The Duality of Bitcoin

[herzmeister]

I find it interesting that there is an inherent duality within the Bitcoin concept.

On the one hand, Bitcoin seems to appeal to hardcore libertarians because of its decentralized nature. Let's do away with the state and any centralized control because it's only in the way of the free market.

On the other hand, Bitcoin is open source software and community-driven, and we all know that open source is communism.  Also learning from the discussions going on, Resource Based Economy advocates surely do embrace a global collaborative approach in further developing technology.

So are there any Zen Buddhists around that can further elaborate on this duality and what it means for the future of Bitcoin? 

PS: I believe we need a Philosophy subforum. 

[1714827231]

1714827231

[1714827231]

1714827231

[1714827231]

1714827231

[1714827231]

1714827231

[amincd]

There is nothing in libertarianism that is opposed to open source software. Wikipedia was inspired by libertarian thought for example:

http://reason.com/archives/2007/05/30/wikipedia-and-beyond

Libertarianism is the ideology that followers of communism have been searching for, but don't realize it because of misinformation they've gotten about what it stands for.

[kiba]

Libertarians are more llke free love hippies when it come to open source, communal development, and copyright.  

Ok, ignore what I just say in the last sentence.

Libertarianism isn't opposed to open source or anything like that. We like voluntarism very much.

[Synaptic]

Actually "Libertarianism" is a wide gamut of mixed beliefs of varying emphasis.

There is no solid definition of what a Libertarian IS, other than some vague overall umbrella of "personal freedoms."

[TKE406]

PS: I believe we need a Philosophy subforum. 

+1



But yes I agree. It seems Bitcoin seems to appeal to two fringe groups with one sub-group: libertarians, computer geeks (subsection: computer geeks who like drugs)
Given the world that we live in, we have to get the ENTREPRENEURS to understand the value of Bitcoin. We can't just tell them what it is, chances are they won't understand 95% of it. Unless they are entrepreneurs who specialize in computer/internet related business.

First we have to explain the WHY. Why is Bitcoin good for society, business, culture, etc. As much as I hate to say this, you can't start off that conversation with "Because it is an alternative to the corrupt FED-printed fiat currency we use today! They are robbing you through inflation, taxation, etc!" Be more subtle, try to relate more to the middle of the spectrum.


Second we explain the HOW. How does Bitcoin help business? Because, essentially, money exists for three purposes: Medium of exchange, storage of value, and a common unit of accounting for value.
Bitcoin is good for business and society because it does away with the percentage fees that most credit cards and banking institutions impose. It is also useful because you will not need an entire department of bookkeepers just to stay on track of your money. You can't forge money, because the whole network is "aware" of transactions taking place. Theoretically, if someone were to calculate all the transactions to all the addresses since the inception of Bitcoin, they could tell you exactly how many Bitcoins have been sent and received to each address, and with this knowledge they can guess how much BTC each address is holding right this moment (of course this is a monumental task better left to a machine).

Third why explain the WHAT. What does this mean for me, my business, my country, etc. From the entrepreneurial point of view, this is where you tell them you can send money oversees without having to exchange currencies at a hefty fee. Tell them about the credit cards skimming 5% off of each transaction. If they are interested, this is where you rant on about your libertarian, cryptoanarchistic tendencies (DO NOT mention this in the WHY). Only mention it in the WHAT and ONLY IF your audience will take it kindly.

[myhoho]

PS: I believe we need a Philosophy subforum. 

+2

 So, it's all about money itself as well.
 Everybody decides what is bitcoin for him/her individually ...

[herzmeister]

Libertarianism isn't opposed to open source or anything like that. We like voluntarism very much.

Oh yes I also like it very much when people volunteer to mow my lawn and clean my dishes.  

I'll look a bit more into the matter, thanks for the links, but for now, getting people to volunteer in a free market economy to me tastes a bit like taking advantage of noobs or idealists.

[bitplane]

Libertarianism isn't opposed to open source or anything like that. We like voluntarism very much.

