|
Anonymous
Guest
|
 |
June 30, 2011, 08:40:52 AM |
|
Isn't it obvious that the smallest government's in the past, the one's with the most principled constitutions, end up the largest and most totalitarian because of their starting momentum of economic freedom? If there is ever an odious debt in place, even a small tax on a man's labor that feeds the stealing parasite, it will grow and it will grow to collect more from us.
So, if it is proven that humans are more productive and happier when given liberty and that no economy has truly failed because of said liberty, is it not viable to test the threshold and allow all of us to become totally free individuals in the name of our own happiness? Are we not suffering as-is anyways? Has not the repeated idea of ideal governance failed over and over again?
Why are we afraid to try something new?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin software, network, and concept is called "Bitcoin" with a capitalized "B". Bitcoin currency units are called "bitcoins" with a lowercase "b" -- this is often abbreviated BTC.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 30, 2011, 08:47:22 AM |
|
Well, it's only logical, that if a small government ends up the biggest, then no government at all would turn into total totalitarianism.
(PS: just try to say 'total totalitarianism' three times fast!)
|
|
|
|
|
em3rgentOrdr
|
|
June 30, 2011, 08:50:51 AM |
|
Isn't it obvious that the smallest government's in the past, the one's with the most principled constitutions, end up the largest and most totalitarian because of their starting momentum of economic freedom? If there is ever an odious debt in place, even a small tax on a man's labor that feeds the stealing parasite, it will grow and it will grow to collect more from us.
So, if it is proven that humans are more productive and happier when given liberty and that no economy has truly failed because of said liberty, is it not viable to test the threshold and allow all of us to become totally free individuals in the name of our own happiness? Are we not suffering as-is anyways? Has not the repeated idea of ideal governance failed over and over again?
Why are we afraid to try something new?
+1. It is interesting. This is why im hesitant whenever i hear someone advocate that the government become more lean and efficient. |
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 30, 2011, 08:52:08 AM |
|
+1. It is interesting. This is why im hesitant whenever i hear someone advocate that the government become more lean and efficient.
The thought of a lean, efficient government honestly scares the bejeesus out of me. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 30, 2011, 08:54:14 AM |
|
+1. It is interesting. This is why im hesitant whenever i hear someone advocate that the government become more lean and efficient.
The thought of a lean, efficient government honestly scares the bejeesus out of me. Such a government can only be perceived under absolute delusion and deception. It will never exist very long. Once the people under it begin to thrive and truly become happy, it will perish under its own regime. |
|
|
|
|
hugolp
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol
|
|
June 30, 2011, 08:59:18 AM |
|
+1. It is interesting. This is why im hesitant whenever i hear someone advocate that the government become more lean and efficient.
The thought of a lean, efficient government honestly scares the bejeesus out of me.  |
|
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:00:14 AM |
|
I've seen this argument before. It makes some sense, but it's not that strong. The same thing could be said of an absence of government then.
And, well, Switzerland started with a small federalized government centuries before US was born, and today it is still smaller than US federal government. The fact that they've kept their currency pegged to gold up to the 90s probably helped on that, but the question "why the same didn't happen in Switzerland" is still open, since all those banks there could have managed to end such pegging before, but they did not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:05:57 AM |
|
I've seen this argument before. It makes some sense, but it's not that strong. The same thing could be said of an absence of government then.
And, well, Switzerland started with a small federalized government centuries before US was born, and today it is still smaller than US federal government. The fact that they've kept their currency pegged to gold up to the 90s probably helped on that, but the question "why the same didn't happen in Switzerland" is still open, since all those banks there could have managed to end such pegging before, but they did not.
I believe the answer is hidden in Switzerland's very small population. |
|
|
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:19:47 AM |
|
That's a possibility, both the small population and the small territory.
The small population makes it a bit harder for "interest groups" to largely benefit from the effects of public choice, since there's not a big crowd to which they can externalize their costs.
And a small territory makes it harder for government to abuse since people can easily emigrate. That's even stronger in Switzerland since everybody speaks at least one "foreign" language, so there are even less barriers to emigration. Also, the lack of a national language may make it harder to create a national identity, and therefore, less nationalism. Nationalism is clearly something that helps governments to expand.
But still, although I think it makes some sense, I wouldn't defend the theory of OP as something very certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:26:53 AM |
|
That's a possibility, both the small population and the small territory.
The small population makes it a bit harder for "interest groups" to largely benefit from the effects of public choice, since there's not a big crowd to which they can externalize their costs.
And a small territory makes it harder for government to abuse since people can easily emigrate. That's even stronger in Switzerland since everybody speaks at least one "foreign" language, so there are even less barriers to emigration. Also, the lack of a national language may make it harder to create a national identity, and therefore, less nationalism. Nationalism is clearly something that helps governments to expand.
But still, although I think it makes some sense, I wouldn't defend the theory of OP as something very certain.
I am too upset at the violation of my fellow humans, whom have suffered, to condone even the smallest amount of force against them. I can no longer play with the idea of a virtuous form of slavery. The trust has been long since broken. Too much suffering has already occurred to support possibly repeating the same mistakes again. I love my fellow man and myself all too much. While others are drawn to return to their abuser, I cannot. |
|
|
|
|
|
