mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 03:42:18 PM |
|
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
Hawker (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 04:34:20 PM |
|
Interesting. He starts by saying social security is a ponzi scheme and that dollars are not really money. Sadly, I lost the urge to carry on past that part. If you read it all, I salute your indefatigability.
|
|
|
|
Impaler
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 06:15:07 PM |
|
Mint: If your arguing that hard money will be rejected by the people and can only be forcefully imposed by government that is indeed a more nuanced position then I had originally though you had. But I would still disagree.
I believe that individuals DO crave hard money, everyone knows that if they possess a harder form of money then everyone else they will be advantaged. It's like the classic prisoners-dilemma where you win by betraying your partner, hard money is when everyone is betraying everyone. This is why people (particularly 'libertarian' types who view other people only as means to their own ends) are attracted to things like BTC, their is a natural greedy response to acquire hard money like a 'sweet tooth' that makes us eat too much sugar, the systemic effects are terrible but most people do not think systemically so we end up stuck in a sub-optimal situation. Basically I see a logical bottom-up explanation for how we got here so I don't attribute it to a top-down cabal, I always turn to the conspiratorial theories LAST.
Their are certainly instances in history were central authority forces hard money onto the populous (usually by taking away soft-money) but we can see from the rabid BTC zealots that exist that the imposition of hard money will be meet with Cheers and Applause by large swaths of the masses. Thus is it not JUST a problem of government, and particularly now that so much inertia is built up behind it. Most people only know our current money system which is harder then it should be (BTC is hyper-hard by comparison). Given the existence of gold as an easily mined, easily traded commodity it is very easy to see how it became money all over the world, no central authority is necessary to do that. Most negative government action has been in the form of suppression of alternatives to hard money (or the softening of the money standard ) rather then to create the norm of hard money in the first place.
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 06:17:27 PM |
|
Interesting. He starts by saying social security is a ponzi scheme and that dollars are not really money. Do you disagree? Sadly, I lost the urge to carry on past that part. If you read it all, I salute your indefatigability.
If you're new to Austrian economics, it takes a bit to adjust to it. I've been reading his stuff for a while, and I think it's good stuff. I think what he's basically saying is Bitcoin has the capacity to become money, ie, something used by the common person as a medium to exchange goods. However, because it's currently viewed by many as an investment (buy now, sell later), sooner or later you run out of buyers. When that happens, it's going to crash, and a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money. That will cause a stigma to be associated with it, which will kill its ability to be used as money. My $.02: every fiat currency out there is doomed. It's just a matter of time. Bitcoin might survive solely because the banksters that think they run the world use fiat because it works well for them. When the world wakes up from its lethargy and decides to use real money, bitcoin might survive vs real money (gold/silver), but then again, it might not. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
Hawker (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 06:30:25 PM |
|
Interesting. He starts by saying social security is a ponzi scheme and that dollars are not really money. Do you disagree? Sadly, I lost the urge to carry on past that part. If you read it all, I salute your indefatigability.
If you're new to Austrian economics, it takes a bit to adjust to it. I've been reading his stuff for a while, and I think it's good stuff. I think what he's basically saying is Bitcoin has the capacity to become money, ie, something used by the common person as a medium to exchange goods. However, because it's currently viewed by many as an investment (buy now, sell later), sooner or later you run out of buyers. When that happens, it's going to crash, and a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money. That will cause a stigma to be associated with it, which will kill its ability to be used as money. My $.02: every fiat currency out there is doomed. It's just a matter of time. Bitcoin might survive solely because the banksters that think they run the world use fiat because it works well for them. When the world wakes up from its lethargy and decides to use real money, bitcoin might survive vs real money (gold/silver), but then again, it might not. M Have you read the article? He is very clear that Bitcoin cannot be a currency as currencies can't be planned. I'm familiar with the Austrian guff. Basically all growth since the invention of paper money is regarded as unnatural and all forms of economic management are regarded as intrinsically bad. It does nothing for me.
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 07:15:56 PM |
|
My $.02: every fiat currency out there is doomed. It's just a matter of time. Bitcoin might survive solely because the banksters that think they run the world use fiat because it works well for them. When the world wakes up from its lethargy and decides to use real money, bitcoin might survive vs real money (gold/silver), but then again, it might not.
