Governments and Bitcoin

[dissipate]

I wasn't calling the government to compete fair and square, although I do in other arenas of life demand a higher standard from it than what I typically see.  I was speaking specifically to anarchists who fault the state on its use of force.

So why do we have to play fair but the government doesn't? Your whole position sounds like a massive double standard. The government can audit us, spy on us, inflate away our wealth, give trillions away to the wealthy and connected, but we gotta 'play by the rules'.

That may be your desire, but if you act on it you do end up rather hypocritical--faulting the state on its use of force yet considering it fine to use force for your own agendas.  It's kind of a "don't sink to their level" issue, dontcha think?

I do not support 'opposition groups' or any kind of action that flies under a political banner. Therefore, I don't support a collectively organized overthrow of the government, because the leader of that group would just form another government. This has happened in Egypt and other countries where an unpopular regime has fallen, only to be replaced by an 'opposition group' that gets its meat hooks into the country's resources in due time. That being said, I have no problem with the use of violence to defend one's property against the terrorcrats. Unfortunately, such action is not currently practical and is rather foolish due to the overwhelming force the state employs. That's why I agree with John T. Kennedy, who says that the revolution will occur when the cost of ruling people goes up too high for it to be worthwhile: http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=242. Bitcoin is an excellent means towards that state of affairs.

If anything, I would think a political process has more legitimacy behind it than an individual's desire does, though I personally think the way forward is to give people more freedom as to which jurisdiction they want to live under.  Speaking of which--Somalia is pretty anarchist these days.  Just saying.  The option is there.

The political process is controlled by individuals with desires that are no more legitimate than anyone else's, but are actually less so, because as I stated before, the political process is an illegitimate means of acquiring resources. Take away all the the ceremonies, signatures and political cheerleaders and it is tantamount to saying "These guys over here want me to take and control your stuff, so I'm going to do it." Most people drive themselves crazy because they can't decide if the government is a legitimate entity providing services or just a type of 'mafia'. It really is just a 'mafia'.

As for Somalia, I leave that to be debated elsewhere. I would like to point out that North Korea is the logical epitome of a government enthusiast's world view. However, the vast majority of statists living elsewhere wouldn't want to live there. They enjoy too many luxuries and comforts provided by hampered but still anarchic business activities of their home countries.

[eMansipater]

I wasn't calling the government to compete fair and square, although I do in other arenas of life demand a higher standard from it than what I typically see.  I was speaking specifically to anarchists who fault the state on its use of force.

So why do we have to play fair but the government doesn't? Your whole position sounds like a massive double standard. The government can audit us, spy on us, inflate away our wealth, give trillions away to the wealthy and connected, but we gotta 'play by the rules'.

Calm down here--I've not advanced a position, merely followed a position to it's own conclusion.  I've yet to say anything about what I do or don't expect from a government, since I'm not addressing any government in this thread.  In this case the 'rules' to which you refer are not my own, but simply the rules of the position "force is wrong" applied reflexively.

If you were curious about my own position, here it is:  I don't believe the type of behaviour you describe is acceptable from a government, though I would finesse those concepts rather a lot further.  I do believe, however, that the most effective way to address any ineffective system is to build a better one.  Building things is a lot harder than grumbling about them, in my experience.

That may be your desire, but if you act on it you do end up rather hypocritical--faulting the state on its use of force yet considering it fine to use force for your own agendas.  It's kind of a "don't sink to their level" issue, dontcha think?

I do not support 'opposition groups' or any kind of action that flies under a political banner. Therefore, I don't support a collectively organized overthrow of the government, because the leader of that group would just form another government. This has happened in Egypt and other countries where an unpopular regime has fallen, only to be replaced by an 'opposition group' that gets its meat hooks into the country's resources in due time. That being said, I have no problem with the use of violence to defend one's property against the terrorcrats. Unfortunately, such action is not currently practical and is rather foolish due to the overwhelming force the state employs. That's why I agree with John T. Kennedy, who says that the revolution will occur when the cost of ruling people goes up too high for it to be worthwhile: http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=242. Bitcoin is an excellent means towards that state of affairs.

And having concluded what you conclude in that sentence, whether I agree with your reasons or not, don't you also include that bitcoin will be ever so much more successful if it is itself above politics?  Just a thought.  The one I typed up in the post which launched this thread. 

