Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 02:29:07 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 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Government regulation always a bad thing?  (Read 9177 times)
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 05:37:57 PM
 #61

Nobody is proposing the idea of no regulation.

So the answer to the asked question in the topic is "No"?

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
1481034547
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481034547

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481034547
Reply with quote  #2

1481034547
Report to moderator
1481034547
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481034547

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481034547
Reply with quote  #2

1481034547
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481034547
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481034547

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481034547
Reply with quote  #2

1481034547
Report to moderator
1481034547
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481034547

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481034547
Reply with quote  #2

1481034547
Report to moderator
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 05:39:54 PM
 #62

So the answer to the asked question in the topic is "No"?

If you read the discussion, we provide a bit more nuanced answer. Basically we agree that it is true that some regulations will do good, but we do not agree with the method of enforcement. Hence, we're still opposed to government regulation on ethical ground.

FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 18, 2011, 07:59:15 PM
 #63

Actually, it's the worker who is in the position to neogitate as it is related to workplace condition. This is not related to worker competition but employer competition.

Worker: Why should I work in this cheap-o building instead of working in that safe building?

Employer: I pay twice as much wage as that other guy over there.

Worker: Hmm, I think I walk away...

Employer: No, don't go. I'll pay triple as much wage.

Worker: ok.
That which the worker produces or helps to produce has a fair market value. Why does he have to negotiate the ownership for his rightful share? It's his as soon as he makes it. Yet somehow, his capitalist employer has the power to take it. Government gives him that power.

Quote
We are unable to have a rational discussion because people here do not feel exploited when somebody profit off of them. Nobody feel ashamed and nobody cares.
I don't see how that precludes a rational, civil discussion. We already agree that government is exploitative, that it uses things like coercion to take advantage of people, right? Yet, many people do not feel exploited by their governments. That does not mean that government is not exploitative.

Quote
If you don't simply feel exploited even though you fully understand the situation, well..what ya going to do?
Then you are either a capitalist yourself and hoping to gain power over people, are doing a favor, or are playing out a fetish. That's no reason not to educate yourself and possibly change your mind.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 08:09:26 PM
 #64

That which the worker produces or helps to produce has a fair market value. Why does he have to negotiate the ownership for his rightful share? It's his as soon as he makes it. Yet somehow, his capitalist employer has the power to take it. Government gives him that power.
"Fair market value" can only be determined by observing a large group of people negotiating deals, and the concept does not even exist without individuals making such negotiations.

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 08:11:00 PM
 #65

I don't see how that precludes a rational, civil discussion. We already agree that government is exploitative, that it uses things like coercion to take advantage of people, right? Yet, many people do not feel exploited by their governments. That does not mean that government is not exploitative.
We are arguing definitions and words. That lead us to nowhere.

When an entire community feel no emotional response, your argumentation lead to nowhere. We simply just don't feel exploited or exploiting anybody.

Quote
Then you are either a capitalist yourself and hoping to gain power over people, are doing a favor, or are playing out a fetish. That's no reason not to educate yourself and possibly change your mind.

No, I considered and thought the answer is different from what you think is right. I am not doing anyone a favor, or a fetish. If that make me a capitalist, so be it.

People can look at the same situation and reach completely different conclusion.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 08:15:19 PM
 #66

Let ban these words: involuntary, voluntary, profit, exploitation, coercion and related words that stand for the same thing.

Maybe, a fruitful discussion will results.

theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 08:38:24 PM
 #67

What if I build an unsafe house that impacts those around it. Let's say that my house is prone to fires, and that will destroy/damage every house around it. Isn't it resaonable to have regulations in place to prevent damage to other peoples property?

The owner of the unsafe property would be liable for damages in case of fires. The victims could also sue.

In anarcho-capitalism, doing things that result in the death/harm of many people (or lots of property) would be incredibly dangerous, since you'd have the protection agencies of every victim seeking retribution against you and your single protection agency.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 10:25:20 PM
 #68


The owner of the unsafe property would be liable for damages in case of fires. The victims could also sue.

In anarcho-capitalism, doing things that result in the death/harm of many people (or lots of property) would be incredibly dangerous, since you'd have the protection agencies of every victim seeking retribution against you and your single protection agency.

Yes, but that's something that happens "after the fact". Wouldn't it be better to have something in place that would prevent the event in the first place, or atleast minimize the effect.

But like Kiba said above, rules should be in place. It's just a question about who should enforce them. The community or the government. And I agree, if your actions (or inactions) could harm others, there should be rules in place to prevent you from behaving in that way.

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
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
 #69

Yes, but that's something that happens "after the fact". Wouldn't it be better to have something in place that would prevent the event in the first place, or atleast minimize the effect.

There is something: people don't want to lose money, so they avoid being liable for such things.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
March 18, 2011, 11:06:24 PM
 #70

There is something: people don't want to lose money, so they avoid being liable for such things.

