Bitcoin Welfare System

[SilverVigilante]

Hey everyone,

I was pondering. What do you think a Bitcoin welfare system would look like? Bitcoiners are pigeonholed as anarchists and libertarians and thus against welfare, but I don't think "welfare" and the "state" necessarily must be conjoined. In other words, what is p2p welfare?

I pondered this here: https://www.goldsilverbitcoin.com/?p=1851


But thought a discussion would be great.

I had heard by Hearn that one day there will a little plugin where we can donate to websites we like (towards translating them, etc.). I wonder if this can be directed at individuals...

In fractal form, individuals who know others who need help could directly provide aid to that individual to get back on their feet. These fractals would usually start between family members and close friends, and represents a more efficient way of spreading capital to those "in need" than the current third party arbitrage system of welfare in which monumental resources are taken off the top.

[Luckybit]

Hey everyone,

I was pondering. What do you think a Bitcoin welfare system would look like? Bitcoiners are pigeonholed as anarchists and libertarians and thus against welfare, but I don't think "welfare" and the "state" necessarily must be conjoined. In other words, what is p2p welfare?

I pondered this here: https://www.goldsilverbitcoin.com/?p=1851


But thought a discussion would be great.

I had heard by Hearn that one day there will a little plugin where we can donate to websites we like (towards translating them, etc.). I wonder if this can be directed at individuals...

In fractal form, individuals who know others who need help could directly provide aid to that individual to get back on their feet. These fractals would usually start between family members and close friends, and represents a more efficient way of spreading capital to those "in need" than the current third party arbitrage system of welfare in which monumental resources are taken off the top.

It should be called basic income, not welfare.

[AliceWonder]

Hey everyone,

I was pondering. What do you think a Bitcoin welfare system would look like? Bitcoiners are pigeonholed as anarchists and libertarians and thus against welfare

Hold on there,

I'm libertarian but I'm not against welfare. I think the current system in my country is broken but I'm not against a system where the state helps those who genuinely need assistance. That assistance though needs to come with a plan for those who are able to work to actually get what they need (education, job training, whatever) to start working.

[countryfree]

I believe it's much to early in the development of bitcoin to think about such a system, but, well, I'm totally against it. Bitcoin has not been created for this. Better ask the social security (if it can survive, which I doubt) to pay benefits in bitcoins.

[Melbustus]

What you're talking about is philanthropy, not welfare. The distinction being the ability of the giver to *willingly* give to the cause of his/her choice.

I think bitcoin charities are a great idea, and I'd love to see bitcoiners use their money to help people. But let's not call it "welfare".

[franky1]

and every greedy bugger will proclaim they are dirt poor. welfare scammers are already rampant in most countries, imagine the extent in the pseudonymous crowd.

i think those that have the internet have some form of income coming in, thus a welfare campaign is not actually required for the bitcoin crowd. because bitcoin will never overtake a government, it will only work along side it.

the only possible time a welfare system for bitcoin would be required is if a GENUINE non governed island was created.

that said i am all for philanthropy and charity. but welfare is not something the community should concentrate on

[worldtreasurefinders]

What you're talking about is philanthropy, not welfare. The distinction being the ability of the giver to *willingly* give to the cause of his/her choice.

I think bitcoin charities are a great idea, and I'd love to see bitcoiners use their money to help people. But let's not call it "welfare".

This +1. Any "welfare" should be freely and voluntarily given, not taken and distributed by force.

[vqp]

In fractal form, individuals who know others who need help could directly provide aid to that individual to get back on their feet. These fractals would usually start between family members and close friends, and represents a more efficient way of spreading capital to those "in need" than the current third party arbitrage system of welfare in which monumental resources are taken off the top.

^this

[DeathAndTaxes]

I'm libertarian but I'm not against welfare. I think the current system in my country is broken but I'm not against a system where the state helps those who genuinely need assistance. That assistance though needs to come with a plan for those who are able to work to actually get what they need (education, job training, whatever) to start working.

Sorry there is nothing libertarian about the confiscation and redistribution of private property by the state under the threat of violence.

Don't take it the wrong way but if you can't realize the obvious logical fallacy then you are merely "libretarian" in name only.  Because  it is the "cool, edgy, nonconformist" shade of Republican.

[FUEPA]

I'm libertarian but I'm not against welfare. I think the current system in my country is broken but I'm not against a system where the state helps those who genuinely need assistance. That assistance though needs to come with a plan for those who are able to work to actually get what they need (education, job training, whatever) to start working.

Sorry there is nothing libertarian about the confiscation and redistribution of private property by the state under the threat of violence.