If anything, I would think a political process has more legitimacy behind it than an individual's desire does, though I personally think the way forward is to give people more freedom as to which jurisdiction they want to live under.  Speaking of which--Somalia is pretty anarchist these days.  Just saying.  The option is there.

The political process is controlled by individuals with desires that are no more legitimate than anyone else's, but are actually less so, because as I stated before, the political process is an illegitimate means of acquiring resources. Take away all the the ceremonies, signatures and political cheerleaders and it is tantamount to saying "These guys over here want me to take and control your stuff, so I'm going to do it." Most people drive themselves crazy because they can't decide if the government is a legitimate entity providing services or just a type of 'mafia'. It really is just a 'mafia'.

The position does rather improve by virtue of the fact that "Those guys over there", a.k.a. other citizens, submit themselves to the same rules they ask of you; and provide you with rather a lot of beneficial interactions to boot.  I presume that's why you don't want to move to Somalia?

The unattributed comment that "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" still rings rather true at this point in history.  I live in a city which has the world's longest continuously functioning Anarchist collective.  If Anarchy really works, I expect that collective to grow to the level where it can simply elect into place someone who will dissolve the government.  If it doesn't, one really has to wonder why.  In the meantime, I tend to disregard any person who rants on about the state while still using roads, municipal water, emergency services, etc.  I won't presume whether you are such a person or not, but if you have forgone the benefits of a modern state feel free to announce it proudly.

As for Somalia, I leave that to be debated elsewhere. I would like to point out that North Korea is the logical epitome of a government enthusiast's world view. However, the vast majority of statists living elsewhere wouldn't want to live there. They enjoy too many luxuries and comforts provided by hampered but still anarchic business activities of their home countries.

In real life opinions exist in more forms than just their most extreme.  But I suspect that you knew that, and that this comment was made rather disingenuously.  You do not help your case to generalise so.  Surely you will have to convince some portion of the citizenry to join you if you hope to bring about a functioning anarchism?

Anyways, if you're interested in discussing the issue of governments vs anarchy we ought to take it into "off-topic".  This thread is for the advancement of the idea that bitcoin should be above political viewpoints; it would be truly ironic to debate them here.


Basically, I'm planting a flag here for non-anarchists to be part of bitcoin.  The purpose of a flag is not what it signals to me, but what it signals to everyone else.  I'm here whether the flag flies or not .  Thanks for your comments, everyone.

[CryptikEnigma]

I'm an anarchist

Im an antichrist. Pleased to meet you.

LMAO

[ihrhase]

I might just as well say something here...

Not going to quote people...

OP:
Primarily your argument works out if you are not in tune with historical fact as opposed to the slop the public education system pours into people's heads.

Space: The US government threatened to level Brazil as it was actually approaching attaining orbit before the US and the Soviets were, they dismantled their project.

The ability of private enterprise to be involved in space without government in the US was thwarted when Kennedy made it a military task, furthermore the US government stopped (violently) three other attempts since the 70's for private interests to begin space tourism.

Not to mention the treaty the US was eagerly a part of, signed by Johnson to make it illegal by international law for anyone (individual, business or government) to own anything beyond the atmosphere.

Internet: Have you seen what the government did as far as internet was concerned?  If it was not for private commercial interests the internet would still be a barren network of text based messages.

It is never that it is some conspiracy, it is the natural effect of power when granted to humans, just because you know a guy and you think he is a good guy does not lend that government is a good idea or even the best of the worst ideas people can come up with.  When you give people power the incentive is to preserve and grow that power, history is a testimony to this fact.  Besides if your friend is in an elected office outside of some small district where everyone knows everyone else, I am going to say it is unlikely he is a good guy, as these types of people would not make the empty promises needed to attain elected office.

The guy who thinks libertarianism =/= anarchism
Mr. Libertarian, he is also known as Dr. Murray N. Rothbard.
Not all people who call themselves libertarians are anarchists, but then again not all people who are libertarians are actually libertarians as well (Wayne Allen Root and Bob Barr for pertinent examples), a logically consistent libertarian realizes he is an anarchist.

And the gentleman who brought up the Liberty Dollar case is absolutely correct, I think you guys do a great disservice to a bitcoin using community by not accepting the reality that government is VERY HOSTILE to competition with a function it decided it would have and no one else should (research Spooner and the Post Office).  Bernard von Nothaus was indited terrorism charges for minting silver and gold, no one here is special and potentially safe in any means, if you are adverse to breaking decrees by government it may be wise for you to forget this, it is already illegal for you to be Human (See Controlled Substances Act then research DMT).

