Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 06:25:43 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] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED!  (Read 15213 times)
Anonymous
Guest

October 11, 2011, 07:30:32 PM
 #81

I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it.  Roll Eyes
But, this go against the profit.
No it wouldn't. People inherently bring me a lot of value, especially children. Profit isn't just money. It comes in emotional pleasure too.
1481221543
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221543

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221543
Reply with quote  #2

1481221543
Report to moderator
1481221543
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221543

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221543
Reply with quote  #2

1481221543
Report to moderator
1481221543
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221543

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221543
Reply with quote  #2

1481221543
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Mal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8


I put on my robe and wizard hat.


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 07:32:18 PM
 #82

However, the practice of bonding a child to the debts/obligations of a parent is morally wrong, and such a contract is not valid. In the US, we call this phenomenon Social Security.
Well said, but it isn't limited to Social Security, and worse yet it's part of an institutional, violent, force-based taxation system.

*Repost for fixed quote*

Since everyone is doing it: 1DqtCAksMPAkWdryGUFRe8d1KrhX2LRYfL
Mal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8


I put on my robe and wizard hat.


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 07:34:28 PM
 #83

I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it.  Roll Eyes
But, this go against the profit.
No it wouldn't. People inherently bring me a lot of value, especially children. Profit isn't just money. It comes in emotional pleasure too.

That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that.

Since everyone is doing it: 1DqtCAksMPAkWdryGUFRe8d1KrhX2LRYfL
Anonymous
Guest

October 11, 2011, 07:36:24 PM
 #84

I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it.  Roll Eyes
But, this go against the profit.
No it wouldn't. People inherently bring me a lot of value, especially children. Profit isn't just money. It comes in emotional pleasure too.

That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that.
It seems to be their main axiom.

"Oh, Immanuel, people don't care. Only the government does! That's why we should give all our labor and money to them! We aren't smart enough nor caring enough to manage our own resources!"

...but isn't the government made of people?

"Special people! Special people that eat rainbows, poop butterflies and care soooooo much!"

ParrotyBit
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Grand Inquisitrix of the BTC Universe Police


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 07:44:33 PM
 #85

That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that.

Aside from those who derive pleasure from their work, what desires can be fulfilled without the accumulation of resources?
Anonymous
Guest

October 11, 2011, 07:46:25 PM
 #86

That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that.

Aside from those who derive pleasure from their work, what desires can be fulfilled without the accumulation of resources?
Personal relationships. Socializing and sharing your life with your fellow man. Existing, thinking and sharing your thoughts with others can be an equitable exchange. There's more to life than eating, shitting and sleeping. Other people kind of give meaning to life in the end.

Don't we all look forward to just lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day?

We get less time to do that when our means of sustaining ourselves become horribly inefficient.
ParrotyBit
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Grand Inquisitrix of the BTC Universe Police


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 07:51:33 PM
 #87

"Oh, Immanuel, people don't care. Only the government does! That's why we should give all our labor and money to them! We aren't smart enough nor caring enough to manage our own resources!"

The people who do care would have spent their resources on caring for others, losing their edge in profitability and sustainability. The people who don't care saved all their money and have more financial leverage as a result.

No matter what, the world is going to be screwed up unless more than 50% of the people are inherently good and under a democratically ruled, socialistic regime, or a truly benevolent individual with superpowers creates a magnificent dictatorship. Since neither of those are going to happen, I'd favor the least painful alternative.
Anonymous
Guest

October 11, 2011, 07:53:59 PM
 #88

"Oh, Immanuel, people don't care. Only the government does! That's why we should give all our labor and money to them! We aren't smart enough nor caring enough to manage our own resources!"

The people who do care would have spent their resources on caring for others, losing their edge in profitability and sustainability. The people who don't care saved all their money and have more financial leverage as a result.

No matter what, the world is going to be screwed up unless more than 50% of the people are inherently good and under a democratically ruled, socialistic regime, or a truly benevolent individual with superpowers creates a magnificent dictatorship. Since neither of those are going to happen, I'd favor the least painful alternative.