Don't take it the wrong way but if you can't realize the obvious logical fallacy then you are merely "libretarian" in name only.  Because  it is the "cool, edgy, nonconformist" shade of Republican.

You are assuming welfare funding has to be by force. If churches collect and spend voluntarily, I would still call this welfare. And as a libertarian, this is OK. Same can be said about "Foreign Aid", we all assume this is the government spending the people's money against their wishes. People from one country helping those of another voluntarily is still foreign aid.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You are assuming welfare funding has to be by force. If churches collect and spend voluntarily, I would still call this welfare. And as a libertarian, this is OK.

I am not assuming anything he used the word "STATE".  Giving donation to a church who uses that funds to give meals to the homeless for example doesn't involve the state.  I wouldn't call it welfare I would call it charity but that wasn't the point, read the post I responded to again and try to fit your tortured definition to it.

[Itcher]

Yea, that's the problem with libertarians.

They can't except any kind of walfare which lies beyond working or begging ... a little share of the wealth of the society should be everyones right, no matter, how usefull he or she is in senses of economy. But libertarias just see "violence" and "force" and so on, they don't see the miserable and factual deeply unfree state of someone having to beg for his own survival living inside an absurd wealth economy. So, this is it. I hate controll and I hate it to go to any institution of the state, but I am not with liberatarian. ++

Sorry, I will maybe tomorrow post a suggestion about bitcoin welfare economy ... maybe

[Anon136]

a better way to correct the problems that welfare is supposedly intended to correct is for society at large to recognize that a person who is literally about to die of starvation through no fault of his own has a better claim on the food in is proximity than the person who grew it assuming the person who grew it is not in a similar predicament.

this would force grocery stores and restaurants to provide some form of local starvation safety net, probably in the form of a soup kitchen, inorder for them to be able to apprehend shop lifters with out fear of litigation. the cost of these soup kitchens would then be built into the prices at the grocery store. all without invoking the violence of the state.

replace a few words to apply the same argument to shelter, water and MAYBE some cheaper forms of antibiotics

[oleganza]

In other words, what is p2p welfare?

If you are asking about voluntary welfare (vs. forced welfare), it is called insurance and/or charity. There is nothing new. You setup your own rules on how you distribute income and those who like them and like how you do your job, will give you money.

"Welfare" without violence is nothing different from any social activity. It has special name only because there is coercion which must be hidden under promise of "well being for human beings".

In voluntary community (e.g. in anonymous networks where kicking ass is impossible), such words as "welfare", "social security", "government", "law" lose any original meaning and purpose. You just have agreements (contracts), reputation, risks, demand and supply of services. Even "for-profit" and "non-profit" distinction is meaningless if you don't have taxes to pay.

[Cameltoemcgee]

a better way to correct the problems that welfare is supposedly intended to correct is for society at large to recognize that a person who is literally about to die of starvation through no fault of his own has a better claim on the food in is proximity than the person who grew it assuming the person who grew it is not in a similar predicament.

this would force grocery stores and restaurants to provide some form of local starvation safety net, probably in the form of a soup kitchen, inorder for them to be able to apprehend shop lifters with out fear of litigation. the cost of these soup kitchens would then be built into the prices at the grocery store. all without invoking the violence of the state.

replace a few words to apply the same argument to shelter, water and MAYBE some cheaper forms of antibiotics

In an anarchic society, chances are very good that the security/insurance companies that shopkeepers pay to keep criminals out would provide this safety net because stopping people from going hungry and turning to crime would be in the interests of the clients they service as well as their bottom line. Less claims mean less paperwork and staffing expenses for them, less broken into properties, less forensics, less repairs... the list just keeps going on, as well as the ability to advertise the fact they do give something back to the community on top of the services people are happy to pay for.

[cryptoanarchist]

Some asshole by where I live just sits on a ledge by the sidewalk asking for change all day. I finally told him that for all I have to go through, I should be asking him for change.

Most people on welfare are just lazy and don't want to work, but if you really were legitimately down on your luck, I know I would help you out, and I know others would too.

[Anon136]

a better way to correct the problems that welfare is supposedly intended to correct is for society at large to recognize that a person who is literally about to die of starvation through no fault of his own has a better claim on the food in is proximity than the person who grew it assuming the person who grew it is not in a similar predicament.

this would force grocery stores and restaurants to provide some form of local starvation safety net, probably in the form of a soup kitchen, inorder for them to be able to apprehend shop lifters with out fear of litigation. the cost of these soup kitchens would then be built into the prices at the grocery store. all without invoking the violence of the state.

replace a few words to apply the same argument to shelter, water and MAYBE some cheaper forms of antibiotics

In an anarchic society, chances are very good that the security/insurance companies that shopkeepers pay to keep criminals out would provide this safety net because stopping people from going hungry and turning to crime would be in the interests of the clients they service as well as their bottom line. Less claims mean less paperwork and staffing expenses for them, less broken into properties, less forensics, less repairs... the list just keeps going on, as well as the ability to advertise the fact they do give something back to the community on top of the services people are happy to pay for.

very well said. i couldn't agree more.