[dissipate]

If you were curious about my own position, here it is:  I don't believe the type of behaviour you describe is acceptable from a government, though I would finesse those concepts rather a lot further.  I do believe, however, that the most effective way to address any ineffective system is to build a better one.  Building things is a lot harder than grumbling about them, in my experience.

As I pointed out before, you aren't asking us (anarchists) to merely build something better, you are asking us to build something better under the duress of regulation, taxation and forceful seizure. Let me know when I can build a private post office that delivers first class mail. Oh wait, someone already did. His name was Lysander
Spooner, and they shut down his operation. Don't tell anyone to build something better while at the same time you support individuals in power who are actively disallowing such private institutions to be built in the first place.

The position does rather improve by virtue of the fact that "Those guys over there", a.k.a. other citizens, submit themselves to the same rules they ask of you; and provide you with rather a lot of beneficial interactions to boot.

That doesn't improve the position. In fact it makes it look very bad. Your position is more of brute force, rather than anything rational. Many people support states for a number of reasons. I believe they do out of fear, uncertainty and doubt. None of that changes the illegitimacy of the actions of the individuals in government.

The unattributed comment that "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" still rings rather true at this point in history. 

I have no desire to investigate the best or worst form of government. I'd rather see the government shrivel up, die and blow away in the wind.

I live in a city which has the world's longest continuously functioning Anarchist collective.  If Anarchy really works, I expect that collective to grow to the level where it can simply elect into place someone who will dissolve the government.  If it doesn't, one really has to wonder why.  In the meantime, I tend to disregard any person who rants on about the state while still using roads, municipal water, emergency services, etc.  I won't presume whether you are such a person or not, but if you have forgone the benefits of a modern state feel free to announce it proudly.

Let me know when I can get a permit to rip out public roads and start building private ones. The fact that someone uses monopolized services has nothing to do with their ideology, and the government monopolizing such industries can't take any credit because there is nothing to compare their work to. You are striking out big time on logic.

In real life opinions exist in more forms than just their most extreme.  But I suspect that you knew that, and that this comment was made rather disingenuously.  You do not help your case to generalise so.  Surely you will have to convince some portion of the citizenry to join you if you hope to bring about a functioning anarchism?

No, what is disingenuous is switching back and forth between arguing for the free market and arguing for statism and socialism. By constantly switching back and forth between these two beliefs, one can look like they are bringing the 'best of both worlds' together. In reality, they have just created a new insanity.This is because they are saying the same entity that is needed to run the roads (something of lesser complexity) cannot run a stock market (something of much much greater complexity). And the same types of entities that can run a stock market cannot run roads. Third way politics is insanity. Fortunately, I was able to free myself from such conundrums years ago.

You clearly didn't read the essay I linked to because your question was already answered there, and the answer is no. People don't need to be convinced to bring about a functioning anarchy anymore than they need to be 'convinced' of the merits of millions of already preexisting businesses. Did anyone need to be 'convinced' that a supermarket, donut shop or movie theater should be built? Not really. They already desired groceries, donuts and movies. In the same way a functioning anarchy would be created out of individual desire in absence of government institutions.

Anyways, if you're interested in discussing the issue of governments vs anarchy we ought to take it into "off-topic".  This thread is for the advancement of the idea that bitcoin should be above political viewpoints; it would be truly ironic to debate them here.

No, I don't want to debate this any further because your arguments have been very poor, and have been addressed in many other places all over the Internet. Here is one place you can start off at: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

[eMansipater]

I think it's safe to say that this last post brings us full circle to my original point 

[sortedmush]

I think it's safe to say that this last post brings us full circle to my original point 

Nice try.

But let's wait and see what happens when BitCoin takes off. Do you really think government will welcome it with open arms?

[ryepdx]

Nice try.

But let's wait and see what happens when BitCoin takes off. Do you really think government will welcome it with open arms?

Depends on the rhetoric swirling around in the bitcoin community at the time. It's possible that we could sell governments on the idea if we undertook to do so. Though bitcoins are a cash analogue, they are ultimately more trackable due to the existence of the blockchain. If a government were to get ahold of a mapping of addresses to identities, calculating tax owed by an individual from bitcoin activity would be as simple as mining the blockchain for data. If a country moved to using bitcoins exclusively as legal tender, they could feasibly replace most of their tax departments with a computer program.

