Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:06:30 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: No monopoly  (Read 2226 times)
flix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1208


indomitus


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2011, 10:42:43 AM
 #1

It's a video about gold, but the lesson applies just as well to bitcoin:

Gold: Independent Money
http://youtu.be/RvL_Dm2d99A

3:07-3:20

Quote
The ability to issue money is too much power for governments, banks, anybody... The best way to stop the abuse of power is to spread it as thinly and widely as possible

http://twitter.com/flix1       [1FLiXK8Xh8AmCpX5izyqUyPeuTUesooYkS]
1481213190
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213190

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213190
Reply with quote  #2

1481213190
Report to moderator
1481213190
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213190

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213190
Reply with quote  #2

1481213190
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481213190
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213190

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213190
Reply with quote  #2

1481213190
Report to moderator
1481213190
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213190

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213190
Reply with quote  #2

1481213190
Report to moderator
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
July 29, 2011, 02:27:17 PM
 #2

The best way to stop the abuse of power is to give everyone a gun.

It's a video about gold, but the lesson applies just as well to bitcoin:

Gold: Independent Money
http://youtu.be/RvL_Dm2d99A

3:07-3:20

Quote
The ability to issue money is too much power for governments, banks, anybody... The best way to stop the abuse of power is to spread it as thinly and widely as possible
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
July 29, 2011, 02:34:56 PM
 #3

The best way to stop the abuse of power is to give everyone a gun.

It's a video about gold, but the lesson applies just as well to bitcoin:

Gold: Independent Money
http://youtu.be/RvL_Dm2d99A

3:07-3:20

Quote
The ability to issue money is too much power for governments, banks, anybody... The best way to stop the abuse of power is to spread it as thinly and widely as possible

You would be surprised. In my country pretty much anyone can get a gun (it's one of our highest laws) but most of them tolerate rampant abuse of power on a local, state, and federal level. Guns don't help if the people who own them are disorganized, poor, and brainwashed.
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
July 29, 2011, 04:28:45 PM
 #4

Brainwashed would be the most harmful one in that list.  Even poor and disorganized populous that has guns can affect change.

What country is it you live in?
GideonGono
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 398


Long Live The FED


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2011, 07:11:33 PM
 #5

Brainwashed would be the most harmful one in that list.  Even poor and disorganized populous that has guns can affect change.


Very true. In some cases it's irreversible. Most of the people who are now dependent on the welfare state are probably gone forever.

TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
July 29, 2011, 08:59:33 PM
 #6

Most of the country is dependent on some kind of Government handout to one degree or another(food stamps, wefare, unemployment, subsidies, contracts ect.).
onesalt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


View Profile
July 29, 2011, 11:57:34 PM
 #7

Most of the country is dependent on some kind of Government handout to one degree or another(food stamps, wefare, unemployment, subsidies, contracts ect.).

It would help if the rich hadn't been screwing everyone over for about 20 years now.
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 12:29:11 AM
 #8

Don't you mean 20 Centuries?
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
July 30, 2011, 12:36:38 AM
 #9

Brainwashed would be the most harmful one in that list.  Even poor and disorganized populous that has guns can affect change.

What country is it you live in?

United States of America. The second amendment of our constitution guarantees the right to "bear arms" (own guns).
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
July 30, 2011, 12:47:03 AM
 #10

Lol sorry you had me bamboozled since they are making it harder and harder, and intimidating people who try to get guns nowadays. 

Anyone remember the phrase No Fly, No Buy?  Brought to you by the Soetaro Administration.  The same administration caught gun running into Mexico and Honduras recently under the guise of the ATF, who ironically enough is harassing good Americans who wish to legally own firearms.

Shame.
GideonGono
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 398


Long Live The FED


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2011, 03:16:26 PM
 #11

It would help if the rich hadn't been screwing everyone over for about 20 years now.

It would help if the poor and middle class weren't so stupid as to think rich people are evil when they are in business but benevolent when they are in govt office.

The whole notion of "Tax the rich" is based on a fallacy. First, one must ask, who are the rich? The rich are the ones who in most all societies hold political power.  Having political power and connections is the easiest way to get and stay rich.

