Bitcoin Forum
April 12, 2021, 06:46:01 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: When New ATH?
Apr. 11 - 2 (5.7%)
Apr. 12 - 3 (8.6%)
Apr. 13 - 4 (11.4%)
Apr. 14 - 5 (14.3%)
Apr. 15 - 4 (11.4%)
Apr. 16 - 1 (2.9%)
Apr. 17 - 3 (8.6%)
After Apr. 17 - 13 (37.1%)
Total Voters: 35

Pages: « 1 ... 3884 3885 3886 3887 3888 3889 3890 3891 3892 3893 3894 3895 3896 3897 3898 3899 3900 3901 3902 3903 3904 3905 3906 3907 3908 3909 3910 3911 3912 3913 3914 3915 3916 3917 3918 3919 3920 3921 3922 3923 3924 3925 3926 3927 3928 3929 3930 3931 3932 3933 [3934] 3935 3936 3937 3938 3939 3940 3941 3942 3943 3944 3945 3946 3947 3948 3949 3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 3955 3956 3957 3958 3959 3960 3961 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 3967 3968 3969 3970 3971 3972 3973 3974 3975 3976 3977 3978 3979 3980 3981 3982 3983 3984 ... 28588 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25252783 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (157 posts by 13 users deleted.)
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
January 23, 2014, 08:39:02 AM
 #78661

Quote
Extreme wealth may be insanity, but bitcoin is the most democratic money on the planet. in a free market, wealth distribution is still unequal, but less so because the marginal utility of money is like any other marginal utility. Only with the uneven playing field created by the State can wealth disparity reach the levels we see today.

I want to see some rigorous studies done to demonstrate these facts unequivocally ... I'm quite sure it is the case. If we had some good observational evidence of this we could rub the Statists' noses in it every time they bring up their mad-cap wealth inequality and taxation, property redistribution propaganda. The wealth inequality is the direct product of the State, and mostly Central Banks, interfering in natural free market processes of creative destruction that remove wealth from incompetent, corrupt or simply unfortunately-timed ventures and places it in areas society demands. With the massive capital mis-allocation practised by the Central banks, and their cronies in the Mega banks, wealth is pooling in ever increasing size in essentially useless holdings, while much of the world starves for liquidity and is over-run with unpayable government debts.

There are so many ways of tilting the playing field , that I'm afraid it would be extremely difficult to prove empirically. Barriers to entry are as varied as snowflakes. The best one I know of is the metrics used by the World Health Organization that showed Somalia actually improved in most measured areas under statelessness. Unfortunately wealth distribution was not one of those metrics. Legally nuanced differences between property ownership and control also make wealth distribution measurements problematic. Logically, it's easily proven via public choice economics and praxeology, which is prolly why those fields of economics are given such short shrift by the establishment.
1618209961
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1618209961

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1618209961
Reply with quote  #2

1618209961
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1618209961
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1618209961

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1618209961
Reply with quote  #2

1618209961
Report to moderator
1618209961
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1618209961

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1618209961
Reply with quote  #2

1618209961
Report to moderator
1618209961
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1618209961

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1618209961
Reply with quote  #2

1618209961
Report to moderator
MAbtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 508


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 08:40:06 AM
 #78662


Dude, no thanks. I wasted two years of my life espousing that morally bankrupt philosophy and that's two years I'll never get back. Speaking as an anarchist, your conclusion was not logical. It seems that you see ancap and state capitalism as polar opposites. I don't see it that way. Pushed to extremes, ancap/NAP under private property can justify the very basest of human action -- there simply are no limits under a purely capitalist paradigm. (Just ask Walter Block.) Should monopolistic dynamics arise, how genuine is the right of exit that you mentioned in rpietila’s thread? I am of the opinion that consent does not exist without viable alternatives. There are compelling reasons why mutualists and market anarchists historically opposed private property, and viewed the state as far more expansive than simply "government."

But seeing as this is a bitcoin forum, I probably shouldn't discuss this here. If you are interested in my thoughts on this subject, PM me.


Dr. Block teaches at Tulane just down the road from me. Pretty smart guy. I think you might misunderstand him.  The root of our disagreement seems to be private property which you appear to be opposed to. This actually ties into the thread topic because ownership effectively meas control.
Regarding Block, I'm fairly sure I don't misunderstand him. See his thoughts on slave contracts, or sexual harassment in the workplace. What do you think of his views? Here, you are conflating private property with ownership; that should not imply that I oppose ownership, or advocate for "state" ownership, or any such thing.