[eMansipater]

I think it's safe to say that this last post brings us full circle to my original point  

Nice try.

But let's wait and see what happens when BitCoin takes off. Do you really think government will welcome it with open arms?

I think it depends rather a lot on what percentage of BitCoin users rant on about it being a tool to end all governments and fiat money in an anarchist revolution.  If that percentage is low I suspect they will see it the way I do--as just another disruptive technology (in the business sense, not the social) with incredible potential for fuelling online innovation.

In my experience, people never fail to underestimate the difference between established powerbrokers disliking or opposing change, and an organised government conspiracy to thwart it.  Some time ago an otherwise highly intelligent friend of mine told me that the concept of open source would shrivel up and disappear because the business interests of proprietary software were far too powerful to take on, and they were all in cahoots with political heavyweights.  It hasn't quite turned out that way .  On the other hand, the former hasn't completely displaced and destroyed the latter either.  Instead, they exist in parallel segments for the time being, and I suspect it will be a long time before open source truly enters a position of clear dominance.  That's the way disruptive technologies tend to work--Linux is finally desktop-usable due to Ubuntu et al, but it hasn't destroyed Windows.  It has however, like Firefox-IE competition, kept Microsoft on its toes and been an indispensable force in the push for open standards through preventing wider homogenization of the market.

That's how I see BitCoin--as the Linux or p2p filesharing of the money world.  True, established players won't like it and will use dirty tricks of many kinds to slow it down or try and stop it.  But there won't be a full-on conspiracy to destroy it.  People have to keep things in perspective--currency is one tool of power for governments, but far from the only one.  Even people directly invested in the current fiat mechanisms are not quaking in their boots because BitCoin exists.  They're just plain underestimating it, and later they'll be fighting it like Microsoft fights open source--sneakily and underhandedly, provided we don't give them the ammunition to do it effectively in the court of public opinion.  Don't use bitcoin to trade in illegal arms, fund terrorism, and advertise tax evasion, and we'll all do just fine.

[sortedmush]

Don't use bitcoin to trade in illegal arms, fund terrorism, and advertise tax evasion, and we'll all do just fine.

To me this translates to:

Don't trade is arms unless they conform to a violently imposed criteria.
Don't fund violence for the purpose of advancing a political ideology.
Don't advertise avoiding funding violence for the purpose of advancing a political ideology.
And we won't have the violence we've funded used against us.

I don't see what microsoft and open source and linux have to do with anything.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I know there are people out there in government who think they're doing good. Maybe all of them are convinced of it. The fact is, it's violent. And I will point out that violence for the court of public opinion to see.

I'm not interested in using BitCoin to violate anyones rights, or for anything immoral. I'm interested in using BitCoin to provide and trade in goods and services on a voluntary basis. And I will.

[kiba]

This is why kitty activism is so important.

The way people use bitcoin gottach be so innocuous that it would be political suicide to attack bitcoin.

[CryptikEnigma]

Nice try.

But let's wait and see what happens when BitCoin takes off. Do you really think government will welcome it with open arms?

Depends on the rhetoric swirling around in the bitcoin community at the time. It's possible that we could sell governments on the idea if we undertook to do so. Though bitcoins are a cash analogue, they are ultimately more trackable due to the existence of the blockchain. If a government were to get ahold of a mapping of addresses to identities, calculating tax owed by an individual from bitcoin activity would be as simple as mining the blockchain for data. If a country moved to using bitcoins exclusively as legal tender, they could feasibly replace most of their tax departments with a computer program.

At that point I would stop using bitcoin and I'm sure many others would too.

[marcus_of_augustus]

They're just plain underestimating it, and later they'll be fighting it like Microsoft fights open source--sneakily and underhandedly, provided we don't give them the ammunition to do it effectively in the court of public opinion.  Don't use bitcoin to trade in illegal arms, fund terrorism, and advertise tax evasion, and we'll all do just fine.

... I think you forget paedophilia and drugs. Yout analogy with open-source arguments haven't considered that the current monetary system is broken and thrashing about in its death throes and destroying large parts of civilised society as it goes. Puts a different slant on the whole ... "we can work with the current power-brokers" line of thinking I'd say. If they resist bitcoin as fervently as they have resisted the move back towards gold and silver there maybe more than just a few dirty tricks.