Have you read the article? He is very clear that Bitcoin cannot be a currency as currencies can't be planned. I did. Where did I state he said otherwise? I gave my $.02 worth, which differs from his. I'm familiar with the Austrian guff. Basically all growth since the invention of paper money is regarded as unnatural and all forms of economic management are regarded as intrinsically bad. It does nothing for me.
And today's systems are working great, aren't they? M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
Hawker (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 07:21:09 PM |
|
My $.02: every fiat currency out there is doomed. It's just a matter of time. Bitcoin might survive solely because the banksters that think they run the world use fiat because it works well for them. When the world wakes up from its lethargy and decides to use real money, bitcoin might survive vs real money (gold/silver), but then again, it might not.
Have you read the article? He is very clear that Bitcoin cannot be a currency as currencies can't be planned. I did. Where did I state he said otherwise? I gave my $.02 worth, which differs from his. I'm familiar with the Austrian guff. Basically all growth since the invention of paper money is regarded as unnatural and all forms of economic management are regarded as intrinsically bad. It does nothing for me.
And today's systems are working great, aren't they? M "Here is the central fact of money. Money is the product of the market process. It arises out of an unplanned, decentralized process. This takes time. It takes a lot of time." Thats both the dollar and Bitcoin ruled out. Today's systems are working fine. You could argue that things might be a bit better but overall things are fine.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 07:26:26 PM Last edit: November 30, 2013, 07:50:23 PM by CoinCube |
|
Mint: If your arguing that hard money will be rejected by the people and can only be forcefully imposed by government that is indeed a more nuanced position then I had originally though you had. But I would still disagree.
I believe that individuals DO crave hard money, everyone knows that if they possess a harder form of money then everyone else they will be advantaged. It's like the classic prisoners-dilemma where you win by betraying your partner, hard money is when everyone is betraying everyone. This is why people (particularly 'libertarian' types who view other people only as means to their own ends) are attracted to things like BTC, their is a natural greedy response to acquire hard money like a 'sweet tooth' that makes us eat too much sugar, the systemic effects are terrible but most people do not think systemically so we end up stuck in a sub-optimal situation. Basically I see a logical bottom-up explanation for how we got here so I don't attribute it to a top-down cabal, I always turn to the conspiratorial theories LAST.
Their are certainly instances in history were central authority forces hard money onto the populous (usually by taking away soft-money) but we can see from the rabid BTC zealots that exist that the imposition of hard money will be meet with Cheers and Applause by large swaths of the masses. Thus is it not JUST a problem of government, and particularly now that so much inertia is built up behind it. Most people only know our current money system which is harder then it should be (BTC is hyper-hard by comparison). Given the existence of gold as an easily mined, easily traded commodity it is very easy to see how it became money all over the world, no central authority is necessary to do that. Most negative government action has been in the form of suppression of alternatives to hard money (or the softening of the money standard ) rather then to create the norm of hard money in the first place.
Impaler: My take is that you and mint are essentially arguing the same point. You are arguing that hard money accumulates into a few hands over time based on the natural tendency of individual actors acting in what they see as their own best interests and that no government is required for this process to occur. Mint is arguing that once this occurs to a sufficient degree (gross income inequality) people will demand redistribution via government or if government is not responsive via a new government a la French Revolution. He is arguing that redistribution via government naturally arises as a result of your hording individuals above. My question for you Mint is what makes you confident that starving governments via an anonymous coin would necessarily improve things. I agree with your underlying premise that we appear to be in a cycle of boom and bust based on finance/fractional banking/debt -> collectivism -> collapse -> gold standard -> restart cycle again. However at the end of each cycle so far knowledge has advanced and passive capital has declined compared to the same point in the cycle before it aka progress. Removing the governments ability to tax will create other problems such as the inability to regulate and prevent tragedy of the commons type situations that require collective action.
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 07:28:28 PM |
|
"Here is the central fact of money. Money is the product of the market process. It arises out of an unplanned, decentralized process. This takes time. It takes a lot of time."
Thats both the dollar and Bitcoin ruled out.
How is Bitcoin planned? It's virtually the antithesis of centralized planning, unless I'm missing something (always possible). Today's systems are working fine. You could argue that things might be a bit better but overall things are fine.