That could happen. Or they could just not spend money on these safety measures and if sh*t hits the fan they make sure that THEY don't have any assets that can be touched by the victims, or their families. It's not hard being a slum lord if you want to. Find a drug addict, let him be the fall guy in return for a token amount of money, profit from it yourself. If your current fall guy gets bothersome, get rid of him and find your next guy. There's no shortage. Most will be content with a steady supply of money to buy drugs.

This happens today, in our society. The difference is that today the government sais, "Ok, we can't touch your money but we can enforce the safety standards for your house, fix it or lose the right to keep tennants, ie income".

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
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
March 18, 2011, 11:33:12 PM
 #71

There is something: people don't want to lose money, so they avoid being liable for such things.

That could happen. Or they could just not spend money on these safety measures and if sh*t hits the fan they make sure that THEY don't have any assets that can be touched by the victims, or their families. It's not hard being a slum lord if you want to. Find a drug addict, let him be the fall guy in return for a token amount of money, profit from it yourself. If your current fall guy gets bothersome, get rid of him and find your next guy. There's no shortage. Most will be content with a steady supply of money to buy drugs.

This happens today, in our society. The difference is that today the government sais, "Ok, we can't touch your money but we can enforce the safety standards for your house, fix it or lose the right to keep tennants, ie income".

Since we are apparently examining the actions of the worst possible human beings...

What happens when the person you described ("slum lord") is the person making the rules? Since a sufficient percentage of humanity is this kind of person that it warrants discussion, what happens when a bunch of stupid or evil people elect such an individual into a position of power?

In fact, these types of people thrive in government, and what happens is what you see today. Laws that harm rather than help, regulations which help the entrenched business interests instead of protecting individuals, etc.
Anonymous
Guest

March 19, 2011, 03:02:56 AM
 #72

Government is profitable for some people. It just so happens they are existing businesses who can use regulations to keep competitors away.

While ever there is a profit motive to have a government someone will seek it. It just so happens that has negative effects on the rest of us.

So how do we have government that is unprofitable ?

 Cheesy
Anonymous
Guest

March 19, 2011, 03:32:14 AM
 #73

I also think people are confused over "regulations" and 'standards".

Standards usually evolve organically from the industry or community actually involved in the process while regulations are perverse control of human behaviour usually done by agents with no involvement in the thing they regulate. Because of this fact unintended consequences occur.

Its akin to letting a baker set the rules for the butcher or the candlestick maker .





grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
March 19, 2011, 03:38:08 AM
 #74

I also think people are confused over "regulations" and 'standards".

Standards usually evolve organically from the industry or community actually involved in the process while regulations are perverse control of human behaviour usually done by agents with no involvement in the thing they regulate. Because of this fact unintended consequences occur.

Its akin to letting a baker set the rules for the butcher or the candlestick maker .


Very true.
FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 19, 2011, 09:43:41 PM
 #75

"Fair market value" can only be determined through the process of people negotiating deals. Such a concept does not exist without the existence of the market of people negotiating deals.
Yes, so, if my employer sells something I made for 800 BTC, but only gives me a fraction of that, why can I not sell it on the same market and collect all 800 BTC? Because my employer will charge me with theft!

I don't see how that precludes a rational, civil discussion. We already agree that government is exploitative, that it uses things like coercion to take advantage of people, right? Yet, many people do not feel exploited by their governments. That does not mean that government is not exploitative.
We are arguing definitions and words. That lead us to nowhere.

When an entire community feel no emotional response, your argumentation lead to nowhere. We simply just don't feel exploited or exploiting anybody.
You felt an emotional response as soon I stated my distaste for trickle-down economics. It took a few posts to build up, but you let it out eventually. Which really provoked you more, that I expressed something that you felt was illogical, or that I challenged a system in which you think you have an advantage? I suppose it doesn't really matter to the discussion, but you'd do well to investigate for yourself.

Quote
No, I considered and thought the answer is different from what you think is right. I am not doing anyone a favor, or a fetish. If that make me a capitalist, so be it.

People can look at the same situation and reach completely different conclusion.
Okay, so you are a capitalist. And you will exploit others for profit. I can't make you think that that is a bad thing. Perhaps they will enjoy being exploited. But since you cannot exploit others without the help of a government, and therefore cannot make profit without government, you must also support government.

Let ban these words: involuntary, voluntary, profit, exploitation, coercion and related words that stand for the same thing.

Maybe, a fruitful discussion will results.
I do not understand.

That could happen. Or they could just not spend money on these safety measures and if sh*t hits the fan they make sure that THEY don't have any assets that can be touched by the victims, or their families. It's not hard being a slum lord if you want to. Find a drug addict, let him be the fall guy in return for a token amount of money, profit from it yourself. If your current fall guy gets bothersome, get rid of him and find your next guy. There's no shortage. Most will be content with a steady supply of money to buy drugs.

