What happens when the US makes crypto-currency illegal?

[Biomech]

Got any candidates? (Not snark, I mean it. I hate what the USA has become. It doesn't even resemble the nation I grew up in, and I am only middle aged.)

Although I agree significantly, I'm not really completely convinced that the US has ever been all that angelic.  The Vietnam war and the Latin American activities which transpired during at least part of my early lifetime were pretty repulsive.  It is true, however, that the spoils of our 'activities' have been more evenly distributed in times past.  Of course that does not excuse morally wrong activities, but it does add incentive to not wish to participate.  And as sure as eggs are eggs, an increase in income gap brings with it the need for enhanced internal security apparatus.

The Assange thing knocked Sweden way down no my list of interesting options and elevated Ecuador to near the top.  As best I can tell the actual people of Ecuador themselves had some understanding of the Wikileaks/Assange details, and support their government's actions.  To me this says a lot about the people.  Like most folks though, I've mostly thought about such thing and have made little concrete action.

Agree thoroughly with the 1st paragraph. I too am old enough to remember the Southeast Asia War games. Was very young, but old enough to remember. But the domestic police state and it's broad acceptance is pretty new. Kids didn't get arrested for having a plastic steak knife or a heated argument when I was a young adult, let alone a kid. Hell, most of us brought our rifles to school on the opening day of hunting season as late as 1980 in Wyoming.

Now, SAYING that could get you arrested.

Land of the free, my Cherokee ass!

[Loozik]

I would almost posit that you cannot be both a citizen and a human.

Is a ''citizen'' the same as a ''human''?

If the correct answer is ''no'', then you cannot be both a human and a citizen at the same time.

Let me give you an example: is a ''lampshade'' the same as a ''human''. If the correct answer is ''no'', then certainly you cannot be both a human and a lampshade at the same time, can you?

I would like to hear from people (i) believing they are both humans and citizens or (ii) believing a human is the same as a citizen.

[gollum]

Governments (Banks) cannot stop bitcoin, they are rather forced to create a cryptocurrency of their own and promote big companies to use it in their payment systems. Bitcoin will still be legal and used at independent shops and online but will never reach a massive scale since large companies like Mc Donalds, Starbucks, Amazon etc will ignore bitcoin.

The media will of course play their part to discourage a widespread bitcoin usage by talking negative about bitcoin and mentioning its usage in drug deals (the truth is USD is the biggest drug currency). Our subconscious accept opinions and lies for fact if is it is repeated many times, and that is the job of media to repeat until they have manipulated the opinions of average joe (to not use bitcoin).

[Biomech]

I would almost posit that you cannot be both a citizen and a human.

Is a ''citizen'' the same as a ''human''?

If the correct answer is ''no'', then you cannot be both a human and a citizen at the same time.

Let me give you an example: is a ''lampshade'' the same as a ''human''. If the correct answer is ''no'', then certainly you cannot be both a human and a lampshade at the same time, can you?

I would like to hear from people (i) believing they are both humans and citizens or (ii) believing a human is the same as a citizen.

Well, you already got my opinion, but just to firm it up:

No, I do not believe you can be a human and a citizen. To be a citizen is to ABDICATE individuality, which is a fundamental condition of humanity. You are either a human, or something rather less.

[Hawker]

I would almost posit that you cannot be both a citizen and a human.

Is a ''citizen'' the same as a ''human''?

If the correct answer is ''no'', then you cannot be both a human and a citizen at the same time.

Let me give you an example: is a ''lampshade'' the same as a ''human''. If the correct answer is ''no'', then certainly you cannot be both a human and a lampshade at the same time, can you?

I would like to hear from people (i) believing they are both humans and citizens or (ii) believing a human is the same as a citizen.

Well, you already got my opinion, but just to firm it up:

No, I do not believe you can be a human and a citizen. To be a citizen is to ABDICATE individuality, which is a fundamental condition of humanity. You are either a human, or something rather less.

I'm a citizen.  I'm a human.  That means you are an idiot.

[Biomech]

I would almost posit that you cannot be both a citizen and a human.

Is a ''citizen'' the same as a ''human''?

If the correct answer is ''no'', then you cannot be both a human and a citizen at the same time.

Let me give you an example: is a ''lampshade'' the same as a ''human''. If the correct answer is ''no'', then certainly you cannot be both a human and a lampshade at the same time, can you?

I would like to hear from people (i) believing they are both humans and citizens or (ii) believing a human is the same as a citizen.