The subject title for this thread should have been "Government versus Bitcoin".

[eMansipater]

Don't use bitcoin to trade in illegal arms, fund terrorism, and advertise tax evasion, and we'll all do just fine.

To me this translates to:

Don't trade is arms unless they conform to a violently imposed criteria.
Don't fund violence for the purpose of advancing a political ideology.
Don't advertise avoiding funding violence for the purpose of advancing a political ideology.
And we won't have the violence we've funded used against us.

To each their own language--that's the beauty of a diverse society.  But I'm content to raise my kids with those three things as ironclad rules, and I don't consider myself a monster for doing so.

... I think you forget paedophilia and drugs.

You're right, we can include those two as well.  Guess I'm just not a very imaginative lawbreaker--I was thinking more about the "being labelled domestic terrorists" angle.  And again, two things I'm going to advise anyone I care about to stay the hell away from.

Is it really a violent conspiracy against all that is good and holy for an individual who is a BitCoin advocate to propose people steer clear of gun-running, terrorism-funding, paedophilia, drugs, and tax evasion as a simple way to help bitcoin succeed?  It's not a philosophical treatise, it's just an opportunity--seizing it can't be too much to ask from such a highly intelligent community.  If it were, I would think I'd seriously misunderstood the potential scope of BitCoin technology.

At the end of the day, people need to realise there's a pretty big difference between keyboard philosophy and real-world change.  If there's anyone here who aspires to Waco, they need to be slapped upside the head.  And if there's a single reply here about either the specifics of that situation or the completely flawed government response, you have missed the whole point.  Even from a "Davidian Branch Davidian" standpoint, the people in that scenario were fundamentally lacking the ability for civil interaction with the world at large; had they possessed it they would still be alive.  Anyone who thinks different has never seen a man die.

To take this back out of the esoteric, what I'm saying is people can and should believe whatever their conviction tells them.  But real-world actions have consequences.  So is BitCoin going to be a philosophical exercise, or a real-world technology?  It's up to us.

[marcus_of_augustus]

So is BitCoin going to be a philosophical exercise, or a real-world technology?  It's up to us.

I think the point was that your real-world is not the same as anyone elses real-world, and why should it be?

If you mean mainstream, well that changes, gold coin and slavery were once mainstream. Placing the current norms of one nation, or some might say failing state, as strictures on the success of bitcoins seems a little naive. The black economy is huge, even legitimate govt.s jealously vie for a share of the money that goes through it, why should bitcoin shun it?

[ryepdx]

At the end of the day, people need to realise there's a pretty big difference between keyboard philosophy and real-world change.  If there's anyone here who aspires to Waco, they need to be slapped upside the head.  And if there's a single reply here about either the specifics of that situation or the completely flawed government response, you have missed the whole point.  Even from a "Davidian Branch Davidian" standpoint, the people in that scenario were fundamentally lacking the ability for civil interaction with the world at large; had they possessed it they would still be alive.  Anyone who thinks different has never seen a man die.

To take this back out of the esoteric, what I'm saying is people can and should believe whatever their conviction tells them.  But real-world actions have consequences.  So is BitCoin going to be a philosophical exercise, or a real-world technology?  It's up to us.

+1

I think the point was that your real-world is not the same as anyone elses real-world, and why should it be?

If you mean mainstream, well that changes, gold coin and slavery were once mainstream. Placing the current norms of one nation, or some might say failing state, as strictures on the success of bitcoins seems a little naive. The black economy is huge, even legitimate govt.s jealously vie for a share of the money that goes through it, why should bitcoin shun it?

You speak as though the Bitcoin Community were monolithic. We're not. We're obviously a group of people united by nothing more than a desire to see bitcoins succeed. What each of us thinks that means will differ, by necessity. Nobody can tell you what to do with your bitcoins.

That said, I think a lot of political ideology has gotten tied up with bitcoins and I think that may end up hurting our common cause in the long run. It would be best for us all if all our apologists advocated were bitcoins. It's harder to sell bitcoins and a fringe political ideology. Let them be separate. I for one will do my part to make sure it's known that you don't need to be an agorist to like bitcoins.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Yeah, yeah, we've all heard this "go along to get along" BS all our life, it's not like it is anything new.

