Bitcoin's immunity to government action

[error]

I think of it as putting out the fire that has spread to the living room, removing the old fireplace, and putting in a newer safer more effecient one.

I've got abetter idea: let's not use a fire: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Agreed. After all, it's "a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

[1713920420]

1713920420

[kiba]

I think of it as putting out the fire that has spread to the living room, removing the old fireplace, and putting in a newer safer more effecient one.

You didn't explain why we need the government.

[Anonymous]

I invite the bitcoin community to assist in the creation of a new government
bitcoin is of course the currency of this new government.
My ideals go along with most of this community.
this new government is ment for everyone and so all may not agree, but it is a work in progress. it is a wiki so it is able to adapt and change quicker than any other current government.

http://opticbit.com/phpwiki

Why, after noticing that the bed is on fire, should we stamp it out, only to start one in the sink?

I think of it as putting out the fire that has spread to the living room, removing the old fireplace, and putting in a newer safer more effecient one.

How about we fire the government ?

Bitcoin is like a fire blanket .

[opticbit]

I think of it as putting out the fire that has spread to the living room, removing the old fireplace, and putting in a newer safer more effecient one.

You didn't explain why we need the government.

I'm not sure I can explain why we need government.

As i see it there are two major categories of useful things a government does, That makes a government useful, Generally Agreed on Acceptable Behavior, and Public Service type programs.  There may be other I can't think of or don't know of.

Maybe a government is not what I'm looking to create, but a way to and inform others of what rules people wish to live by, and have protect.  If the whole can agree by two differing rules,  they can be accepted as Option 1, and 2  One group may select option 1, while another selects option 2.  Additional options can be created as needed.  If a certain group would like to live a certain way that other groups may not want to live, but no one sees any harm in it than it is allowable.

Governments have some useful programs, other programs are a waste.  I would like to see the useful ones optimized to do its best, and the wasteful ones either ended or fixed.  I can't think of any government programs that everyone would agree is useful,  But I would rather see a properly formed government maintaining certain things, rather than private individuals, or companies who only care about the immediate  profit, and not long term. 

If the best way really is to have no government than that is how it should be, but as it is today I don't think it is likely.  I have a dream of document that everyone can say, it is has what they want. it would give a possibility for both sides to compromise and get what they want, instead of nothing, or something in the middle, I know contradicts itself but there are various options to select.  I would like to see a document set up that the people can agree on, then take to the government and say these are the rule we will live by, adopt it, or be ignored.  We will live by it either way.

Individuals should not fear Government, Government should fear Individuals.  What do you do when the Government no loger fears an individual?  What does the Government fear?  Government does not fear individuals, it fears groups of people who join together to form a ____.

I thought more people would agree with me, maybe I haven't expressed my thoughts well enough.  My thoughts on this are difficult to explain,  as there are many complex parts, much like bitcoin, and I don't really have a complete vision since it requires everyones thoughts. Maybe I should check with a different group of openminded people.  I have made some changes based on your criticisms.  So far no one seems to like the idea.  The Base of the Idea is to have a Government formed in wiki with a few of the base thoughts I have seeded, but they are only there as a seed to give ideas, to get others to change as they see fit.  If you don't like the ideas change them to what you think is better.  I have set up a captcha and unlocked from new/anon.

[MoonShadow]

I think of it as putting out the fire that has spread to the living room, removing the old fireplace, and putting in a newer safer more effecient one.

You didn't explain why we need the government.

I'm not sure I can explain why we need government.

As i see it there are two major categories of useful things a government does, That makes a government useful, Generally Agreed on Acceptable Behavior, and Public Service type programs.  There may be other I can't think of or don't know of.

Maybe a government is not what I'm looking to create, but a way to and inform others of what rules people wish to live by, and have protect.  If the whole can agree by two differing rules,  they can be accepted as Option 1, and 2  One group may select option 1, while another selects option 2.  Additional options can be created as needed.  If a certain group would like to live a certain way that other groups may not want to live, but no one sees any harm in it than it is allowable.

Search for a description of a 'phyle', and let us know if this is close to what you are imagining.

[error]

Search for a description of a 'phyle', and let us know if this is close to what you are imagining.

I presume you mean the Neal Stephenson definition, and not the Wikipedia definition. The former will take much more research.

[myrkul]

Diamond Age, is the book you'll find that in... Essentially, voluntary social orders which you chose to join at majority.

Those aren't governments though.