You and I clearly have a different definition of "fine". M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
Hawker (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 07:33:25 PM |
|
"Here is the central fact of money. Money is the product of the market process. It arises out of an unplanned, decentralized process. This takes time. It takes a lot of time."
Thats both the dollar and Bitcoin ruled out.
How is Bitcoin planned? It's virtually the antithesis of centralized planning, unless I'm missing something (always possible). Today's systems are working fine. You could argue that things might be a bit better but overall things are fine.
You and I clearly have a different definition of "fine". M It would probably be clearer if you glanced over the Satoshi papers. Bitcoin is very much a centrally planned project - its the execution that is decentralised. So the exact amount of Bitcoin is regulated, the difficulty is planned and the end date for mining is set in stone. In Western countries, the biggest killers of the very poor are diseases caused by too much food and diseases caused by too much leisure. You can argue that things might be better but in terms of economies doing the stuff I want, things are fine.
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 08:56:14 PM |
|
It would probably be clearer if you glanced over the Satoshi papers. Bitcoin is very much a centrally planned project - its the execution that is decentralised. So the exact amount of Bitcoin is regulated, the difficulty is planned and the end date for mining is set in stone.
Noted. Not sure I'd say that makes it centralized though. In Western countries, the biggest killers of the very poor are diseases caused by too much food and diseases caused by too much leisure. You can argue that things might be better but in terms of economies doing the stuff I want, things are fine.
Reminds me of the US RDA (recommended daily allowance). It's what's necessary to keep you alive, not healthy. That's not my definition of "fine". ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
Hawker (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 09:27:49 PM |
|
It would probably be clearer if you glanced over the Satoshi papers. Bitcoin is very much a centrally planned project - its the execution that is decentralised. So the exact amount of Bitcoin is regulated, the difficulty is planned and the end date for mining is set in stone.
Noted. Not sure I'd say that makes it centralized though. Its planned - and therefore in Austrian terms, its not money. Please don't debate semantics on an article that you recommended. If the planning part is not convincing enough for you, surely the " BITCOINS ARE NOT MONEY" in bold and in caps should do it. Your guy does not think Bitcoin is money. Given that he feels the same way about the dollar, its hardly a surprise! In Western countries, the biggest killers of the very poor are diseases caused by too much food and diseases caused by too much leisure. You can argue that things might be better but in terms of economies doing the stuff I want, things are fine.
Reminds me of the US RDA (recommended daily allowance). It's what's necessary to keep you alive, not healthy. That's not my definition of "fine". ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) M In response to the fact that in Western countries, the biggest killers of the very poor are diseases caused by too much food and diseases caused by too much leisure, you are wittering about some weird US thing that is fuck all to do with poor people being well fed and not needing to work. What do you propose? That we police people's diets and chase them with dogs for an hour a day? Would that be better?
|
|
|
|
selavy59
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 44
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 09:49:24 PM |
|
Bitcoin is either a new currency going through a difficult birth or it is the scam of the millenia. Personally I don't think Satoshi intentioned it to be a scam. He had solved the double spend problem and was interested to see how it would evolve. Now whilst Satoshi is a brilliant problem solver and programmer he just didn't take into account human nature. This flaw has turned a fledgling currency into a Frankenstein.
If, at the outset, Satoshi intentioned for all this to happen then he has pulled off a crime of Biblical scale. A new word will enter the English dictionary, and quite possibly many other dictionaries. In years to come we won't just be talking of Pyramid selling, multi-level marketing, boiler rooms and Ponzi's. A Satoshi scam will sit head and shoulders above all other scams. People will ask 'Were you one of the people who got 'Satoshid'?
But out of the bonfire of digital currencies will emerge a new digital currency, one that does take into account the flaws and weaknesses of human nature. It just won't be Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 10:21:07 PM |
|
Its planned - and therefore in Austrian terms, its not money. Please don't debate semantics on an article that you recommended.
I know I'm being nitpicky here, but while I agree that (in an Austrian Economic sense) Bitcoins are not money, the reason for that is not because it is a planned/designed currency. That would be because the currency unit itself has no alternative use outside of the context of being a currency. (the counter-argument about the use value of the settlement network notwithstanding) For example, the British Pound was once a planned currency unit, but the actual coins were minted from real gold or silver, so they were also a money. The definition of what "money" is might need adjustment to include a deliberately designed 'free market' currency system, but probably not. Most people don't really know what "money" really is, and don't care about the details. In Western countries, the biggest killers of the very poor are diseases caused by too much food and diseases caused by too much leisure. You can argue that things might be better but in terms of economies doing the stuff I want, things are fine.
