down and not bottom-up. Criminalising homosexuality or recreational drug use are good examples.

Well it's not hypocritical because there are certain things that are more harmful than others. I would definitely choose bottom-up, and as I said previously, I don't like to ban things, but certain things have to be discouraged.

Lol, indeed. Probably the most conceited of the bunch, but I guess, in a strange kind of way, you've got to admire the sheer balls behind the Catholic Church; they managed to create an enormous soft-empire from nothing except some stories about an invisible man. Religion: the original and best mind control.

Well some scammers are more talented than others, just look at the scammers around Bitcoin, some of them looted pretty big while others not so much.

Not that familiar with Merkel, but you have to really want to find out about her, as I'm pretty sure she doesn't even speak to the press in any language except German (which I'm not very good with).

Well sometimes news articles write about her. She was born and raised in east germany, and she is running a heavy socialist economy with big taxes and regulations, not hard to figure out her political leanings, especially after this immigration thing.

Mmmmm, Friedman is a shady character to say the least. He does indeed support the central banking ponzi, the whole Chicago school is just Keynsianism with some healthy layers of diversionary garbage concerning money supply. Not that monetarism isn't useful per se, but when your applying it to fiat, it's one of those cases of not seeing the elephant in the room. Even Friedrich Hayek got tainted with this stuff. It's ironic too, Augusto Pinochet is actually on the chart, and who was it that devised Pinochet's fascistic economic policy? None other than Milton Friedman.

I have watched a few videos where his son cleared up a few misconceptions about him, but yes i think he indeed supports central banking and fiat, but i think he is  aleast low on regulation and taxes. Sort of like a compromize, which would at least be 1 step in the right direction.

But this was before bitcoin. Before bitcoin nobody could have imagined a world without CB, so you gotta hand it to him , he thought what it could be achieved in that context, now that we have bitcoin, all bets are off.

And economists will have to realize this at some point.

[RealBitcoin]

• Large blocksize = blockstream lovers fail to recognize that a 4mb blockweight renders node operators a huge burden because they actually have to manage their own limited resources, compared to just 2mb
• Whining about big fees = Bitcoin fees are like taxes and blockstream lovers want that to increase on chain tax to bait people over to offchain
• Wealth redistribution = In altcoins, but not bitcoin.. people constantly whine about premine, and centralized store and thats why they are happy to not have it in bitcoin, and instead keep to bitcoins standard method of distribution (pools)
• Democratic Bitcoin = consensus is decentralised bitcoin, core do not own bitcoin. core is just core. bitcoin is a network of many different 'brands' check out cores own github
  

  What is Bitcoin?
  Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority: managing transactions and issuing money are carried out collectively by the network.
  

  Also complaining about Blockstream, who are tied to banks (fact, research hyperledger and PwC)
• Conspiracy theories about Blockstream = call out any negative details about blockstream gets you shunned for highlighting such negatives. call blockstream the positive utopian dream of dominance wins you a contract to shill for them
• Censorship = this is their favorite tool, just see how many posts have been censored at /r/bitcoin
• Lying to fit the narrative = blockstream lovers do this alot. first rule about loving blockstream dont talk about blockstream negatives and fight those that do
• 5-year old behavior = when caught in the bullshit, they get angry and turn their back on bitcoin, defending blockstream, They are not loyal to bitcoin if they cant shape it into blockstream view, and become enemies of bitcoin very quickly.
  

Democracy needs a central authority to enforce the vote system. Bitcoin is not a democracy, it's a voluntary voting system based on the individual's wish

BTW I don't think democracy is any better than dictatorship, they are both flawed.

When majority of people is proven to be idiots then democracy is the worst possible system. Anyways we don't have any true democracy anymore, everything is manipulated.

What if Satoshi didn't leave and stayed with us as bitcoin leader? Can you imagine what will happen under his guidance? His word might be deciding factor in disputes...

Yes exactly majority of people are idiots, that is why you cannot allow stupid people to vote, or you end up in disaster.

A Satoshi monarchy  is not good either because he might be right on 1 thing but wrong on other 100.

So an oligarchy of a few 100 people is preferable, where they have the right expertise, each one can correct the error of the others,and nobody can become a monarch

[Carlton Banks]

Mmmmm, Friedman is a shady character to say the least. He does indeed support the central banking ponzi, the whole Chicago school is just Keynsianism with some healthy layers of diversionary garbage concerning money supply. Not that monetarism isn't useful per se, but when your applying it to fiat, it's one of those cases of not seeing the elephant in the room. Even Friedrich Hayek got tainted with this stuff. It's ironic too, Augusto Pinochet is actually on the chart, and who was it that devised Pinochet's fascistic economic policy? None other than Milton Friedman.

I have watched a few videos where his son cleared up a few misconceptions about him, but yes i think he indeed supports central banking and fiat, but i think he is  aleast low on regulation and taxes. Sort of like a compromize, which would at least be 1 step in the right direction.

But this was before bitcoin. Before bitcoin nobody could have imagined a world without CB, so you gotta hand it to him , he thought what it could be achieved in that context, now that we have bitcoin, all bets are off.

And economists will have to realize this at some point.

What Friedman presided over in Chile wasn't exactly low taxes and regulation. It may have been sold that way, but it was a fascist system ultimately. Doesn't change the fact that, even though there's a big difference between what Friedman says and what he did, it doesn't invalidate the (good) principles he espoused but never practiced.

For instance, I think we all remember that video (recorded late 90's/early 2000's) where Friedman says "the internet will eventually produce a form of e-cash". He was right about that, and here we are.