Bitcoin is not politically-neutral.

[Anonymous]

The Freedom of one ideology is enslavement to another

Yes because preventing another from committing harm, theft and murder against another is slavery.

[swusc2]

The Freedom of one ideology is enslavement to another

Yes because preventing another from committing harm, theft and murder against another is slavery.

So your saying the argument is circular. Therefore there is no answer and therefore there is no point in asking this question in the first point.

If it doesn't meet your idealistic view point. You can always be like Bobby Fischer and move to Iceland complain and go crazy.

[bitplane]

Yes because preventing another from committing harm, theft and murder against another is slavery.

That's an incredibly childish response to what ought to be a thought-provoking point.

Before you continue, can you define harm, theft and murder?

[Anonymous]

That is moronically simplistic. If you want to talk in soundbites, it may work. If you want to look at a real political ideology valid in a society filled with real people, many of whom are non-rational, then you need to be willing to expand your horizons.

You continually state you view taxation as harm and charity as a means of support. My question for you is what would you do if your worldview came to pass, and charity failed meaning people were dying in the streets, what then would you do? Do you allow the deaths of innocents in the name of economic freedom?

Which freedom is more valuable? Life or economic? I promise you that every example in human history has shown the two to be mutually exclusive.

Again, I respect your ideological purity. We all hold the world to an impossible ideological standard, but most people know that once you leave the realm of theory and enter the realm of humanity, where rationality goes out the window and emotions come into play, that things must change at some level, even if you still hold your intellectually pure values to be the highest standard.

[enmaku]

Tools are, in fact, neutral.

Bullets were created to kill people, no one can argue that point, but there are also a number of tools invented after the fact that fire with black powder, including nailguns that use 22-caliber rimfire rounds to build and create instead of destroy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder-actuated_tool)

This is just one example - history is full of technologies that were created with one purpose and used for another, and it goes both ways; much of what we appreciate in times of peace is the result of war and much of what we use to kill each other in wars was created in peacetime. A hammer can kill as easily as build and even that all-too-common scapegoat the firearm has a completely different effect when wielded in offense than in defense. Knives can cut rope or throats, a ski mask can warm your face or hide it from a camera and a crowbar can open a crate or open the door for a thief - tools are neutral, it is we thinking moral beings who wield the tools that decide the morality and ethical nature of the actions - the tools are just along for the ride.

[billyjoeallen]

Yes because preventing another from committing harm, theft and murder against another is slavery.

That's an incredibly childish response to what ought to be a thought-provoking point.

Before you continue, can you define harm, theft and murder?

Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose. Am I enslaving you by preventing you from punching me in the face?  Atlas is making a perfectly valid point.   

[Anonymous]

Yes because preventing another from committing harm, theft and murder against another is slavery.

That's an incredibly childish response to what ought to be a thought-provoking point.

Before you continue, can you define harm, theft and murder?

Denying a man the right to his own life in terms of physical restriction, harm whether it be a threat or actual action. I do not compromise when it comes to this.

[Anonymous]

That is moronically simplistic. If you want to talk in soundbites, it may work. If you want to look at a real political ideology valid in a society filled with real people, many of whom are non-rational, then you need to be willing to expand your horizons.

You continually state you view taxation as harm and charity as a means of support. My question for you is what would you do if your worldview came to pass, and charity failed meaning people were dying in the streets, what then would you do? Do you allow the deaths of innocents in the name of economic freedom?

Which freedom is more valuable? Life or economic? I promise you that every example in human history has shown the two to be mutually exclusive.

Again, I respect your ideological purity. We all hold the world to an impossible ideological standard, but most people know that once you leave the realm of theory and enter the realm of humanity, where rationality goes out the window and emotions come into play, that things must change at some level, even if you still hold your intellectually pure values to be the highest standard.

The only freedom that is to be respected is a sentient organism's ability to sustain. Life shall sustain without hindrance nor according to the whims of another. Neither misfortune nor ill shall entitle a man to another.

[bitplane]

Denying a man the right to his own life in terms of physical restriction, harm whether it be a threat or actual action. I do not compromise when it comes to this.

You didn't define any of those three terms. It was supposed to be a little wordplay exercise for you.

[Anonymous]

Atlas, what is the ultimate responsibility of a government with regards to it's citizens?

[Anonymous]

Atlas, what is the ultimate responsibility of a government with regards to it's citizens?

Nothing. No government, no entity nor any individual has the wisdom nor the virtues to govern me or any other man.

[Anonymous]

So you beleve your life and liberty would be guaranteed by... What, exactly? You're talking bout a state of nature, which while interesting as a thought experiment in political theory has no basis in realty.