This happens today, in our society. The difference is that today the government sais, "Ok, we can't touch your money but we can enforce the safety standards for your house, fix it or lose the right to keep tennants, ie income".

Since we are apparently examining the actions of the worst possible human beings...

What happens when the person you described ("slum lord") is the person making the rules? Since a sufficient percentage of humanity is this kind of person that it warrants discussion, what happens when a bunch of stupid or evil people elect such an individual into a position of power?

In fact, these types of people thrive in government, and what happens is what you see today. Laws that harm rather than help, regulations which help the entrenched business interests instead of protecting individuals, etc.
That slum lord doesn't need any kind of election. He's already making the rules. He's already the governor of his little slum state.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492


View Profile
March 19, 2011, 09:59:08 PM
 #76

Yes, so, if my employer sells something I made for 800 BTC, but only gives me a fraction of that, why can I not sell it on the same market and collect all 800 BTC? Because my employer will charge me with theft!

If you can make the item without the employer, what's stopping you from doing so? Clearly the employer is offering something that allows you to complete the item.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 19, 2011, 10:03:00 PM
 #77

You felt an emotional response as soon I stated my distaste for trickle-down economics. It took a few posts to build up, but you let it out eventually. Which really provoked you more, that I expressed something that you felt was illogical, or that I challenged a system in which you think you have an advantage? I suppose it doesn't really matter to the discussion, but you'd do well to investigate for yourself.


This is not about advantages, this is about survival and prosperity. I don't care and nor I should care if somebody is 100,000 times richer than me. I don't care about equality, alienation, and other such concepts.

I care about prosperity and survival. When activities are voluntary and especially when they bring prosperity, you better damn well believe that I will defend it. I will even defend the potion of immortality and everlasting youth from deathlovers and enemies of technologies.

That is what my angry outbrust is about.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 19, 2011, 10:06:59 PM
 #78

Let ban these words: involuntary, voluntary, profit, exploitation, coercion and related words that stand for the same thing.

Maybe, a fruitful discussion will results.

It's a rationality technique. It leads us away from emotionally charged words, such as "capitalists", and force us to really consider and understand.

If you don't agree to it, I am getting out of this debate. I cannot stand making endless argumentation that lead to nowhere.

FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 20, 2011, 12:27:39 AM
 #79

If you can make the item without the employer, what's stopping you from doing so?
I cannot. Employers control the necessary equipment. I cannot buy the equipment without submitting to an exploitative lender. He will require some of that which I produce for himself without doing any work. As a worker, it is very difficult to escape freeloaders in a capitalist society.

Quote
Clearly the employer is offering something that allows you to complete the item.
All he is offering is permission to use, but not own, the equipment because he has the power to keep me out unless I pay his tax. Of course, has no other use for this equipment other than to extort from me the product of my labor.

This is not about advantages, this is about survival and prosperity. I don't care and nor I should care if somebody is 100,000 times richer than me. I don't care about equality, alienation, and other such concepts.

I care about prosperity and survival. When activities are voluntary and especially when they bring prosperity, you better damn well believe that I will defend it. I will even defend the potion of immortality and everlasting youth from deathlovers and enemies of technologies.

That is what my angry outbrust is about.
Survival and prosperity are very different things. I am not content to merely survive while someone else prospers on the product of my labor. Survival is for animals. I am a man. No slaveholder, employer, landlord, lender, or any other government ought to tax my prosperity, to simply allow me to survive. Capitalists, of course, do not share this view, and I can't make them. But capitalists should own their support for government because that is what they do. They govern. They tax. They say, "if you don't like it, get out!", even if the only place to go is the territory of some other capitalist/government. Go ahead and be a capitalist, but know what it means.

It's a rationality technique. It leads us away from emotionally charged words, such as "capitalists", and force us to really consider and understand.

If you don't agree to it, I am getting out of this debate. I cannot stand making endless argumentation that lead to nowhere.
Feel free to present suggestions for substitutes.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 20, 2011, 12:43:30 AM
 #80

Survival and prosperity are very different things. I am not content to merely survive while someone else prospers on the product of my labor. Survival is for animals. I am a man. No slaveholder, employer, landlord, lender, or any other government ought to tax my prosperity, to simply allow me to survive. Capitalists, of course, do not share this view, and I can't make them. But capitalists should own their support for government because that is what they do. They govern. They tax. They say, "if you don't like it, get out!", even if the only place to go is the territory of some other capitalist/government. Go ahead and be a capitalist, but know what it means.
Why do you hate it when somebody prospers on the product of your labor? Is it not true that we all prosper on each other's work. Shouldn't we work toward that goal of helping each other prosper?

For once, have you ever heard of positive externalities? Do you really want to restrict every single positive benefit and locked it behind a paywall? Society is not better off when artists jealously guard their work from commercial exploitation and modification.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  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!