Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:21:48 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED!  (Read 15210 times)
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 09:37:23 PM
 #181



Hmmmm so productivity has increased, yet inflation-adjusted income has remained flat. Perhaps that means non-inflation adjusted income has risen, and perhaps that means the inflation tax is where you should channel your antagonism - toward the money printing that is robbing families without them knowing, instead of toward the corporations employing people toward productive ends.

I do put a large part of the blame there.  That's why I love Bitcoin, once we stop printing the wealthy will no longer be able to unfairly perpetuate their advantages and more rewards for productivity will go where they belong.  As the 53% movement proves, people are working multiple jobs and still not having the full benefits one should expect for that amount of work.  They put the blame for that in different places than the 99% folks, but we are all in agreement it is a problem. 

Good! But again, anger at "the wealthy" is not correctly targeted. The wealthy are not inflating anything. It's the central banks (The Fed in the US), the politicians who permit it, and the public who votes for those politicians (poor and rich alike). Those are the valid targets of ire.

The rich own the politicians and corporations like Goldman control government financial policy.  I put the blame everywhere, but ultimately the rich are a target because under a Bitcoin economy redistribution of their wealth will have to be the end goal in order to reward the productivity of the working man.  We can't just print more Bitcoin to start rewarding the productivity. 

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
1481170908
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170908

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170908
Reply with quote  #2

1481170908
Report to moderator
1481170908
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170908

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170908
Reply with quote  #2

1481170908
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481170908
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170908

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170908
Reply with quote  #2

1481170908
Report to moderator
1481170908
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170908

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170908
Reply with quote  #2

1481170908
Report to moderator
1481170908
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170908

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170908
Reply with quote  #2

1481170908
Report to moderator
evoorhees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


Democracy is the original 51% attack


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 09:50:23 PM
 #182

I put the blame everywhere, but ultimately the rich are a target because under a Bitcoin economy redistribution of their wealth will have to be the end goal in order to reward the productivity of the working man. 

If the marketplace values the work of the "working man" then it will pay him accordingly. Stealing resources from people who have harmed nobody is not okay. If you think the working man deserves more, you are welcome to hire him - indeed if he is so much more productive than his wage indicates, then you should outbid the other employer.

The idea of "redistributing wealth" becomes even more silly when you realize that wealth is produced, not distributed in the first place. What a rich person has, he earned (unless he engaged in fraud or theft), and what someone earns, he deserves to keep.

Wealth is not a pie to be sliced up evenly. It is produced, and belongs to the producer exclusively.
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:00:10 PM
 #183

I put the blame everywhere, but ultimately the rich are a target because under a Bitcoin economy redistribution of their wealth will have to be the end goal in order to reward the productivity of the working man. 

If the marketplace values the work of the "working man" then it will pay him accordingly. Stealing resources from people who have harmed nobody is not okay. If you think the working man deserves more, you are welcome to hire him - indeed if he is so much more productive than his wage indicates, then you should outbid the other employer.

The idea of "redistributing wealth" becomes even more silly when you realize that wealth is produced, not distributed in the first place. What a rich person has, he earned (unless he engaged in fraud or theft), and what someone earns, he deserves to keep.

Wealth is not a pie to be sliced up evenly. It is produced, and belongs to the producer exclusively.

Hey, look, if the redistribution back to the working class that generates the productivity happens naturally then there will be no reason to take the wealth by force.  So you have nothing to worry about.

I think you will find though that once we switch to Bitcoin the wealthy will already start with an advantage.  Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located.  It's happening one way or another.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:04:34 PM
 #184

Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located.  It's happening one way or another.

The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money.

Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off.
nighteyes
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 105


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:05:28 PM
 #185

Good! But again, anger at "the wealthy" is not correctly targeted. The wealthy are not inflating anything. It's the central banks (The Fed in the US), the politicians who permit it, and the public who votes for those politicians (poor and rich alike). Those are the valid targets of ire.

I think Satoshi deserves a lot of the blame....or the devil(these 2 could be connected if you see black helicopters flying outside).....but as far as targets go though, anyone and everyone is a target.




Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:07:09 PM
 #186

Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located.  It's happening one way or another.

The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money.

Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off.

Again, I know, that's why I want to end the printing and switch to Bitcoin.  It's a huge benefit for the poor at the expense of the rich and the corporations.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:09:52 PM
 #187

Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located.  It's happening one way or another.

The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money.

Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off.

Again, I know, that's why I want to end the printing and switch to Bitcoin.  It's a huge benefit for the poor at the expense of the rich and the corporations.