[Mike Christ]

a little share of the wealth of the society should be everyones right, no matter, how usefull he or she is in senses of economy.

I agree, everyone should have the ability to share in the wealth.  However, unless you can describe a system in which the wealth can be redistributed more evenly among the people without resorting to simply taking the money out of one man's account and putting it into another, I want no part in it.  Problem with libertarians, they consider all people to be people, equally, no matter their wealth or occupation.  The system you desire is completely against freedom; the successful should not be punished by being forced to help the poor.  If the successful choose not to help the poor, then blame the successful for being stingy, but to seek help from a bully to force the successful in giving you cash, for whatever reason that may be, is just completely undesirable.  Why do anything, knowing those who do at least something can pay for me to live?

Imagine: you live with three other people.  You and two people work.  The fourth guy doesn't, for whatever reason.  While you and the other two toil away, the fourth guy lounges, knowing you three have everything covered, and knowing that the fifth guy, who owns the home you live in, has his back.

...the end.  That's the welfare state.  What, exactly, is the appeal to forcing someone to be charitable (oxymoron, but bear with me), than simply allowing someone to be charitable?  The answer is simple: you must be the fourth guy.

I understand that you must sometimes be the fourth guy--perhaps you were seriously injured and cannot make a normal living.  But that's tough luck.  If family and friends cannot, or will not, support you, what makes you think I can?  Or even want to?  If I wanted to, I would--if you really needed the help and I just flat out liked your character, I would do what I could to help you.  If I don't, then I really don't--why force me?  There is no sympathy for the fourth guy, in this scenario, who wants people who don't want to take care of him to take care of him, and I'd rather not live with a person who takes without asking.  You live in my home for free and eat my food and watch my TV and expect it all without remittance--does this sound swell to you?  We can always practice the welfare state, if you're so inclined; give me your address and I'll move right on in, and I expect dinner on the table the moment I get there.

[Itcher]

If I wanted to, I would--if you really needed the help and I just flat out liked your character, I would do what I could to help you. 

That's the problem. If you want, and if you like my charakter. I think the constitution gives anyone the right to participate in the society, for least to some degree, without to need someone to like his charakter. That would be begging, and I think - I hope - we managed to get over this kind of welfare-society.

To disclose this: I never used the welfare-state and I think I never will. Even if I live worse than people using welfare-state and scamming the state, i. E. by using two flats as a couple (yea, german welfare state pays unemployed couples for having each an own flat - absurd) - and I am not happy with this. I also hate it to pay every month taxes and health insurance, and when I go to the dentis, I have to pay again for it.

But I don't prefer to live in a society where someone who needs help needs other people to like his charakter.

If family and friends cannot, or will not, support you, what makes you think I can?

It's no you, especially, it's the society. In the same way you could ask: If family and friends can't teach you - can't build you a road - can't protect you against criminals - why should I can? I pay taxes, and a little share of it goes to unemployed / injured / old / lazy / stupid (too stupid too earn money) ... I am more concerned about the thousands of beaurocrats which are between me and them ...

The system you desire is completely against freedom; the successful should not be punished by being forced to help the poor.  If the successful choose not to help the poor, then blame the successful for being stingy, but to seek help from a bully to force the successful in giving you cash, for whatever reason that may be, is just completely undesirable.  Why do anything, knowing those who do at least something can pay for me to live?

Why? Cause you want to be free for real, you don't want to make your living be going to the "Amt", by waiting in a people-snake, sitting, till the display shows your number, being spyed out from the "Amt", have to disclose your complete financial circumstances - just for sitting at home, beeing still poor, be not usefull, have no occupation, which makes you proud for your talents and brings you in contact to other people ... I for myself want to make my living by myself, as I said, before going to the "Amt" I would take every job I could get or ask my family to help ...

I think we have a different glance on judging the success of a society: You want a society to be good to the successfull, I want a society to be good for the miserables ...

[Anon136]

But I don't prefer to live in a society where someone who needs help needs other people to like his charakter.

Granted this is shitty but you would seek to remedy this problem of people needing to be liked inorder to receive aid by having peaceful people threatened with violence? You are just replacing one problem with a new and greater problem. You are replacing the problem of people needing to be liked in order to receive help with the problem of people waving guns all over the place and threatening to murder each other.