Well, you already got my opinion, but just to firm it up:

No, I do not believe you can be a human and a citizen. To be a citizen is to ABDICATE individuality, which is a fundamental condition of humanity. You are either a human, or something rather less.

I'm a citizen.  I'm a human.  That means you are an idiot.

Look up non sequitur. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html this will help you out.

The concept of Citizen, and the concept of human (beyond just a tag for the species homo sapiens) is a complex subject. My opinion, stated above, is incomplete as it must be in a short reply. Yours has no obvious thought behind it, nor even any explanation of what it means, to you, to be a citizen. The standard definitions of the word are contradictory. The most common understanding of a citizen, vs. a subject, is that you have some hand in your own governance in exchange for some loss of autonomy. In the modern world's actualities, that exchange is so uneven as to be meaningless, OBJECTIVELY.

I may be an idiot, but it certainly doesn't follow from what you posted.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I'm a citizen.  I'm a human.  That means you are an idiot.

Look up non sequitur. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html this will help you out.

The concept of Citizen, and the concept of human (beyond just a tag for the species homo sapiens) is a complex subject. My opinion, stated above, is incomplete as it must be in a short reply. Yours has no obvious thought behind it, nor even any explanation of what it means, to you, to be a citizen. The standard definitions of the word are contradictory. The most common understanding of a citizen, vs. a subject, is that you have some hand in your own governance in exchange for some loss of autonomy. In the modern world's actualities, that exchange is so uneven as to be meaningless, OBJECTIVELY.

I may be an idiot, but it certainly doesn't follow from what you posted.

Actually, it follows perfectly.  You say that a person can't be both human and a citizen.  Everyone who is both human and a citizen proves you are an idiot. 

[Biomech]

...snip...

I'm a citizen.  I'm a human.  That means you are an idiot.

Look up non sequitur. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html this will help you out.

The concept of Citizen, and the concept of human (beyond just a tag for the species homo sapiens) is a complex subject. My opinion, stated above, is incomplete as it must be in a short reply. Yours has no obvious thought behind it, nor even any explanation of what it means, to you, to be a citizen. The standard definitions of the word are contradictory. The most common understanding of a citizen, vs. a subject, is that you have some hand in your own governance in exchange for some loss of autonomy. In the modern world's actualities, that exchange is so uneven as to be meaningless, OBJECTIVELY.

I may be an idiot, but it certainly doesn't follow from what you posted.

Actually, it follows perfectly.  You say that a person can't be both human and a citizen.  Everyone who is both human and a citizen proves you are an idiot. 

If to be human means to be part of a hive, then I am an idiot. If to be human means to be a discrete individual with discrete motivations, then I am not. History seems to be on my side here.
Further more, ad hominem is usually used when you are unsure of or don't have a valid counterargument.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I'm a citizen.  I'm a human.  That means you are an idiot.

Look up non sequitur. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html this will help you out.

The concept of Citizen, and the concept of human (beyond just a tag for the species homo sapiens) is a complex subject. My opinion, stated above, is incomplete as it must be in a short reply. Yours has no obvious thought behind it, nor even any explanation of what it means, to you, to be a citizen. The standard definitions of the word are contradictory. The most common understanding of a citizen, vs. a subject, is that you have some hand in your own governance in exchange for some loss of autonomy. In the modern world's actualities, that exchange is so uneven as to be meaningless, OBJECTIVELY.

I may be an idiot, but it certainly doesn't follow from what you posted.

Actually, it follows perfectly.  You say that a person can't be both human and a citizen.  Everyone who is both human and a citizen proves you are an idiot.  

If to be human means to be part of a hive, then I am an idiot. If to be human means to be a discrete individual with discrete motivations, then I am not. History seems to be on my side here.
Further more, ad hominem is usually used when you are unsure of or don't have a valid counterargument.

ad hominem is also used when someone says something so stupid that you have to wonder what Darwin was smoking. How does someone so deluded who thinks that the rest of humanity are idiots get to reproduce?  Is there an infinite supply of drunk sluts?

[Loozik]

You say that a person can't be both human and a citizen.

If a ''citizen'' does not equate a ''human'' than it is impossible for any object in this universe to be both a human and a citizen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a ''citizen'' equates a ''human'' than we all are both citizens and humans.

But be careful, humans have lived on this planet for at least 200 thousand years. You would need to prove that those humans were also citizens to be able to equate a ''human'' to a ''citizen''. I wish you luck in proving humans who lived on this planet 20 thousand years ago were citizens.

Everyone who is both human and a citizen proves you are an idiot.  