That's the way it is, regardless of how you think it ought to be. The State cannot control society so it makes no difference if you think it should.
I'm not sure if you are talking generally, or if you are confused about my position. I see now that it may not have been clear. I'm an anarchist, and I don't consider ancaps to be anarchists. Even Rothbard agreed with that. Regardless, the idea of morality is a bit more expansive than "government"...

The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.
On the first point, this is patently false. On the second, how do you say this after writing out the Rothbardian boilerplate on morality? To be clear, you believe that voluntary contracts justify anything, right? I noticed you didn't address my question about what happens when monopolistic dynamics arise in an ancap society -- how meaningful is consent then? How "free" is such a market, and how ethical are usurious contracts entered into by such force of circumstance?

You said you were against monopoly -- see Benjamin Tucker. The absence of government won't mean that monopolies are magicked away, and ancap theory has no problem with that.
chessnut
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 23, 2014, 09:00:39 AM
 #78663


The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.
On the first point, this is patently false. On the second, how do you say this after writing out the Rothbardian boilerplate on morality? To be clear, you believe that voluntary contracts justify anything, right? I noticed you didn't address my question about what happens when monopolistic dynamics arise in an ancap society -- how meaningful is consent then? How "free" is such a market, and how ethical are usurious contracts entered into by such force of circumstance?

[/quote]

why is it patently false?
I 100% agree, anything is possible.
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
January 23, 2014, 09:18:58 AM
 #78664

Regarding Block, I'm fairly sure I don't misunderstand him. See his thoughts on slave contracts, or sexual harassment in the workplace. What do you think of his views? Here, you are conflating private property with ownership; that should not imply that I oppose ownership, or advocate for "state" ownership, or any such thing.

Yes, I agree with Block on those views also, because the alternative is worse. The HR gestapo that polices sex harassment issues in modern work-spaces is worse. And if my Navy enlistment wasn't a slave-contract, then I don't know what one is. But this is something for another thread.

Quote
I'm an anarchist, and I don't consider ancaps to be anarchists. Even Rothbard agreed with that. Regardless, the idea of morality is a bit more expansive than "government"...

I don't really care if you consider me a true anarchist or not. I'm Rothbardian and we both know what that means. I hold that the State is neither morally legitimate or necessary, but private property is.  Couldn't care less if I'm in your extremely unpopular club or not.

The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.
On the first point, this is patently false. On the second, how do you say this after writing out the Rothbardian boilerplate on morality? To be clear, you believe that voluntary contracts justify anything, right? I noticed you didn't address my question about what happens when monopolistic dynamics arise in an ancap society -- how meaningful is consent then? How "free" is such a market, and how ethical are usurious contracts entered into by such force of circumstance?

You said you were against monopoly -- see Benjamin Tucker. The absence of government won't mean that monopolies are magicked away, and ancap theory has no problem with that.
[/quote]

With respect to Mr. Tucker, monopolies are only possible under the State. Private monopolies start to lose market share the moment they exploit their dominant position unless the State prevents them from doing so. Even the most capital-intensive industries see competition. Virgin Galactic is a good example. OTOH, a monopoly may exist if it doesn't exploit it's dominant position, but why would we even care in that case? Competition is there to benefit consumers, not competitors.

and if voluntary contracts don't justify everything, then you have to be saying that people do not have the right to enter into certain kinds of contracts, even if they want to do so. Who decides what types of contracts are ok? You? You think you can take away people's rights for their own good? Who are you to interfere? You think you can run people's lives better than they can? Do you have the same incentives to make the right choices? obviously you don't, even if you're sooooo much smarter and wiser than them. Such arrogance.

Not believing in property would be like claiming Bitcoin could function with two public keys and no private keys. Your'e not against bitcoin because you don't think it works. You're against it because it works too well. well, your cognitive dissonance is not my problem. Welcome to my ignore list.
MAbtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 508


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 09:24:53 AM
Last edit: January 23, 2014, 10:00:51 AM by MAbtc
 #78665


The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.
Quote
On the first point, this is patently false.

why is it patently false?
I 100% agree, anything is possible.

This is in the realm of moral philosophy. How does an anarcho-capitalist justify taxation? How does a communist justify private property? How does a Catholic nun justify adultery?
MAbtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 508


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 09:40:37 AM
Last edit: January 23, 2014, 10:04:36 AM by MAbtc
 #78666

Regarding Block, I'm fairly sure I don't misunderstand him. See his thoughts on slave contracts, or sexual harassment in the workplace. What do you think of his views? Here, you are conflating private property with ownership; that should not imply that I oppose ownership, or advocate for "state" ownership, or any such thing.

