Democracy

[FredericBastiat]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law 

You confuse cooperation with democracy. Democracy is a form of government. Democratic governments have a monopoly on force thru majority rule. They tax and so forth. Bitcoin doesn't resemble that in the least. You are free to contribute or refrain from participating. Bitcoin doesn't levy taxes and enforces no law.

It has rules, not unlike a board game. It can't take your property and it can't imprison you. At the most, it might impose some form of contract, which depending on whether you breach it or not, you could be prosecuted in the geographical political climate in which you may have committed the "crime". Bit of a stretch it would seem.

[1714008775]

1714008775

[1714008775]

1714008775

[paraipan]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law  

You confuse cooperation with democracy. Democracy is a form of government. Democratic governments have a monopoly on force thru majority rule. They tax and so forth. Bitcoin doesn't resemble that in the least. You are free to contribute or refrain from participating. Bitcoin doesn't levy taxes and enforces no law.

It has rules, not unlike a board game. It can't take your property and it can't imprison you. At the most, it might impose some form of contract, which depending on whether you breach it or not, you could be prosecuted in the geographical political climate in which you may have committed the "crime". Bit of a stretch it would seem.

hehe i don't want to start a debate but democracy is by definition the cooperation between the largest group of persons...

by def. bitcoin = democracy

"Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law... " wiki

if don't accept the rules of the majority you can fork the chain and go your own way, nice feature of this system if you ask me

[TiagoTiago]

People who know how to code actually have a bigger say in Bitcoin than people that don't...

[onesalt]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law  

You confuse cooperation with democracy. Democracy is a form of government. Democratic governments have a monopoly on force thru majority rule. They tax and so forth. Bitcoin doesn't resemble that in the least. You are free to contribute or refrain from participating. Bitcoin doesn't levy taxes and enforces no law.

It has rules, not unlike a board game. It can't take your property and it can't imprison you. At the most, it might impose some form of contract, which depending on whether you breach it or not, you could be prosecuted in the geographical political climate in which you may have committed the "crime". Bit of a stretch it would seem.

hehe i don't want to start a debate but democracy is by definition the cooperation between the largest group of persons...

by def. bitcoin = democracy

"Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law... " wiki

if don't accept the rules of the majority you can fork the chain and go your own way, nice feature of this system if you ask me

Indeed, a democracy doesn't work if everyone is an entitled prick whos argument is basically "WELL MY CHOICE OF X DIDN'T WIN THAT MEANS IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ME", while failing to provide a better choice that attempts to cater to everyone as well.

[FredericBastiat]

by def. bitcoin = democracy

"Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law... " wiki

if don't accept the rules of the majority you can fork the chain and go your own way, nice feature of this system if you ask me

I highlighted what you wrote. Bitcoin is not a form of government. Read what you quote first before you use the '=' sign please.

[paraipan]

What most people fail to realize or don't want too is taxation to maintain public service could be done very easily by creating a government pool of miners or local community one.
Every person mining there would do a public service and be rewarded for it, taxes would be increased pool fees, that everyone agrees, and network transactions that get into their blocks. The same bitcoin address you have registered to receive payouts would be your social security number and you will be required to provide one if you want to have access to any public services available.
The individuals that are not able to mine would have a registered address in the official exchanges that would be taxed equally as the miners if they ever wanted to get physical money in their hands. The third added option would be having a public donation address of every service to have people contribute if they want to be taken into account in every aspect.

Sorry for this personal rant, but as you can see public services and government would be possible in case we choose to have bitcoin as store of value and us in control of our wealth. We will have to adapt to bitcoin not the other way around because it works as concept and in real life too.

[hugolp]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law 

Bitcoin is not a government. You can stop using it if you want to. "Democratic" voluntary associations are fine. The problem is democratic governments, where you are forced to do what the majority decides whether you like it or not.

[gopher]

What most people fail to realize or don't want too is taxation to maintain public service could be done very easily by creating a government pool of miners or local community one.
Every person mining there would do a public service and be rewarded for it, taxes would be increased pool fees, that everyone agrees, and network transactions that get into their blocks. The same bitcoin address you have registered to receive payouts would be your social security number and you will be required to provide one if you want to have access to any public services available.
The individuals that are not able to mine would have a registered address in the official exchanges that would be taxed equally as the miners if they ever wanted to get physical money in their hands. The third added option would be having a public donation address of every service to have people contribute if they want to be taken into account in every aspect.

Sorry for this personal rant, but as you can see public services and government would be possible in case we choose to have bitcoin as store of value and us in control of our wealth. We will have to adapt to bitcoin not the other way around because it works as concept and in real life too.

Good point.

I have been thinking along similar lines for some time.

All governments today are inherently conservative (even the most liberal ones), as they consistently neglect/refuse to use technology to enhance their function as well as provide their services more efficiently.

PKI has been available for how many years? Have you heard of any government even remotely contemplating the use of it? Bitcoin is just one trivial implementation of PKI. But have you heard of any other?

If the government spends 1% of what they spend on military and armament, they will end-up with the most secure and capable real-time voting system that could be effectively used for real-time referendums (in effect converting the current representative-democracy system into direct-democracy), social security numbers, passports, visas, etc.

But that will require the government to loosen up its power grip over the population.

Not nice, they must be thinking...

[paraipan]

democracy is working = bitcoin > 51% voters make the law  

Bitcoin is not a government. You can stop using it if you want to. "Democratic" voluntary associations are fine. The problem is democratic governments, where you are forced to do what the majority decides whether you like it or not.

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

[hugolp]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

[onesalt]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

But you can already do this. If you don't like your countries governance becuase you're in the (by definition) minority that didn't get what they want, move somewhere else.