So far you proved yourself to be an idiot (that non-sequitur of yours).

[Hawker]

You say that a person can't be both human and a citizen.

If a ''citizen'' does not equate a ''human'' than it is impossible for any object in this universe to be both a human and a citizen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a ''citizen'' equates a ''human'' than we all are both citizens and humans.

But be careful, humans have lived on this planet for at least 200 thousand years. You would need to prove that those humans were also citizens to be able to equate a ''human'' to a ''citizen''. I wish you luck in proving humans who lived on this planet 20 thousand years ago were citizens.

Everyone who is both human and a citizen proves you are an idiot.  

So far you proved yourself to be an idiot (that non-sequitur of yours).

I am a human and I am an Irish citizen.  I am proud of both aspects of my life. If you think the 2 can't be combined, you are a fool. 

Meanwhile, what's with people trying to use Latin to make stupid statements sound clever? 

[Loozik]

I am a human and I am an Irish citizen.

Then tell me what a citizen is for christ's sake. It shouldn't be so difficult if yoy think you are one, should it?

If you think the 2 can't be combined, you are a fool.  

If you can prove with facts and evidence that a human = citizen, then you will convince me. So far you only claim to be both at the same time, but this claim has not been substantiated with anything that can be rationally or empirically verified.

Meanwhile, what's with people trying to use Latin to make stupid statements sound clever?  

Why do you think people care about your loaded questions?

[Hawker]

I am a human and I am an Irish citizen.

Then tell me what a citizen is for christ's sake. It shouldn't be so difficult if yoy think you are one, should it?

If you think the 2 can't be combined, you are a fool.  

If you can prove with facts and evidence that a human = citizen, then you will convince me. So far you only claim to be both at the same time, but this claim has not been substantiated with anything that can be rationally or empirically verified.

Meanwhile, what's with people trying to use Latin to make stupid statements sound clever?  

Why do you think people care about your loaded questions?

How stupid are you?  Of course a human != citizen.  Do you think anyone imagines slaves were citizens?

[Loozik]

Of course a human != citizen.

Good. I assume this exclamation (!) is for a negation.

If you are right that a human is not the same as citizen, than a human cannot be a citizen.  Just like a dog is not the same as a washing machine, therefore a dog cannot be a washing machine.

You just proved yourself not to be a citizen. Why on Earth do you keep calling yourself a citizen?

[Biomech]

I am a human and I am an Irish citizen.

Then tell me what a citizen is for christ's sake. It shouldn't be so difficult if yoy think you are one, should it?

If you think the 2 can't be combined, you are a fool.  

If you can prove with facts and evidence that a human = citizen, then you will convince me. So far you only claim to be both at the same time, but this claim has not been substantiated with anything that can be rationally or empirically verified.

Meanwhile, what's with people trying to use Latin to make stupid statements sound clever?  

Why do you think people care about your loaded questions?

How stupid are you?  Of course a human != citizen.  Do you think anyone imagines slaves were citizens?

Yes, I do. In order to be a citizen, by the general meaning since AT LEAST 100 BCE, one has to give up a degree (or in the modern sense just about ALL) of their individuality and rights. To be a CITIZEN is to be a servant of the body politic. To be a SLAVE, within that reference, is to be a servant to a private individual (who it could be argued couldn't really be a citizen).

Though in this case, especially in the modern world, I think I shall defer to Lysander Spooner's definition that Slavery is that which makes a thing of a man.

As to the use of "latin phrases", we are engaging in formal debate to a loose degree, and the logical fallacies have latin labels.

We are, not very loosely, debating what it means to be human, and whether one can still claim that status and be a citizen. My argument, again loosely, is that the two cannot equate as being a citizen makes a thing(property) of a man, and is thus slavery in an "exalted" form. I freely admit that I am a subject of the empire, and thus a slave. I do NOT believe this is in any way a good or even morally defensible thing.

[TimJBenham]

I maintain that bitcoin will be banned and the price of it will tank when all the statist pussies wet their panties and bail.  It will continue to be useful for the third worlders and the outlaws, so it won't go away.

Something may happen before this, though, and that is the blockchain forks, one going toward the regulation trap that the VC money is pushing and the other going toward greater anonymity that the outlaws want.  If the corporate bitcoin skyrockets in value I am sad because the people have sold out for cash.  But if the outlaw bitcoin rises in value I am happy because it says the people have had enough of financial "hegemony".

More wisdom in this post than in the next N pages. The original question was interesting; a flame war about the definition of citizen not so.

[Loozik]

Yes, I do.