[opticbit]

Search for a description of a 'phyle', and let us know if this is close to what you are imagining.

I presume you mean the Neal Stephenson definition, and not the Wikipedia definition. The former will take much more research.

the wikipedia version seems to be of about geographic division, this is a small part of what I'm thinking, but only because people who live in proximity are likely to agree on similar things since they were brought up that way.  and is a good way to organize down to the individual if needed.  

Neal Stephenson version,- The Diamond Age, I have skimmed over the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age  and read the phyle section in full along with other portions.  Looks like the book could be a good read...  This seems to be more on track of what I'm thinking.  It does not complete my thoughts though.

Part of the thought is to create a system from scratch using the good parts of various systems in place, and other ideas that are good but may not be in place yet.  This system can adapt more quickly with out as much mess, and can be more open to the public on what is going on.  

A method of secure anonymous voting would need to be implemented along with many other.  I have only thought about this in my spare time, and never really wrote anything down until now.  Got tired of doing nothing about it.  And was somewhat inspired by recent events in Egypt, and certain (non childish- first aid, dial up access...) efforts of Anonymous.

[myrkul]

You seem to be intent on recreating old mistakes... Voting? Limits on Business? Sounds more liberal than libertarian. I can explain to you, point for point, why government is not needed, as can probably each of the other people who responded to you so far...

Can you explain why we need someone to tell us what to do?

[opticbit]

You seem to be intent on recreating old mistakes... Voting? Limits on Business? Sounds more liberal than libertarian. I can explain to you, point for point, why government is not needed, as can probably each of the other people who responded to you so far...

Can you explain why we need someone to tell us what to do?

if not government then what?  I guess I need some things need explained.

Maybe i should say its more about what people will do and not making them do anything

voting is only a suggestion, some other system is welcome

MOST people do not need to be told what to do.

what do you do for those who do need to be told?

If my view is that the only exception to having the right to do what you want is if it prohibits others from doing what they want, and in that case it is just to take away that person's ability to continually prevent someone's freedom.

[myrkul]

You seem to be intent on recreating old mistakes... Voting? Limits on Business? Sounds more liberal than libertarian. I can explain to you, point for point, why government is not needed, as can probably each of the other people who responded to you so far...

Can you explain why we need someone to tell us what to do?

if not government then what?  I guess I need some things need explained.

Maybe this will help? http://www.jonathangullible.com/PoL/philosophy_of_liberty.swf

Also, you might check out the wikipedia article I first linked to about anarcho-capitalism.

[opticbit]

Maybe this will help? http://www.jonathangullible.com/PoL/philosophy_of_liberty.swf

Also, you might check out the wikipedia article I first linked to about anarcho-capitalism.

i've seen that animation or something similar a while a go.

anarcho-capitalism looks like something good to incorporate into the system I am suggesting.

my knowledge of legal systems is very limited and basic.   I have a lot of research to do, so that i can organise and explain my thoughts better before asking more knowledgeable people to assist in drafting something like this.

[myrkul]

anarcho-capitalism looks like something good to incorporate into the system I am suggesting.

Anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with a government. They are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Free market anarchism based on the non aggression principle is the best thing we could hope for.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism

[myrkul]

Free market anarchism based on the non aggression principle is the best thing we could hope for.

And we already have a roadmap to get there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

[matonis]

Maybe this will help? http://www.jonathangullible.com/PoL/philosophy_of_liberty.swf

Also, you might check out the wikipedia article I first linked to about anarcho-capitalism.

You might also see....  The Tiny Dot  http://youtu.be/H6b70TUbdfs

[matonis]

Or just keep it as it is, BitCoin - the stateless currency.

Yes, bitcoin as the stateless currency.  We should however focus more time on implementing decentralized p2p exchanges and also address the vulnerabilities of IRC in light of an attack.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Or just keep it as it is, BitCoin - the stateless currency.

Yes, bitcoin as the stateless currency.  We should however focus more time on implementing decentralized p2p exchanges and also address the vulnerabilities of IRC in light of an attack.

What exactly do you have in mind for "decentralized p2p exchanges"? Are you able to clarify that interesting sounding concept with details as yet?

[AzelSpears]

It is possible in America to promote and pass competition in currency bills. This would in essence legalize Bitcoin. The popularity of US Congressman Ron Paul would make it very easy to create a political climate for currency competition if there were to be worsening price inflation.

[trentzb]

Personally I wouldn't want to see Bitcoin legalized in the US...that is just another word for regulated.