Yes, I agree with Block on those views also, because the alternative is worse. The HR gestapo that polices sex harassment issues in modern work-spaces is worse. And if my Navy enlistment wasn't a slave-contract, then I don't know what one is. But this is something for another thread.
The alternative? How is the only alternative government? It's as if you don't read. Okay then, I guess I'll miss the next slave auction.

For reference:
Quote
Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job. The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the ‘coercion’ is objectionable.

That's good stuff right there.

Quote
I'm not sure if you are talking generally, or if you are confused about my position. I see now that it may not have been clear. I'm an anarchist, and I don't consider ancaps to be anarchists. Even Rothbard agreed with that. Regardless, the idea of morality is a bit more expansive than "government"...

I don't really care if you consider me a true anarchist or not. I'm Rothbardian and we both know what that means. I hold that the State is neither morally legitimate or necessary, but private property is.  Couldn't care less if I'm in your extremely unpopular club or not.
I was just clarifying the comment "speaking as an anarchist" because you seemed confused, saying that I think the state ought to control society. It seems you either don't read posts that you respond to, or simply have this gut-response thing going where you accuse people of being a statist when they disagree with you.

With respect to Mr. Tucker, monopolies are only possible under the State. Private monopolies start to lose market share the moment they exploit their dominant position unless the State prevents them from doing so. Even the most capital-intensive industries see competition. Virgin Galactic is a good example. OTOH, a monopoly may exist if it doesn't exploit it's dominant position, but why would we even care in that case? Competition is there to benefit consumers, not competitors.

and if voluntary contracts don't justify everything, then you have to be saying that people do not have the right to enter into certain kinds of contracts, even if they want to do so. Who decides what types of contracts are ok? You? You think you can take away people's rights for their own good? Who are you to interfere? You think you can run people's lives better than they can? Do you have the same incentives to make the right choices? obviously you don't, even if you're sooooo much smarter and wiser than them. Such arrogance.

Not believing in property would be like claiming Bitcoin could function with two public keys and no private keys. Your'e not against bitcoin because you don't think it works. You're against it because it works too well. well, your cognitive dissonance is not my problem. Welcome to my ignore list.
You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma. Actually, I fully support peoples' rights to enter immoral contracts -- I don't support a social system where people are forced to enter into such contracts through the monopolization of scarce resources. You just have blinders on so high that anyone that disagrees with you wants to "run peoples' lives."
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1009


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 10:02:42 AM
 #78667


Explanation
cee-euros
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 88
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 10:38:34 AM
 #78668

fat lump on 820 btc-e, eep!
ampere9765
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 23, 2014, 10:39:30 AM
 #78669

fat lump on 820 btc-e, eep!
wow hadnt noticed....over 900 to break 820 now, 2700 to break 830
ErisDiscordia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1108
Merit: 1061


Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 10:47:56 AM
 #78670

You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma.

I'm interested in this. Not quite sure who the burden of proof should fall upon here - the one claiming that monopolies are possible only with government or the one claiming monopolies are possible without government. We certainly have lots of cases of monopolies co-existing with government, but I know of no cases of monopolies existing without government. This might primarily be because we have few cases of there being no government, period. Personally I tend to think that the institutionalization of the monopoly on coercive force is quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. I can see them being created without there being a government, but don't see them lasting very long without providing excellent products/services and/or developing government-like qualities themselves. Could you perhaps point me towards some materials supporting your claim that this is just an-cap dogma?
cee-euros
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 88
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 10:49:41 AM
 #78671

fat lump on 820 btc-e, eep!
wow hadnt noticed....over 900 to break 820 now, 2700 to break 830

yeah looks pretty mean

tidal wave about to hit fishing village
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1009


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 11:02:37 AM
 #78672


Explanation
bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 11:02:49 AM
 #78673

meanwhile, in china..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-22/chinas-first-default-coming-heres-what-expect
chessnut
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 23, 2014, 11:20:03 AM
 #78674

You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma.

I'm interested in this. Not quite sure who the burden of proof should fall upon here - the one claiming that monopolies are possible only with government or the one claiming monopolies are possible without government. We certainly have lots of cases of monopolies co-existing with government, but I know of no cases of monopolies existing without government. This might primarily be because we have few cases of there being no government, period. Personally I tend to think that the institutionalization of the monopoly on coercive force is quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. I can see them being created without there being a government, but don't see them lasting very long without providing excellent products/services and/or developing government-like qualities themselves. Could you perhaps point me towards some materials supporting your claim that this is just an-cap dogma?
perhaps government and monopoly are synonymous terms. monopoly and government may fall under the same species.
mellowyellow
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 11:35:44 AM
 #78675

I just mailed your posts to some participants from the upcoming senate hearing...

