No monopoly

[flix]

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

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

[1715020929]

1715020929

[1715020929]

1715020929

[1715020929]

1715020929

[1715020929]

1715020929

[TheGer]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Don't you mean 20 Centuries?

[Explodicle]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jgraham]

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?

[myrkul]

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?

[Explodicle]

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]

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?

[jgraham]

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)