In the USA for example just look at the net worth of senior members of govt who make all the rules:

Barack H. Osama - Net worth $10.5m source

Nancy Pelosi - Net worth $35.2m Source

Harry Reid - Net worth estimated between $3.1 - $6.7 million source

I can go on and on...

After decades of "socially progressive" policies all other the developed world we still see an increasing gap between rich and poor.

I wonder, are people really that stupid to believe this shit? Or is this some kind of sick joke and I'm in the twilight zone?

What will it take for you lefties to realize the plan ain't working?


Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
August 01, 2011, 08:29:51 PM
 #12

I'm a "lefty", and appreciate the US government being used to prove me wrong just as much as the anarchists appreciate similar proof with Somalia. Not all leftists are the corporate schills you see in government. Much like you guys, my dreams have yet to come to fruition.

The republic, any republic, will inevitably degenerate into a government for sale. It's simply cheaper to bribe/threaten one man than an entire voting population. If there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy. The word "statist" conveniently wraps non-anarchists up into a neat little package, but most people I would actually consider leftist support the current administration as little as you do.

The monster is formidable enough without us bickering and portraying each other as strawmen.
GideonGono
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 398


Long Live The FED


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2011, 11:12:13 PM
 #13

I'm a "lefty", and appreciate the US government being used to prove me wrong just as much as the anarchists appreciate similar proof with Somalia. Not all leftists are the corporate schills you see in government. Much like you guys, my dreams have yet to come to fruition.

The republic, any republic, will inevitably degenerate into a government for sale. It's simply cheaper to bribe/threaten one man than an entire voting population. If there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy. The word "statist" conveniently wraps non-anarchists up into a neat little package, but most people I would actually consider leftist support the current administration as little as you do.

The monster is formidable enough without us bickering and portraying each other as strawmen.

Fair point. But if "there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy," then how is govt control of anything a good thing? Wouldn't total decentralization be the only practical way to have a just society? This reality supports 100% anarchy IMO. No?

Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
August 02, 2011, 12:48:59 AM
 #14

I'm a "lefty", and appreciate the US government being used to prove me wrong just as much as the anarchists appreciate similar proof with Somalia. Not all leftists are the corporate schills you see in government. Much like you guys, my dreams have yet to come to fruition.

The republic, any republic, will inevitably degenerate into a government for sale. It's simply cheaper to bribe/threaten one man than an entire voting population. If there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy. The word "statist" conveniently wraps non-anarchists up into a neat little package, but most people I would actually consider leftist support the current administration as little as you do.

The monster is formidable enough without us bickering and portraying each other as strawmen.

Fair point. But if "there are positions with more power than an average citizen, they will be filled by the wealthy," then how is govt control of anything a good thing? Wouldn't total decentralization be the only practical way to have a just society? This reality supports 100% anarchy IMO. No?

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 02, 2011, 03:50:17 AM
 #15

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 03:14:37 PM
 #16

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.
Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 08, 2011, 07:39:04 PM
 #17

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.
Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

Can you show me instances where it does not?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
August 08, 2011, 08:13:07 PM
 #18

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.
Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

Can you show me instances where it does not?

Corporations have some degree of centralization, usually with a CEO on top. If complete decentralization was always better, then corporations would not exist; everyone would work for themselves.
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 09, 2011, 10:16:02 AM
 #19

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.

Yes, and if a little salt each day is good for you then a few kilos a day is better. Right?

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
August 09, 2011, 01:43:52 PM
 #20

I somewhat agree. I prefer decentralization and certainly don't see a need for states as large as they are. Rather than traditional elected representatives, I support direct democracy, albeit limited by a constitution and only to provide the utility function for a futarchy. I don't think any single person should be "in charge".

Way I look at it, if a little decentralization is good, then complete is best.
Interesting.  So does that mean that you believe in any case where some system having an element which can be decentralized for some particular benefit then further decentralization of that element will always result in a more optimal case for that benefit?

Can you show me instances where it does not?
Is that an implied yes? (I kind of expect you to bow out now...but let see what happens)

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!