Expect bitcoin to be "banned" - expect the ban to be ignored

[Trader Steve]

Interesting article:

Expect bitcoin to be "banned" - expect the ban to be ignored
by Anthony Freeman
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/expect-bitcoin-to-be-%E2%80%9Cbanned%E2%80%9D-expect-the-ban-to-be-ignored/

Man, by nature, wants to be free. He wants to choose how he lives his life. He wants to choose with whom he will associate. He wants to choose with whom he will trade. He wants to choose how his money is spent. Bitcoin gives him a greater ability to do all of these.

In my previous posts (here, here, here and here) I point out the endearing features of bitcoin and the direct threat of bitcoin to governments and central banks. Because bitcoin has the potential to make these institutions obsolete, expect them to attempt to ban and restrict bitcoin anyway they can.

The incentives to use bitcoin are too great. Yes, I expect bitcoin to be “banned” and restricted by central planners in many ways. I also expect these bans and restrictions to be ignored and circumvented. The incentives are too great. Man wants to be free.

[cypherdoc]

how does a politician go about banning something that is good for 99.99% of the non-banker population?

[Trader Steve]

how does a politician go about banning something that is good for 99.99% of the non-banker population?

Since when has a politician put the interests of the individual ahead of the bankers and central planners?

[cypherdoc]

how does a politician go about banning something that is good for 99.99% of the non-banker population?

Since when has a politician put the interests of the individual over the bankers and central planners?

when his re-election depends on it.

[adamstgBit]

They can't bet us, and so they will join us. 

Banks will give us a hell of a fight, that much is to be expected....everyone hopes Bitcoin is the beginning of the end for the banks.

but what can they really do?

i expect a totally unexpected turn of events for bitcoin.

[Trader Steve]

how does a politician go about banning something that is good for 99.99% of the non-banker population?

Since when has a politician put the interests of the individual over the bankers and central planners?

when his re-election depends on it.

Surely you are being sarcastic because you cannot possibly be serious. The "new guy" is bought and paid for by the same people who controlled the "old guy".

Here's an entertaining article that further illustrates this:

Politics is a Scam - Why I Will Never Vote Again - by James Altucher
http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/06/politics-is-a-scam-why-i-will-never-vote-again/

[J180]

how does a politician go about banning something that is good for 99.99% of the non-banker population?

Since when has a politician put the interests of the individual over the bankers and central planners?

when his re-election depends on it.

Surely you are being sarcastic because you cannot possibly be serious. The "new guy" is bought and paid for by the same people who controlled the "old guy".

Here's an entertaining article that further illustrates this:

Politics is a Scam - Why I Will Never Vote Again - by James Altucher
http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/06/politics-is-a-scam-why-i-will-never-vote-again/

There's a lot of people who think politicians have an incentive to win elections. A lot more who think they try to serve both (attracting votes while appealing to concentrated interests at the same time). So there isn't a need to be 'sure' he's being 'sarcastic'. It even sounds rude to assume that.

[done]

Expect Anthony Freeman to be clueless for life 

[Trader Steve]

Expect Anthony Freeman to be clueless for life 

Did you read the article (and his previous articles)? He is merely pointing out how bitcoin is likely to succeed despite opposition from central planners. He is friend to bitcoin and individual freedom - not an enemy.

[lettucebee]

Interesting article:

Expect bitcoin to be "banned" - expect the ban to be ignored
by Anthony Freeman
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/expect-bitcoin-to-be-%E2%80%9Cbanned%E2%80%9D-expect-the-ban-to-be-ignored/

Man, by nature, wants to be free. He wants to choose how he lives his life. He wants to choose with whom he will associate. He wants to choose with whom he will trade. He wants to choose how his money is spent.

I don't know, man. There were a lot of boot-lickers in the newbie colony criticizing me for complaining about the process of chaining up new people to this forum until they clap their hands like good little seals. You will find a large proportion of people who will gladly give up their freedom for a little bit of "order".  It may well be that these kind of people are not the ones who produce new ideas, though.

[Trader Steve]

There's a lot of people who think politicians have an incentive to win elections. A lot more who think they try to serve both (attracting votes while appealing to concentrated interests at the same time). So there isn't a need to be 'sure' he's being 'sarcastic'. It even sounds rude to assume that.

I was the one being sarcastic. I'm still surprised at how many people still believe in the political process and the "pagan faith" in the State. I don't mean offense - I simply suggest that people take a hard look at what the political process has produced.  I like Rose Lane Wilder's observation that people have a misplaced faith in "external authority". Robert LeFevre discussed this as well in his great essay "A Way To Be Free": http://centerforselfrule.org/a-way-to-be-free/

Okay, I'm done with my philosophizing. How do you protect yourself from those who wish to restrict your freedom of choice?

[Trader Steve]

@lettucebee:

I love your handle!

[GamblingPurveyor]

how does a politician go about banning something that is good for 99.99% of the non-banker population?

Since when has a politician put the interests of the individual over the bankers and central planners?

when his re-election depends on it.

Voters were vehemently opposed to the 2008 bailout. Politicians did it anyway. Voters' response (and their likely electoral response to a Bitcoin ban):

[Fuzzy]

With the world population reaching beyond 6 Billion, and bitcoins theoretical limit of 21 million coins, regardless of decimal places, the banning of Bitcoin by Governments and Central Banks will be most welcome.

It will spark the beginning of a decentralized currency which will be far more widespread, secure, and much more of a threat to central banks and government than Bitcoin could ever have been, as it will build upon the infrastructure that is currently being laid into place.

Or it could tank and the sheep will go back to their TVs with empty pockets.

[m0w3r]

Bitcoin needs to have a "critical mass" of people to make a self sustaining economy.  Since it is worldwide, it has a possibility to get enough people to get that "critical mass".

[lettucebee]

I don't understand why anyone thinks the wealthiest countries--that is, the ones with the world's most ruthless and cunning criminals in charge--banning bitcoin would be a good thing.  We also know--based on how anti-terrorism legislation after the U.S.-sponsored 9-11 event was coordinated across the western world--that banning of bitcoin would be similarly coordinated across western countries. It would be a massive blow. The price of bitcoin would plummet as all of the weak hands pissed their pants and fled. 

This would not be a good thing in the short run, at least. Longer term things might recover as bitcoin takes its place among the world's outlaws.

[Bobnova]

Why would the banks ban it when they are the ideal "Trusted Third Party" that could get around the 10 minute delay before confirmation?

If I were a bank looking at this, I'd get myself set up to act as a third party to allow instant transactions, and then charge 5-10% transaction fees for "instant" transactions.

[error]

Politicians need Bitcoin to continue stealing money from their citizens.