Oh yes I also like it very much when people volunteer to mow my lawn and clean my dishes.  

I'll look a bit more into the matter, thanks for the links, but for now, getting people to volunteer in a free market economy to me tastes a bit like taking advantage of noobs or idealists.

Well I'd say that for people in the free software world, the act of programming and sharing that work has a positive value in itself. It is self-educating, allows people to prove their skills and others to judge their worth as hackers, and working on a fun project is free entertainment. In fact, I actually pay to host my own website which I use to share my creations and thoughts with the Internet. Is this not a case of the free market finding the correct price for fun and exciting projects?

If you had a dishwasher and lawnmower which was sufficiently exciting, interesting and entertaining then I'm sure you'd find an endless stream of volunteers to mow your lawn and clean your dishes.

[evoorhees]

I find it interesting that there is an inherent duality within the Bitcoin concept.

Open-source, community-driven initiatives are absolutely not at odds with libertarian principles. So long as nobody is forced to participate or fund something, it's 100% kosher liberty.

Free markets don't only result in rigid corporate profit-seeking behemoths... community projects, co-ops, and even *gasp* charities function well in an environment of freedom.

[Synaptic]

I find it interesting that there is an inherent duality within the Bitcoin concept.

Open-source, community-driven initiatives are absolutely not at odds with libertarian principles. So long as nobody is forced to participate or fund something, it's 100% kosher liberty.

Free markets don't only result in rigid corporate profit-seeking behemoths... community projects, co-ops, and even *gasp* charities function well in an environment of freedom.

What about consensual sex with under-aged participants?

[evoorhees]

I find it interesting that there is an inherent duality within the Bitcoin concept.

Open-source, community-driven initiatives are absolutely not at odds with libertarian principles. So long as nobody is forced to participate or fund something, it's 100% kosher liberty.

Free markets don't only result in rigid corporate profit-seeking behemoths... community projects, co-ops, and even *gasp* charities function well in an environment of freedom.

What about consensual sex with under-aged participants?

The more important question is, who has the right to decide at what age another individual gets to make decisions for themselves? I think it's a matter correctly left to the parents of said person. There is no "magical age" at which someone becomes an adult - that's absurd. As is our current system in which politicians decide when their subjects are old enough for sexual activity.

[Synaptic]

I find it interesting that there is an inherent duality within the Bitcoin concept.

Open-source, community-driven initiatives are absolutely not at odds with libertarian principles. So long as nobody is forced to participate or fund something, it's 100% kosher liberty.

Free markets don't only result in rigid corporate profit-seeking behemoths... community projects, co-ops, and even *gasp* charities function well in an environment of freedom.

What about consensual sex with under-aged participants?

The more important question is, who has the right to decide at what age another individual gets to make decisions for themselves? I think it's a matter correctly left to the parents of said person. There is no "magical age" at which someone becomes an adult - that's absurd. As is our current system in which politicians decide when their subjects are old enough for sexual activity.

Well what about parents like that mother who posted her 13 year old daughter's virginity for sale on craigslist with her consent?

[blumpkinpie76]

That analogy is off a bit; a parent deciding when a child can choose to engage in sexual activity on their own versus a parent forcing their child to commit acts of prostitution. If you are going to engage in a debate please at least brush up on critical thinking. 100 level college course.

[Synaptic]

That analogy is off a bit; a parent deciding when a child can choose to engage in sexual activity on their own versus a parent forcing their child to commit acts of prostitution. If you are going to engage in a debate please at least brush up on critical thinking. 100 level college course.

Maybe try a bit of fucking reading comprehension next time?

The 13 year old was in on it.

[blumpkinpie76]

That analogy is off a bit; a parent deciding when a child can choose to engage in sexual activity on their own versus a parent forcing their child to commit acts of prostitution. If you are going to engage in a debate please at least brush up on critical thinking. 100 level college course.

Maybe try a bit of fucking reading comprehension next time?