Can you share their email addresses? I'd like to send a few emails myself.

We're doomed Smiley
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
January 23, 2014, 11:39:48 AM
 #78676

You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma.

I'm interested in this. Not quite sure who the burden of proof should fall upon here - the one claiming that monopolies are possible only with government or the one claiming monopolies are possible without government. We certainly have lots of cases of monopolies co-existing with government, but I know of no cases of monopolies existing without government. This might primarily be because we have few cases of there being no government, period. Personally I tend to think that the institutionalization of the monopoly on coercive force is quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. I can see them being created without there being a government, but don't see them lasting very long without providing excellent products/services and/or developing government-like qualities themselves. Could you perhaps point me towards some materials supporting your claim that this is just an-cap dogma?

The original monopolies such as the East India Company were explicitly issued exclusive licenses to operate by the State. Later monopolies used more subtle means such as the rigidly-enforced patents and copyrights of Microsoft.

By contrast, Standard Oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil was given few if any special privileges by the government and is often cited for predatory practices...against competitors, but not consumers. Oil prices actually went up when anti-trust legislation broke it into thirty three separate companies. Ironically, the combined stock value of the 33 companies made Rockefeller even wealthier than he was before.
MAbtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 508


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 11:44:24 AM
 #78677

You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma.

I'm interested in this. Not quite sure who the burden of proof should fall upon here - the one claiming that monopolies are possible only with government or the one claiming monopolies are possible without government. We certainly have lots of cases of monopolies co-existing with government, but I know of no cases of monopolies existing without government. This might primarily be because we have few cases of there being no government, period. Personally I tend to think that the institutionalization of the monopoly on coercive force is quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. I can see them being created without there being a government, but don't see them lasting very long without providing excellent products/services and/or developing government-like qualities themselves. Could you perhaps point me towards some materials supporting your claim that this is just an-cap dogma?

Well, he made the assertion that monopolies are impossible absent government. It seems the burden would be on him. Smiley  To suggest an impossibility is also much, much more decisive and precise. My point was more so that ancap theory has no moral opposition to monopoly -- it simply assumes that a purely capitalist market won't let it happen.

Certainly, governments are quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. It's interesting that you mention "developing government-like qualities" because that is indeed a suggestion. Given an uneven distribution of resources, with capital hiring its own armies, I foresee a possibility.

To clarify, I wasn't talking about retail markets, though these cartel arrangements would apply to them as well. Take, for example, Tucker's "Four Monopolies". The issue is more so allocation of scarce resources, and how that can contribute to usury through monopoly in the case of borrowers, renters, workers. Yes, not a popular topic for this forum...

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/ProudhonCW.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/tucker/works.html
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
January 23, 2014, 11:56:40 AM
 #78678

Rockefeller didn't gouge his customers because he knew that he wasn't just competing against other oil companies. He was competing against other products such as whale oil and coal. It could even be argued that he is partly responsible for sperm whales not going extinct.
fonzie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


Moderator


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 11:58:11 AM
 #78679

So when exactly is BTC about to establish real democracy, stop world hunger and bringin peace over us all. This year? Or when it reaches 5000$ I need to know, plz post some date.
Is BTC our saviour? Is the catholic church aware of this?
Shocked I´m so excited.

Edit:

Will BTC only change our live if the price goes dramatically up? I´m a bit scared as it doesn´t look like that right now. Cheesy
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064
Merit: 1009


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
January 23, 2014, 12:02:46 PM
 #78680


Explanation
Pages: « 1 ... 3884 3885 3886 3887 3888 3889 3890 3891 3892 3893 3894 3895 3896 3897 3898 3899 3900 3901 3902 3903 3904 3905 3906 3907 3908 3909 3910 3911 3912 3913 3914 3915 3916 3917 3918 3919 3920 3921 3922 3923 3924 3925 3926 3927 3928 3929 3930 3931 3932 3933 [3934] 3935 3936 3937 3938 3939 3940 3941 3942 3943 3944 3945 3946 3947 3948 3949 3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 3955 3956 3957 3958 3959 3960 3961 3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 3967 3968 3969 3970 3971 3972 3973 3974 3975 3976 3977 3978 3979 3980 3981 3982 3983 3984 ... 28588 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!