We should be happy tyranny is allergic to bitcoin, not sad.

[taltamir]

Wow, @ this post
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181212.msg1891917#msg1891917

[QuestionAuthority]

Wow, @ this post
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181212.msg1891917#msg1891917

This wasn't the only forum that I visit that just lit on fire about what the LEOs were doing in Boston. It makes you realize that we could easily join the poor German citizens of the 1930s and be fucked out of control before we know it.

[Johnny Bitcoinseed]

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.  H L Mencken.

In other words, once the common herd discovers they can vote themselves other people's money the jig is up.  The economy will be destroyed as parasitical classes suck off the teat of those who work and produce real value.

Eventually the producers stop working, close their factories or businesses, or exit the area - leaving the parasites to wither on the vine.

The shear number of parasites eventually destroy the host.  Detroit, USA is a prime example of this process.

You will see this Detroit phenomena  happening to Chicago and a host of other US cities as democracy is used by voters to get themselves more and more of other peoples money.  Politicians go along with this because they get re-elected by promising other peoples money be redistributed to voters who did not earn it.  This drives the economy into the toilet in a great swirling rush you can hear loud and clear today.

Hence, democracy destroys itself from within.  Alas, such is human nature that democracy is not the answer - rather, the right to private property and wealth is the only way to create prosperity.

People will not learn this lesson even though it has been repeated countless times throughout history.  The only way to stop it is to have a money that cannot be taken by coercion - if this can be done, you will see great prosperity arise throughout the world.

[taltamir]

In other words, once the common herd discovers they can vote themselves other people's money the jig is up.

This already happened in every democracy in the world.

Hence, democracy destroys itself from within.  Alas, such is human nature that democracy is not the answer - rather, the right to private property and wealth is the only way to create prosperity.

But what kind of government prevents the parasites from voting theives into office yet simultanously ensures the right to private property and wealth?

[pungopete468]

The answer is ideologically a Constitutional Republic. The only problem with this type of government is that it usually ends up requiring the use of force to "reset" itself once the "representatives of the people" begin to represent primarily themselves and the interests of special parties...

[taltamir]

The answer is ideologically a Constitutional Republic. The only problem with this type of government is that it usually ends up requiring the use of force to "reset" itself once the "representatives of the people" begin to represent primarily themselves and the interests of special parties...

Just like every democracy fails the same way, every constitution is eventually ignored. Every republic in history ended up a democracy. The united states is a perfect example. It was a constitutional republic, but the protective authority of the constitution has eroded to nothing and people are voting in theives who promise to steal from others and award them, as well as tyrants who promise to oppress those they dislike (which happens on both major political parties)

[Mike Christ]

Hence, democracy destroys itself from within.  Alas, such is human nature that democracy is not the answer - rather, the right to private property and wealth is the only way to create prosperity.

But what kind of government prevents the parasites from voting theives into office yet simultanously ensures the right to private property and wealth?

Anarchism; the only way to guarantee a right is to hold that right within you, and to encourage others to do the same; to give a man your rights in the hopes he'll do you good is to give a stranger your money in the hopes he'll spend it on you; ultimately, he only works to improve his own condition, and no one else's.

That's not to say democracy isn't useful; a democracy is perfect in some situations.  For example, if three friends wanted to vote where they'd go for lunch that day, then they'd practice democracy.  OTOH, if said democracy involves three friends who voted where everyone else would eat lunch that day, we can't call this democracy anymore, since the parties involved aren't participating on their own accord.  Needless to say, democracy does not mix well with large government; getting an entire nation to participate is impossible, for so long as one member says, "I don't want to participate," the actions proceeding, if not an immediate redaction from the use of democracy on said scale, is in no way, shape or form democracy, but demands, oft backed with the threat of violence.