Here's your problem: You think caring for people involves one person sacrificing and the other gaining. In an ideal world, it's symbiotic. You can care for people and be profitable. Nobody has to sacrifice.

Also, your last statement makes me want to vomit.
ParrotyBit
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Grand Inquisitrix of the BTC Universe Police


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 07:55:12 PM
 #89

Personal relationships. Socializing and sharing your life with your fellow man. Existing, thinking and sharing your thoughts with others can be an equitable exchange. There's more to life than eating, shitting and sleeping. Other people kind of give meaning to life in the end.

Don't we all look forward to just lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day?

We get less time to do that when our means of sustaining ourselves become horribly inefficient.

Lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day requires the accumulation of resources. Your friends, how do they get to your residence? Why do they have extra time at the end of the day? When did you make these friends?

Every second you aren't working is paid for by the time you worked. Those with more resources have more free time.

As for my last statement, it should make anyone want to vomit, but it's the sad truth.
Anonymous
Guest

October 11, 2011, 07:58:43 PM
 #90

Personal relationships. Socializing and sharing your life with your fellow man. Existing, thinking and sharing your thoughts with others can be an equitable exchange. There's more to life than eating, shitting and sleeping. Other people kind of give meaning to life in the end.

Don't we all look forward to just lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day?

We get less time to do that when our means of sustaining ourselves become horribly inefficient.

Lounging with our families and friends at the end of the day requires the accumulation of resources. Your friends, how do they get to your residence? Why do they have extra time at the end of the day? When did you make these friends?

Every second you aren't working is paid for by the time you worked. Those with more resources have more free time.

For most of our life as a species, we didn't work all day. We lounged and slept. We hunted a few times a week but most of the time it was resting.

Also, you don't actually lose anything every time you don't work. You can still produce enough value in short bursts to sustain yourself easily for the rest of your life. Considering flipping burgers isn't a scarce nor very valuable skill, yes, you will be working full-time for quite awhile before you can make your skills more valuable per hour.
ParrotyBit
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Grand Inquisitrix of the BTC Universe Police


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 08:00:10 PM
 #91

Here's your problem: You think caring for people involves one person sacrificing and the other gaining. In an ideal world, it's symbiotic. You can care for people and be profitable. Nobody has to sacrifice.

I'm going to pay for hospitals with good intentions and gumption!
Anonymous
Guest

October 11, 2011, 08:00:55 PM
 #92

Here's your problem: You think caring for people involves one person sacrificing and the other gaining. In an ideal world, it's symbiotic. You can care for people and be profitable. Nobody has to sacrifice.

I'm going to pay for hospitals with good intentions and gumption!
Churches did for quite awhile until the government regulated them out.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 08:01:38 PM
 #93

Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation. If anything, it was a pinnacle part of history and a necessary one. It occurs in every evolving country inevitably. The oppressor is previous technology and restraints.

Oh, if only those evil industrial corporations would stop exploiting those poor workers in third world countries like India and Thailand, and let them go back to the good old days of living on the streets and surviving by pickpocketing, begging, or underage prostitution, right.  Wink

fivebells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 08:02:11 PM
 #94

0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED!
 And one of that 0.1% is probably BitcoinExpress!  What a beautiful future we're stumbling towards!
ParrotyBit
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Grand Inquisitrix of the BTC Universe Police


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 08:03:56 PM
 #95

Also, you don't actually lose anything every time you don't work. You can still produce enough value in short bursts to sustain yourself easily for the rest of your life. Considering flipping burgers isn't a scarce nor very valuable skill, yes, you will be working full-time for quite awhile before you can make your skills more valuable per hour.