The 13 year old was in on it.

My bad and I sincerely apologize, I swear your post said "without her consent" and I had no previous knowledge of that incident. I guess I should read a bit slower.

[Synaptic]

That analogy is off a bit; a parent deciding when a child can choose to engage in sexual activity on their own versus a parent forcing their child to commit acts of prostitution. If you are going to engage in a debate please at least brush up on critical thinking. 100 level college course.

Maybe try a bit of fucking reading comprehension next time?

The 13 year old was in on it.

My bad and I sincerely apologize, I swear your post said "without her consent" and I had no previous knowledge of that incident. I guess I should read a bit slower.

Hey, no problem.

But it's a great little thought exercise for the die hard libertarians.

Maybe when Atlas wakes up from his nappy-poo he'll ambulate into this thread to enlighten us.

[evoorhees]

Well what about parents like that mother who posted her 13 year old daughter's virginity for sale on craigslist with her consent?

Two points:

1) There will always be crazy anecdotal cases like that. I don't think society should base its laws on the most outrageous common denominator. A man has the right to own a firearm even if another man acts foolish with his own.

2) If both the mother and the daughter decided to do this, and there's no evidence of fraud or deceit, then I really don't understand what the big deal is. Weird? Yes. Troublesome? Perhaps. But immoral? I don't see how it's immoral if there is no victim.

Just because something is "wierd" or bothers you personally, doesn't mean you have the right to prohibit it via legislation. If there is no victim, then the the law ought not interfere. You can claim the young girl is the victim, maybe, but if she disagrees with you then whom exactly are you helping by making her decision illegal and throwing her or her mother or the craigslist buyer in prison?

[Synaptic]

Well what about parents like that mother who posted her 13 year old daughter's virginity for sale on craigslist with her consent?

Two points:

1) There will always be crazy anecdotal cases like that. I don't think society should base its laws on the most outrageous common denominator. A man has the right to own a firearm even if another man acts foolish with his own.

2) If both the mother and the daughter decided to do this, and there's no evidence of fraud or deceit, then I really don't understand what the big deal is. Weird? Yes. Troublesome? Perhaps. But immoral? I don't see how it's immoral if there is no victim.

Just because something is "wierd" or bothers you personally, doesn't mean you have the right to prohibit it via legislation. If there is no victim, then the the law ought not interfere. You can claim the young girl is the victim, maybe, but if she disagrees with you then whom exactly are you helping by making her decision illegal and throwing her or her mother or the craigslist buyer in prison?

IDK...

Who investigates to discover if there's fraud or deceit?  Is there some sort of Official agency beholden to investigating whether child prostitution ads are legitimately fair or not in Libertarian Land?

[evoorhees]

IDK...

Who investigates to discover if there's fraud or deceit?  Is there some sort of Official agency beholden to investigating whether child prostitution ads are legitimately fair or not in Libertarian Land?

Nobody need investigate if there is no complaining party. Live and let live. If the young girl later changes her mind and decides she's been manipulated or harmed in some way, then perhaps the law should get involved. Until that point, it's really no business of anyone's.

And it's fine if you don't wish to live in "Libertarian Land," no libertarian would force you to. You're welcome to surrender 50% of your earnings and let others impose absurd restrictions on you if that makes you happy. The problem is that the non-libertarians don't afford the same courtesy, and force the libertarians to surrender to their tyranny by "voting" for such.

[Olomana]

Well what about parents like that mother who posted her 13 year old daughter's virginity for sale on craigslist with her consent?

Libertarianism is a model, an over-simplification.  It assumes that one can tell the difference between a competent, consenting adult and someone who is not a competent, consenting adult.  In the real world, there is no such abrupt transition.  This means, for example, that there can be no coherent libertarian theory of children's rights.  This doesn't mean that libertarianism is useless; it's still a good model for voluntary transactions between competent adults.  It just means that if you try to apply libertarianism outside its natural domain, the model breaks down.