[taltamir]

Anarchism

Every anarchy in existence in history and in the world today result in a bunch of warlords fighting for domination, those petty warlords are either plain dictators, communist dictators, or theocrat dictators.
Nobody else gains any traction, and the absolute worst of things happen to people.

that being said, unlike the communist utopia (which is a nightmare), an AnCap society would be a true utopia if it manages to exist. But for it to exist human nature itself has to change... or perhaps a pseudo religion based on it has to occur with very zealous followers, enough so that they will spontaneously form into volunteer armies to crush threats against their society.

[JekyllIsland]

Anarchism

Every anarchy in existence in history and in the world today result in a bunch of warlords fighting for domination, those petty warlords are either plain dictators, communist dictators, or theocrat dictators.
Nobody else gains any traction, and the absolute worst of things happen to people.

Crypto anarchy is real and in existence

[taltamir]

Crypto anarchy is real and in existence

1. An anarchic currency used in a different form of government isn't an anarchy the same way that china isn't capitalistic despite allowing the occasional capitalist endeavour.
2. Governments are already moving to regulate bitocoin
3. Bitcoin is not an anarchy, it is a democracy (not a constitutional republic in that if 51% vote to just steal money from X to give to Y it happens, there are no protection against it). Furthermore, unlike traditional democracies where people each get a vote, in bitcoin the vote is based on hashpower, which is extremely easy to centralize thanks to ASICs.

[JekyllIsland]

Crypto anarchy is real and in existence

1. An anarchic currency used in a different form of government isn't an anarchy the same way that china isn't capitalistic despite allowing the occasional capitalist endeavour.
2. Governments are already moving to regulate bitocoin
3. Bitcoin is not an anarchy, it is a democracy (not a constitutional republic in that if 51% vote to just steal money from X to give to Y it happens, there are no protection against it). Furthermore, unlike traditional democracies where people each get a vote, in bitcoin the vote is based on hashpower, which is extremely easy to centralize thanks to ASICs.

When did I say bitcoin was anarchy? It's a protocol.

1. Is the united states capitalistic even though it has non capitalistic properties? Social security, strategic restrictions, etc.

2. Governments can't regulate corrupt bankers, money laundering, gun running, the drug trade, etc. They might try, and sometimes be successful. That doesn't do much though.

3. Bitcoin is a protocol. I don't think bitcoin centralization is very likely. Although time will certainly tell. Bitcoin is one protocol, there can and will be others.

[stompix]

China.. China... China. Is not a democracy. I never understood why people were so happy to learn about China's love for bitcoin. Suddenly the country that is happy to see Tibetan Monks on fire became Disney World. We have our iPads and Galaxy S4 so we are happy.

You can go to torrentfreak and read the comments on the article that Thepiratebay has moved to North Korea.
Lots of people started to congratulate KImJongBong and his ideas . Why ? Because they "did" something that was convenient for them.

Same as China madness here.
People started congratulating China just because of one thing. The price boom. The rest? They didn't care a bit!
They didn't even bother to check how China economy works , why they keep their yuan in check and why bitcoin woudn't not be a solution for them.

Money and wealth before ideals.

[Elwar]

In a way the Chinese are lucky that they are not in an environment of hybrid payment systems. Their Bitcoin economy will grow on a bitcoin to bitcoin basis instead of a bitcoin to bitcoin converted to government money basis.

[stompix]

In a way the Chinese are lucky that they are not in an environment of hybrid payment systems. Their Bitcoin economy will grow on a bitcoin to bitcoin basis instead of a bitcoin to bitcoin converted to government money basis.

Please enlighten me how the Bitcoin economy will grow in China in the crippled way it's now.
The only model I see viable to grow is SR.

Also , china was more about trading than the rest of the world. We have people paying with btc for goods here , not in China. In China we had traders and speculators that flocked because of the 0.0 trading fees , nothing more.

[Elwar]

In a way the Chinese are lucky that they are not in an environment of hybrid payment systems. Their Bitcoin economy will grow on a bitcoin to bitcoin basis instead of a bitcoin to bitcoin converted to government money basis.

Please enlighten me how the Bitcoin economy will grow in China in the crippled way it's now.
The only model I see viable to grow is SR.