[NghtRppr]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

But you can already do this. If you don't like your countries governance becuase you're in the (by definition) minority that didn't get what they want, move somewhere else.

Learn the difference between secession and emigration.

[speeder]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

But you can already do this. If you don't like your countries governance becuase you're in the (by definition) minority that didn't get what they want, move somewhere else.

Learn the difference between secession and emigration.

Also remember that emigration in UN controlled world does not properly work... I am Brazillian, I hate my government, but I feel I have nowhere to go... most countries will not accept a Brazillian moving there.

[paraipan]

ehh, i'm little confused by your contradictory context. Government is the word that describes a set of rules that is agreed upon by groups of persons. We are the government being majority and we enforce our rules on to the smaller groups. You say bitcoin is not government and that democratic governments are the problem after which you describe bitcoin system

That's why Satoshi warned us that this system, as good as it is, has a flaw from our point of view. If someday an entity or another group of people hashes away blocks few percents faster than we do then they make the rules, democracy at it's best.

A private association is not a government. If you can stop being part of a "system" is not a government.

If a private association decides to have a "democratic" governance thats fine. If you dont like it you can leave and join another one more of your liking, creating a new one or even go alone. In a democracy you have to obey the rules imposed by the people that can manipulate the masses. You can not  choose to be part of the system or associate in a different way with other people you choose. This second case is evil and the one I oppose. If a private association wants to govern themselves as a "democracy" I have no problem.

Was that more understandable?

a little bit more understandable, yes and we actually agree on main issue here, that bitcoin = democracy = government
Governments as we know them today had been promoted and put in place to impose a set of rules chosen by majority onto the rest that didn't agree, creating a more totalitarian system, the "evil" one as you say. I think we actually say the same things with different words 

[FredericBastiat]

a little bit more understandable, yes and we actually agree on main issue here, that bitcoin = democracy = government
Governments as we know them today had been promoted and put in place to impose a set of rules chosen by majority onto the rest that didn't agree, creating a more totalitarian system, the "evil" one as you say. I think we actually say the same things with different words  

Why don't we stop using the word 'democracy' and 'democratic' for describing things that are essentially solidarity associations (shareholder w/voting rights). The above words are associated with governments. Governments of that type have a monopoly on force thru majority rule (force legalized). They typically have many laws that are not based on justice, or are not designed to prevent aggression. You cannot withdraw freely from those political environs without relinquishing your property.

Of course you can say we can leave. Why should I leave if I haven't caused anybody harm? Why should I be forced to leave under external circumstances not related to injurious behavior? Does bitcoin do this? I think not. If you conflate bitcoin and democracy, you obfuscate and mislead your reader into believing that the two are in some way positively related when they are not. Bitcoin is probably a good thing, democracies, not so much. I could just as well say that the algorithms that bitcoin uses enslaves us to a fixed set of rules, and that this type of slavery works, it involves human participation, therefore it is a lot like human slavery, so slavery is good.

The world is a better place with a lot more bitcoin and a lot less democratic governance. Please refrain.

[Bind]

this.

A Constitutional Republic with unalienable birth-rights is a well-armed sheep disputing the vote.

And then, that sheep decides that is the wolves did not existed, that sheep live would be a lot easier.

No. The well-armed sheep in a constitutional republic do not infringe on anyone elses rights, because they have learned from history the importance of EVERYONES birth-rights, and without those birth-rights you are only a subject serving a Crown.

[NghtRppr]

No. The well-armed sheep in a constitutional republic do not infringe on anyone elses rights, because they have learned from history the importance of EVERYONES birth-rights, and without those birth-rights you are only a subject serving a Crown.

Those birthrights can be amended with enough votes.

[Bind]

No. The well-armed sheep in a constitutional republic do not infringe on anyone elses rights, because they have learned from history the importance of EVERYONES birth-rights, and without those birth-rights you are only a subject serving a Crown.

Those birthrights can be amended with enough votes.

which is why we will never give up our arms and will die defending those birth-rights, for the health, welfare, survival, and prosperity of our descendents, so that they may be free.

if history has proven anything time after time after time is that tyrannical and oppressive leadership and laws will be revolted against and overthrown.

might not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen, and my kids will remember my example, never forget, and pass on the torch.

I would happily die today so that my kids can have a good life if it was required.

I certainly hope it does not come to my death or anyones bloodshed, which is why education and debates like this exist.

[Hawker]

No. The well-armed sheep in a constitutional republic do not infringe on anyone elses rights, because they have learned from history the importance of EVERYONES birth-rights, and without those birth-rights you are only a subject serving a Crown.

Those birthrights can be amended with enough votes.

which is why we will never give up our arms and will die defending those birth-rights, for the health, welfare, survival, and prosperity of our descendents, so that they may be free.

if history has proven anything time after time after time is that tyrannical and oppressive leadership and laws will be revolted against and overthrown.

might not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen, and my kids will remember my example, never forget, and pass on the torch.

I would happily die today so that my kids can have a good life if it was required.

I certainly hope it does not come to my death or anyones bloodshed, which is why education and debates like this exist.

Which is nice but the problem arises when you person wants to die for a liberty that another person regards as an intolerable intrusion into their liberty.  That's where democracy comes in...the abolition of slavery being a classic example.  The majority wanted rid of it but a hard minority swore to defend their "liberty" and "property rights" regardless of the majority.

[Bind]

Every human being should enjoy the same birth rights, as they should have back then. Hard to say much more about that deporable episode in time other than to say that slavery is thousands of years old and included every race...not jsut blacks. At the time though, freedom was a new concept and its implimentation left alot to be desired. Not the concept and the wording. Every human.