I not sure who actually said this, but the part I highlighted is actually a myth. While it's true enough that a great many final causes of death can be traced back to poor personal habits, it's also true that everyone dies of something. The reality is that, in Western nations, the vast majority of people die from complications related to living much longer than a natural lifespan permits. People get fat because they eat too much, but many get fat because they are too old to practially exercise and have the means to enjoy too much food. Some people get heart problems because they smoke, most get heart problems because they have lived long enough. Simply put, if you live long enough, something is going to break; the fact that so many official causes for death are related to officially avoidable things does not change the fact that Americans live so much longer than we used to.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 10:28:21 PM |
|
This is a really sad article by Gary North. He claims that Bitcoins can never become a real unit of exchange, but never really offers a reason why not. The old austrians are proving to be very disappointing in the capacity to imagine change.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Hawker (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 10:29:51 PM |
|
Its planned - and therefore in Austrian terms, its not money. Please don't debate semantics on an article that you recommended.
I know I'm being nitpicky here, but while I agree that (in an Austrian Economic sense) Bitcoins are not money, the reason for that is not because it is a planned/designed currency. That would be because the currency unit itself has no alternative use outside of the context of being a currency. (the counter-argument about the use value of the settlement network notwithstanding) For example, the British Pound was once a planned currency unit, but the actual coins were minted from real gold or silver, so they were also a money. The definition of what "money" is might need adjustment to include a deliberately designed 'free market' currency system, but probably not. Most people don't really know what "money" really is, and don't care about the details. In Western countries, the biggest killers of the very poor are diseases caused by too much food and diseases caused by too much leisure. You can argue that things might be better but in terms of economies doing the stuff I want, things are fine.
I not sure who actually said this, but the part I highlighted is actually a myth. While it's true enough that a great many final causes of death can be traced back to poor personal habits, it's also true that everyone dies of something. The reality is that, in Western nations, the vast majority of people die from complications related to living much longer than a natural lifespan permits. People get fat because they eat too much, but many get fat because they are too old to practially exercise and have the means to enjoy too much food. Some people get heart problems because they smoke, most get heart problems because they have lived long enough. Simply put, if you live long enough, something is going to break; the fact that so many official causes for death are related to officially avoidable things does not change the fact that Americans live so much longer than we used to. So you make 1 post and you kill both my arguments ![Angry](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/angry.gif) No fair! I was pointing to the logic in the linked article. Personally I don't think Gary North made a fair representation of Austrian thinking but that's the article we were asked to read and discuss. Medically you are 100% correct. Fit people who eat well don't have any lifespan advantage over fat couch potatoes once you take tobacco out of the picture. While alive, they seem to have better quality of life in terms of less diabetes and the like but we all die at much the same age. I still think the fact that everyone in society has access to endless food and endless leisure means that things are "fine." Improvements possible but lets not go nuts and ignore just how good modern life really is.
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 10:41:04 PM |
|
I was pointing to the logic in the linked article. Personally I don't think Gary North made a fair representation of Austrian thinking but that's the article we were asked to read and discuss.
Fair enough. I don't think Gary North is a fair representation of Austrian thinking under any context. While he makes for some great reading; I'd say he is very much a conservative, and is rather constrained in his thought processes to be called an Austrian economist, even if he claims the term. Medically you are 100% correct. Fit people who eat well don't have any lifespan advantage over fat couch potatoes once you take tobacco out of the picture. While alive, they seem to have better quality of life in terms of less diabetes and the like but we all die at much the same age.
I still think the fact that everyone in society has access to endless food and endless leisure means that things are "fine." Improvements possible but lets not go nuts and ignore just how good modern life really is.
Well said.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
CoinCube
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
November 30, 2013, 10:53:44 PM |
|
Bitcoin is either a new currency going through a difficult birth or it is the scam of the millenia. Personally I don't think Satoshi intentioned it to be a scam. He had solved the double spend problem and was interested to see how it would evolve. Now whilst Satoshi is a brilliant problem solver and programmer he just didn't take into account human nature. This flaw has turned a fledgling currency into a Frankenstein.