Someone who works 8 hours a day flipping burgers has an advantage over the person who works 16 hours a day flipping burgers because
Anonymous
Guest

October 11, 2011, 08:05:29 PM
 #96

Also, you don't actually lose anything every time you don't work. You can still produce enough value in short bursts to sustain yourself easily for the rest of your life. Considering flipping burgers isn't a scarce nor very valuable skill, yes, you will be working full-time for quite awhile before you can make your skills more valuable per hour.

Someone who works 8 hours a day flipping burgers has an advantage over the person who works 16 hours a day flipping burgers because
He'll be happier because he'll actually have other reasons to live besides shaping ground beef?
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 08:13:35 PM
 #97

That's a funny straw man used against libertarians: that a person's only desire in life should be the accumulation of resources. I've never heard anyone argue that.

Aside from those who derive pleasure from their work, what desires can be fulfilled without the accumulation of resources?

Also painting/drawing, writing music or books, writing software/apps, blogging, cooking, racing cars, taking photos, traveling and writing guides, and having sex. All activities that people derive pleasure from that others happily pay them to help them continue to derive pleasure from it.

ParrotyBit
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Grand Inquisitrix of the BTC Universe Police


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 08:36:19 PM
 #98

Also painting/drawing, writing music or books, writing software/apps, blogging, cooking, racing cars, taking photos, traveling and writing guides, and having sex. All activities that people derive pleasure from that others happily pay them to help them continue to derive pleasure from it.

Cool, I want to race cars (not really, but anyway)! Where's my race car? Where's my piano to learn? My camera? My travel costs?

You aren't really going to give me any of those for free, are you... Furs are so cruel to their feathered friends!

Most people who do these things, aside from possibly writing software, don't get a cent for it. Even the 1% of them who do get paid for it have invested heavily beforehand in it with...the accumulation of resources, whether theirs or their parents'.
ParrotyBit
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42

Grand Inquisitrix of the BTC Universe Police


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 08:50:11 PM
 #99

He'll be happier because he'll actually have other reasons to live besides shaping ground beef?

Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. Eventually, robots are produced to flip burgers automatically. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.

Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. They grow envious of 8's happiness and decide to buy a weapon with the money they've saved. No one stops them. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.

Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. 16 saves up enough money to be able to procure some means of production, and forms a burger company. BurgerB takes enough customers away from BurgerA so that the grasshopper gets laid off. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.

Yeah, I know, in some versions of the story the ant lets the grasshopper in and he learns his lesson and everyone is happy. Not this one. There's always going to be some jerk red ant acting purely to gain control of the market and/or situation, and the regulations on the market should be at most to keep these red ants' actions within reason, and at least a safety net for the grasshopper to not starve through a winter. I won't debate at all whether current governments meet these requirements, as I don't believe they do. However, a truly free market won't meet either.
Mal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8


I put on my robe and wizard hat.


View Profile
October 11, 2011, 09:07:16 PM
 #100

He'll be happier because he'll actually have other reasons to live besides shaping ground beef?

Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. Eventually, robots are produced to flip burgers automatically. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.

Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. They grow envious of 8's happiness and decide to buy a weapon with the money they've saved. No one stops them. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.

Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. 16 hours bides their time, saving and scrimping every cent. 16 saves up enough money to be able to procure some means of production, and forms a burger company. BurgerB takes enough customers away from BurgerA so that the grasshopper gets laid off. The grasshopper dies, the ant lives.

Yeah, I know, in some versions of the story the ant lets the grasshopper in and he learns his lesson and everyone is happy. Not this one. There's always going to be some jerk red ant acting purely to gain control of the market and/or situation, and the regulations on the market should be at most to keep these red ants' actions within reason, and at least a safety net for the grasshopper to not starve through a winter. I won't debate at all whether current governments meet these requirements, as I don't believe they do. However, a truly free market won't meet either.
A couple mistakes in there, including but not limited to: the assumption that "No one stops them."
Who was arguing for anarchism? Hell even anarchism has a theory for how society would deal with violent aggression.

Since everyone is doing it: 1DqtCAksMPAkWdryGUFRe8d1KrhX2LRYfL
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!