So again, accepting that we live in this universe, what should the role of a government be with regards to it's citizens?

[Anonymous]

So you beleve your life and liberty would be guaranteed by... What, exactly? You're talking bout a state of nature, which while interesting as a thought experiment in political theory has no basis in realty.

So again, accepting that we live in this universe, what should the role of a government be with regards to it's citizens?

I believe life and liberty should be guaranteed by the desires of the people. If we desire protection, we can achieve it by our own virtues through exchange or protect ourselves directly. We do not need to be stolen from to be protected. That's an odious debt. Do not denounce this as mere thought. Do not call things impossible with no ground to rule it as such.

If we must be enslaved, our slavers should only guarantee individual protection from aggression at absolute minimum.

[Anonymous]

Answer the question without resorting to insane hyperbole and overly verbose Randian musings, please. We get it, you like big words. Mimicking an author's style with every post you make gives a much different impression than you want it to.

Define aggression, define protection, and define slavery. Stop phrasing everything in broad sweeping terms in some ignoble effort to sound like you have received some form of education beyond grade 12.

[MountainMan]

Ok, so if you're anarcho-capitalist, then why are you espousing collectivism (e.g. "the people" and so forth.) That implies a level of collaboration and cooperation, and when that happens regularly, it's called "government."

People are stupid. People are evil. People need boundaries, or revert to "the strongest survive." I fail to see how you are supposed to account for that outside of the framework of some sort of government, whether it's violently imposed or thoughtfully and mutually agreed upon.

[Anonymous]

Answer the question without resorting to insane hyperbole and overly verbose Randian musings, please. We get it, you like big words. Mimicking an author's style with every post you make gives a much different impression than you want it to.

Define aggression, define protection, and define slavery. Stop phrasing everything in broad sweeping terms in some ignoble effort to sound like you have received some form of education beyond grade 12.

Hit the ball where it lies.

Anyways, aggression is utilizing force by threat or otherwise to mend people to your will. Protection under my definition should protect against that. Slavery is when you do not have the unilateral right to yourself, labor and property.

[julz]

Bitcoin is freedom. Freedom is not a common nor neutral goal for most people.

At some level - it really is a common goal. The difference is that many if not most people think they already have a decent measure of freedom as balanced against other concerns. They may be horribly wrong..  but pushing in-your-face ideals isn't always going to point them in the right direction - giving them the right tools (e.g encryption,smartphones,uncensored networks,bitcoin) will help lead them there.

I do not believe any negative reactions will affect things in the long-term.

They absolutely could. Self interested politicians (a tautology?) will pick up on and amplify any fear and distrust to their advantage.
If you want to rely on the fact that bitcoin *geeks* could no doubt keep bitcoin going for their own niche purposes even under sustained political attack - you're ignoring the larger userbase that will not participate if governments make it inconvenient.
If bitcoin had a certain critical mass and popular appeal, even this may be impossible for the politicians to stop, but until then, your approach endangers the long-term success of bitcoin.

Know your audience and have some tact, otherwise you're doing both Bitcoin and your ideology a disservice.

^THIS... totally this.

Look at the famous bitcoin video which shows the two people throwing a coin to each other and bypassing the bank.
That is about as political as you need to get with bitcoin.
Even people who generally don't see too much wrong with how things are will have a bit of a smile at that.

They threw in the part about accounts not being able to be frozen - which might worry many people if they actually thought about it.
It's fine to reveal natural effects such as this that bitcoin has..  and these things will no doubt be discussed in the media
However, it's better discussed in a thoughtful balanced manner e.g "gaddaffi/wikipedia bypassing government account restrictions - 2 sides of the bitcoin"
vs.. "hahaha.. the government can't screw with us now!"

[Anonymous]

Ok, so if you're anarcho-capitalist, then why are you espousing collectivism (e.g. "the people" and so forth.) That implies a level of collaboration and cooperation, and when that happens regularly, it's called "government."

People are stupid. People are evil. People need boundaries, or revert to "the strongest survive." I fail to see how you are supposed to account for that outside of the framework of some sort of government, whether it's violently imposed or thoughtfully and mutually agreed upon.

I believe people are weak and beaten but they are not stupid.

In addition, there's a difference between voluntary collaboration and slavery. I never advocated absolute individualism. People should have the right to associate freely; however, ironically government even limits that.

Strength and Might is usually correct when its not limited to the elite few. That's another premise of mine.

[digigalt]

Strength and Might is usually correct when its not limited to the elite few. That's another premise of mine.

What is protection? Who is entitled to protection? How do they get it?

[Littleshop]

Bitcoin is a tool. It is politically-neutral since it is incapable of holding political views. People on the other hand are not politically-neutral.

+1