+ 1

In ancient Rome unfortunate humans labeled ''slaves'' were allowed to retain 10% of their income. The so called masters received 90%.

In modern times unfortunate humans labeled ''citizens'' are allowed to retain (in majority of places on Earth) 10% - 30%. The so called governments / states and other legal fictions receive 70% - 90%.

In ancient Rome the so called masters provided ''services'' to their happy slaves like, ''free'' healthcare, ''free'' water from aqueducts and most importantly they provided ''free'' education where the so called slaves were taught how good, noble and beneficial the slavery was.

In modern times the so called governments provide ''services'' to their happy slaves, pardon: their citizens, like ''free'' healthcare, ''free'' roads and most importantly they provide ''free'' education where the so called citizens are taught how good, noble and beneficial the citizenship is.

The factual difference between ancient Rome and many places now is:
- in ancient Rome the so called slaves could not choose their masters;
- at present the so called citizens can vote every few years who their masters will be.

Note, some humans in ancient Rome were very proud to be labeled ''slaves, just like now many humans are proud to be called ''citizens''.

The word ''citizen'' is a substitute for the old-fashioned ''slave''.

[ktttn]

...
Out if curiosity, what is it with libertarians and rape?  Everything they dislike is akin to rape.  

I've notice that about the term 'violence' as well.

My theory is that a Libertarian is an Anarchist who got picked on in school.  Perhaps they got goosed a lot.

GOOOSES!
A libertarian is a commmon anarchist who watches fox news, has money, and is scared of stuff.
A redemopublicratian is an anarchist who doesn't read books.
A monarchist is an anarchist who likes simple structure.
A statist is an anarchist who is also a sociopath, or who doesnt read groovy books.

On topic: The government as an abstract superstructure will lay down and die like an old dog, in favor of a working, equitable series of structures sooner or later. Civil servants themselves, will adopt bitcoin, speeding this along
If it's outlawed, every non-america-victim bitcoiner becomes insanely wealthy overnight. This is pretty unlikely. A smear campaign from ingorant herpderps threatens the propagation of cryptocurrency mote than the threat of legal violence.

[Biomech]

Yes, I do.

+ 1

In ancient Rome unfortunate humans labeled ''slaves'' were allowed to retain 10% of their income. The so called masters received 90%.

In modern times unfortunate humans labeled ''citizens'' are allowed to retain (in majority of places on Earth) 10% - 30%. The so called governments / states and other legal fictions receive 70% - 90%.

In ancient Rome the so called masters provided ''services'' to their happy slaves like, ''free'' healthcare, ''free'' water from aqueducts and most importantly they provided ''free'' education where the so called slaves were taught how good, noble and beneficial the slavery was.

In modern times the so called governments provide ''services'' to their happy slaves, pardon: their citizens, like ''free'' healthcare, ''free'' roads and most importantly they provide ''free'' education where the so called citizens are taught how good, noble and beneficial the citizenship is.

The factual difference between ancient Rome and many places now is:
- in ancient Rome the so called slaves could not choose their masters;
- at present the so called citizens can vote every few years who their masters will be.

Note, some humans in ancient Rome were very proud to be labeled ''slaves, just like now many humans are proud to be called ''citizens''.

The word ''citizen'' is a substitute for the old-fashioned ''slave''.

A man is no less a slave just because he gets to choose a new master once in a term of years

I think you and I are in agreement on this. Though as noted, I think we've gone significantly off topic.

I also note how you illuistrated how much more of their income the ROMAN slaves/citizens got to retain, and back somewhat on topic, The Caesars, especially later in the Roman experiment, became infamous for debasing the currency and requiring the "Citizens" to use the debased coin as if it were at full weight. Which, currently, is very difficult if not impossible for OUR Caesars to do to bitcoin, which is why it will be/is seen as a threat to their hegemony.

[Anon136]

Hi Bitcoiners,

At some point in the not too distant future, the government of the United States will figure out that Bitcoin is a very high risk to its Hedgmony. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony, Alan Greenspan loved this word.) The United States will make cryto-currency illegal because it will threaten the government's form of money (Federal Reserve Notes). Something similar happened on April 5, 1933 with Executive Order 6102. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102). History tends to repeat itself.

Those who disobey the upcoming Executive Order or new law will learn what truly backs a Federal Reserve Note, that is, the force of its military and growing internal police state.

What is the solution to prevent the United States government from implementing such an action against cryto-currency?

the answer is to let them try to stop it. they cant anyway and their attempt will show the world just how naked the emperor really is.