I'd say it more levels the playing field, but yeah, I misunderstood what you were saying.
Anonymous
Guest

October 13, 2011, 10:14:58 PM
 #188

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:19:08 PM
 #189

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Language does not work that way.  Just stop using it.  I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs.  You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)
Quote
The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage.

It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well.  You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition.

Quote
Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.

Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended."  You messed up, take responsibility and grow up.  You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
nighteyes
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 105


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:20:12 PM
 #190

Stealing resources from people who have harmed nobody is not okay.


Thats a loaded sentence.

"Steal"...implies illegal...worthless, see 'asymmetrics of will'.

"resources"...implies private property....but where? Most resources are not stored on private property. If its at a bank, thats not private property....a corporation is a government creation and not covered by the rules of civilization.

"harmed nobody"....worthless....unprovable and unlikely. Are you saying they never harmed anyone or anything? Because if they did, thats OK, as covered by asymmetrics of time.

"not okay"....well its OK if war is undertaken....hehehe, are they playing war drums?
bitleaker
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:24:04 PM
 #191

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.
In the future, if I ever use the word nigger, it's in reference to those dirty workers you find littered in the workplace; as the word was originally used.

[Edit] I love the text from the link below:

Quote
Suord ne fir forgat he noght,
And ȝong ysaac a fagett broght.
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:24:50 PM
 #192

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

That's not how it was originally used.  

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/more/285/




All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
Anonymous
Guest

October 13, 2011, 10:32:16 PM
 #193

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Language does not work that way.  Just stop using it.  I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs.  You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)
Quote
The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage.

It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well.  You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition.

Quote
Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.

Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended."  You messed up, take responsibility and grow up.  You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot.

I'm a nihilist at heart. I've never been a fan of moral systems. I choose my actions and lack of therof because of my preferences. There is really no other authority.

"Hate Speech" is just arbitrary legalese.
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:37:03 PM
 #194

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Language does not work that way.  Just stop using it.  I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs.  You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)
Quote
The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage.

It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well.  You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition.

Quote
Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.

Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended."  You messed up, take responsibility and grow up.  You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot.

I'm a nihilist at heart. I've never been a fan of moral systems. I choose my actions and lack of therof because of my preferences. There is really no other authority.

"Hate Speech" is just arbitrary legalese.

No, it has a non-legal definition.  I already posted it.  

Quote
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic

The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:47:16 PM
 #195

No, it has a non-legal definition.  I already posted it. 

Quote
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic

The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless.

That sounds like disparaging libertarians, furries, nazis, or just about any group or individual is hate speech. Rather broad, no?
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
 #196

No, it has a non-legal definition.  I already posted it.  

Quote
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic

The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless.

That sounds like disparaging libertarians, furries, nazis, or just about any group or individual is hate speech. Rather broad, no?

Sure, there are more specific non-legal definitions out there that would exclude Nazis:  speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech

It's going to be a stretch to find one that excludes using anti-gay slurs as insults though.

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
Anonymous
Guest

October 13, 2011, 10:57:32 PM
 #197

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Language does not work that way.  Just stop using it.  I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs.  You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)
Quote
The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage.

It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well.  You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition.

Quote
Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.

Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended."  You messed up, take responsibility and grow up.  You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot.

I'm a nihilist at heart. I've never been a fan of moral systems. I choose my actions and lack of therof because of my preferences. There is really no other authority.

"Hate Speech" is just arbitrary legalese.

No, it has a non-legal definition.  I already posted it.  

Quote
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic

The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless.

As I've said, I prefer not to hurt people. You told me that I should be ashamed because what I did was "wrong".
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:59:05 PM
 #198

Quote
As I've said, I prefer not to hurt people. You told me that I should be ashamed because what I did was "wrong".

Because it is.  Do you really want to have a deep philosophical debate over the meaning of right and wrong in context of your use of bigoted hate speech?

v Or a deep philosophical debate on the nature of definitions themselves in context of an immature teenager shouting anti-gay insults?

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 13, 2011, 10:59:22 PM
 #199

Sure, there are more specific non-legal definitions out there that would exclude Nazis:  speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech

It's going to be a stretch to find one that excludes using anti-gay slurs as insults though.

My point was that it is completely arbitrary. Go ahead and pick whatever definition most suits your stance, though...
Anonymous
Guest

October 13, 2011, 10:59:37 PM
 #200

In addition, if words are truly aggression then I'm quite a victim. I've never experienced more "hurtful" speech than I have on here. Haha.

Lots of things hurt people but a lot of the time people don't really have a reason to be hurt. The fact is you are not entitled to acceptance by everybody.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 »  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!