Also , china was more about trading than the rest of the world. We have people paying with btc for goods here , not in China. In China we had traders and speculators that flocked because of the 0.0 trading fees , nothing more.

It will grow slowly for sure. But it will grow in a way that separates Bitcoin from the government currency.

We have people paying with btc for goods here which are then converted to dollars for most of the sites using something like BitPay. Sure it helps to grow the economy faster, but we still have to work toward having a bitcoin to bitcoin economy.

[Mike Christ]

Anarchism

Every anarchy in existence in history and in the world today result in a bunch of warlords fighting for domination, those petty warlords are either plain dictators, communist dictators, or theocrat dictators.
Nobody else gains any traction, and the absolute worst of things happen to people.

that being said, unlike the communist utopia (which is a nightmare), an AnCap society would be a true utopia if it manages to exist. But for it to exist human nature itself has to change... or perhaps a pseudo religion based on it has to occur with very zealous followers, enough so that they will spontaneously form into volunteer armies to crush threats against their society.

I think you're confused; you both refer to a point in time where there were no hierarchical relationships, while referring to people who were very into dominance through violence.  Does this sound like a non-hierarchical situation to you?  No?  Then don't bother me, or anyone for that matter, with this fallacy again, thank you.  I apologize if I seem blunt, but I hear this over and over again, so much so I'm honestly surprised you didn't mention Somalia somewhere.  Anarchism stems from secular rationalism; the warlords you mention are not rational, for they primarily operate through abusing your sense of fear, not through exposing the truth, and work only to increase their own control over the people they dominate, such as installing a state and controlling the currency and keeping the illusion of democracy going and making up boogeymen etc. etc.

Now, onward to your second point: the argument of human nature.  This is countered simply:

List all the relationships you've had with people that didn't occur at the barrel of a gun.  You have a lot of them, yes?  People whose company you enjoy, who you and they benefit from your existing in each other's presence.  Now list all the relationships you've had with people that did.  Not as many as previously, but still there.  We can now assert that having voluntary relationships and involuntary relationships are within human nature.  Precisely where, then, does the argument of "human nature must change" stem from, with regards to voluntary interaction, when human nature readily includes this observable, and certainly not new, phenomenon?  This seems like the type of response I'd get from a hermit but to anyone who has had actual relationships with other people, it sounds alien to assume that voluntary interaction in the name of self-interest would be nearly impossible without some kind of brainwashing: in the real world, this happens daily, spontaneously, in every nation and by every ethnicity, in emergencies, outside of emergencies, for whatever reason you could think of.

People naturally participate with other people, especially, but not limited to, when they both benefit from each other's time and energy.  I don't know where you're from that this doesn't happen but at least you have enough freedom to exercise your ability to pick and choose with whom you associate on the Internet, another one of those anarchic areas where the state is abhorred from touching.  Strange that most people aren't actively attacking each other's websites; you'd almost think they were acting in mutual self-interest...how unnatural!

[stompix]

In a way the Chinese are lucky that they are not in an environment of hybrid payment systems. Their Bitcoin economy will grow on a bitcoin to bitcoin basis instead of a bitcoin to bitcoin converted to government money basis.

Please enlighten me how the Bitcoin economy will grow in China in the crippled way it's now.
The only model I see viable to grow is SR.

Also , china was more about trading than the rest of the world. We have people paying with btc for goods here , not in China. In China we had traders and speculators that flocked because of the 0.0 trading fees , nothing more.

It will grow slowly for sure. But it will grow in a way that separates Bitcoin from the government currency.

We have people paying with btc for goods here which are then converted to dollars for most of the sites using something like BitPay. Sure it helps to grow the economy faster, but we still have to work toward having a bitcoin to bitcoin economy.

When you say people paying for goods "here" you mean US and Europe I assume.
Cause right now , merchants in China will not do this anymore , at least taking this into account:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ssw8v/china_for_now_will_not_allow_goods_and_services/
Of course , nobody really know what the Chinese gov really said but I assume this is the best interpretations.