If, at the outset, Satoshi intentioned for all this to happen then he has pulled off a crime of Biblical scale. A new word will enter the English dictionary, and quite possibly many other dictionaries. In years to come we won't just be talking of Pyramid selling, multi-level marketing, boiler rooms and Ponzi's. A Satoshi scam will sit head and shoulders above all other scams. People will ask 'Were you one of the people who got 'Satoshid'?
But out of the bonfire of digital currencies will emerge a new digital currency, one that does take into account the flaws and weaknesses of human nature. It just won't be Bitcoin.
November 30th 2013 The date 'Satoshid' and 'Satoshi Scam' first entered the English language Quoted for historical relevance.
|
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 01, 2013, 02:00:01 AM |
|
Its planned - and therefore in Austrian terms, its not money. Please don't debate semantics on an article that you recommended.
If the planning part is not convincing enough for you, surely the "BITCOINS ARE NOT MONEY" in bold and in caps should do it. Your guy does not think Bitcoin is money. Given that he feels the same way about the dollar, its hardly a surprise!
I didn't say I agreed with him! In fact, I gave my $.02 worth with contradicted his conclusion. I'm not one to accept things at face value, and in the large scheme of things, I'm pretty new to libertarianism and certainly very new to Austrian economic theory. I stumbled across libertarianism via Ron Paul. Most things I agree with. Some I don't understand. That led me to Austrian economics, and I'm clearly hazy on more than some of it. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) I believe I read somewhere that money has to be tangible, so in strict terms, BTC is not money. In response to the fact that in Western countries, the biggest killers of the very poor are diseases caused by too much food and diseases caused by too much leisure, you are wittering about some weird US thing that is fuck all to do with poor people being well fed and not needing to work. What do you propose? That we police people's diets and chase them with dogs for an hour a day? Would that be better?
Wow, a bit grumpy are we? Since you ask what I propose, I propose our leaders set a good example. It seems a lot of people like being sheeple, which means if our leaders really want to lead and not control (I know, that rules out most of today's "leaders"), they'd do what's right instead of where they wallet leads them. One thing I do agree with in libertarianism is letting people live life how they want as long as it doesn't adversely affect others. I realize the definition of "adverse" is not black and white. I think that should be clarified then (if I'm not horribly misstating it already) as letting people live life how they want as long as it doesn't adversely affect me and mine. M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
mdude77
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 01, 2013, 02:15:35 AM |
|
I was pointing to the logic in the linked article. Personally I don't think Gary North made a fair representation of Austrian thinking but that's the article we were asked to read and discuss.
And you said you didn't read it! ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) I still think the fact that everyone in society has access to endless food and endless leisure means that things are "fine." Improvements possible but lets not go nuts and ignore just how good modern life really is.
Hmmm. Define society please? Half of the US is living off of the other half. Is that endless food and endless leisure? Not sure about you, but I personally am required to go to work 5 days a week to earn a living. It is work, I wouldn't call it leisure. I don't have servants at my beckon to take care of daily chores and tasks. Nor am I am one one of those privileged to have a summer and winter home. Nor do I have a luxurious pension and retirement plan waiting for me when I get older as the "fat cat" banksters and politicians do. Granted, I do have some time, as I'm clearly spending some of it here typing on a electromechanical device we call a keyboard and watching electrons move across the liquid crystal display that we formally call an LCD, or just "screen" for short, forming these things called words to post on an electronic medium called the internet and my words will likely be stored here and likely be retrievable for a very very long time. That fact alone puts me above what a huge number of the world's population will ever be able to do. After this I'll likely sit down on my couch with my wife and read some before retiring for the evening. Despite the fact that it's literally freezing outside, I don't have to worry about the wind blowing in the house, or my kid being cold, or wild animals dragging me off in the night. In the morning I won't have to worry about finding enough food to feed my family. Compare that to those who are in poverty, those who wonder where the next bite of food will come from for their kids, those who are living in a box in a corner somewhere on the street, yeah, I'm "fine". I would argue that a good number are not fine. Based on the predictions of those outside of government and mainstream media (neither of which can be believed), things are getting worse and the number of those not "fine" are going to increase, likely significantly. So I stand by my argument, today's systems are not "fine". M
|
I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent! Come join me!
|
|
|
|