So , bitcoin economy in china is.... bye bye

[taltamir]

Crypto anarchy is real and in existence

1. An anarchic currency used in a different form of government isn't an anarchy the same way that china isn't capitalistic despite allowing the occasional capitalist endeavour.
2. Governments are already moving to regulate bitocoin
3. Bitcoin is not an anarchy, it is a democracy (not a constitutional republic in that if 51% vote to just steal money from X to give to Y it happens, there are no protection against it). Furthermore, unlike traditional democracies where people each get a vote, in bitcoin the vote is based on hashpower, which is extremely easy to centralize thanks to ASICs.

When did I say bitcoin was anarchy? It's a protocol.

1. Is the united states capitalistic even though it has non capitalistic properties? Social security, strategic restrictions, etc.

2. Governments can't regulate corrupt bankers, money laundering, gun running, the drug trade, etc. They might try, and sometimes be successful. That doesn't do much though.

3. Bitcoin is a protocol. I don't think bitcoin centralization is very likely. Although time will certainly tell. Bitcoin is one protocol, there can and will be others.

1. No, in the year 2013 the united states is a heavily socialist country that is rapidly embracing communism, dismantling its rule of law, dismantling its protections against tyranny, and sinking ever deeper into corruption.
The way you phrased your "question" was rather condescending and suggests I am "just picking on china" which shows you completely missed my actual point

2. Governments are the source and the method of corruption. They do regulate, they regulate towards corruption.

3. You need a better argument than "bitcoin is a protocol". The bitcoin protocol is a protocol, bitcoin is a cryptocurency AND also unit within said cryptocurency. Then you have the bitcoin network and the bitcoin software stack. But none of this semantics actually addresses any arguments

[stompix]

Crypto anarchy is real and in existence

1. An anarchic currency used in a different form of government isn't an anarchy the same way that china isn't capitalistic despite allowing the occasional capitalist endeavour.
2. Governments are already moving to regulate bitocoin
3. Bitcoin is not an anarchy, it is a democracy (not a constitutional republic in that if 51% vote to just steal money from X to give to Y it happens, there are no protection against it). Furthermore, unlike traditional democracies where people each get a vote, in bitcoin the vote is based on hashpower, which is extremely easy to centralize thanks to ASICs.

When did I say bitcoin was anarchy? It's a protocol.

1. Is the united states capitalistic even though it has non capitalistic properties? Social security, strategic restrictions, etc.

2. Governments can't regulate corrupt bankers, money laundering, gun running, the drug trade, etc. They might try, and sometimes be successful. That doesn't do much though.

3. Bitcoin is a protocol. I don't think bitcoin centralization is very likely. Although time will certainly tell. Bitcoin is one protocol, there can and will be others.

1. No, in the year 2013 the united states is a heavily socialist country that is rapidly embracing communism, dismantling its rule of law, dismantling its protections against tyranny, and sinking ever deeper into corruption.
The way you phrased your "question" was rather condescending and suggests I am "just picking on china" which shows you completely missed my actual point

2. Governments are the source and the method of corruption. They do regulate, they regulate towards corruption.

3. You need a better argument than "bitcoin is a protocol". The bitcoin protocol is a protocol, bitcoin is a cryptocurency AND also unit within said cryptocurency. Then you have the bitcoin network and the bitcoin software stack. But none of this semantics actually addresses any arguments

May I ask you where you live?
Because I lived in a communist country for enough time to realize USA is not going communist.

[Zarathustra]

Anarchism

Every anarchy in existence in history and in the world today result in a bunch of warlords fighting for domination, those petty warlords are either plain dictators, communist dictators, or theocrat dictators.

Fairy tales. Organized violence (patriarchy, warlords, cheftains and chefdoms) is unknown in the whole pre-neolitic history.
Anarchy within the self-sufficient communities was the dominant organization before the homines sapientes were transformed into collectivistic slaves (theocracy/communism/feudalism/capitalism etc.).