The next thing you know you'll be advocating for a new gubmint agency to have oversight powers of the bitcoin OSS development standards, wouldn't that just be boon for all you mainstreamists, it would be the ultimate stamp of approval for those that need "official" affirmation before taking a pee ... then what?, back to square one, vested interests co-opting the agency that has the reins of power, you could make your bitcoin agency a branch of fed. res., is that 'official' enough for ya?

At some point you've got to show some spine and say which side you are on. If you go along to get along you are putting your stamp of approval on everything the State does in your name, the blood is on your hands. The crimes are too great and obvious now, you can no longer just pay your taxes and close your eyes, their sins are your sins once you have knowledge and acquiesce. Politics and money are intertwined, no third way sorry ... free money or socialist crimes against humanity?

[Anonymous]

Nice try.

But let's wait and see what happens when BitCoin takes off. Do you really think government will welcome it with open arms?

Depends on the rhetoric swirling around in the bitcoin community at the time. It's possible that we could sell governments on the idea if we undertook to do so. Though bitcoins are a cash analogue, they are ultimately more trackable due to the existence of the blockchain. If a government were to get ahold of a mapping of addresses to identities, calculating tax owed by an individual from bitcoin activity would be as simple as mining the blockchain for data. If a country moved to using bitcoins exclusively as legal tender, they could feasibly replace most of their tax departments with a computer program.

At that point I would stop using bitcoin and I'm sure many others would too.

Correct answer. Either that or fire up an anarchist block chain

[eMansipater]

It's possible that we could sell governments on the idea if we undertook to do so. Though bitcoins are a cash analogue, they are ultimately more trackable due to the existence of the blockchain. If a government were to get ahold of a mapping of addresses to identities, calculating tax owed by an individual from bitcoin activity would be as simple as mining the blockchain for data. If a country moved to using bitcoins exclusively as legal tender, they could feasibly replace most of their tax departments with a computer program.

BitCoin doesn't need to be sold to government entities as a tool in their toolkit, any more than HTML needed to be.  It just needs to succeed on its own merits, at which point they can use it for technical applications in the same way that there exist government websites--alongside everyone else.  The point is rather that governments had no need to fight HTML.  Also, to suggest that tracking identities through bitcoin will be a bonus of the system is to misunderstand the underlying technology.  Used carefully, BitCoin is almost exactly like cash.  And just like cash, those who report and identify their cash incomes are taxed, while those who do not are not.  BitCoin does not change this.

However, it does enable more practical applications of this scenario, such as accounting programs which do your taxes automatically through the magic of perfect digital receipting.  If I were a particularly forethinking government analyst (yes I mean you reading this thread ) I would be devising a standardised method of digital receipting to be accepted officially for tax purposes alongside the digital cash, saving both companies and individuals an immense amount of the wasted time that goes into the keeping of paper records; not to mention drastically simplifying the job of government revenue agents and auditors.  I've been wanting to do my taxes automatically for years, and the lack of a practical digital receipting standard is the primary reason I can't!  It would be a big winner at the polls, which means a big promotion for you-know-who.  Hint, hint.

Keeping BitCoin above politics means not trying to slant it in the other direction either.  Bitcoin is what bitcoin is, and it is ingenious.  All we have to do is not ruin it through either technical distortion or socio-idealogical hobbling.  Bitcoin isn't a philosophy like statism or anarchism, it's a technology like HTML or BitTorrent.  Don't mess with the core protocol, don't scare off future enthusiasts, and we're good to go whatever your reason for wanting it to succeed.

[em3rgentOrdr]

The government just labeled anyone who supports competing currencies a special kind of domestic terrorist. Maybe its time to stop defending them and get on board with the Libertarians

Ditto...yup: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2011/03/22/starting-a-new-currency-is-%E2%80%9Cdomestic-terrorism%E2%80%9D/ has a quote from the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Bernard von NotHaus for coining a competing gold dollar currency:

“It is a violation of federal law … to create private coin or currency systems to compete with the official coinage and currency of the United States.  Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country."

I think it's time for you, eMansipater, to reluctantly accept the fact that your efforts to promote bitcoin make you into a domestic terrorist, as far as the US Government is concerned, whether you like it or not.  Admittedly, it took me a while to embrace the fact that I'm an "enemy of the state".

Not everyone thinks the government here is evil. I genuinely believe there's many individuals who believe they can do/are doing good for people. However the entire system has evolved into a corrupted organism. It's not an evil conspiracy but a 'stand alone complex'.

Stand Alone Complex eventually came to represent a phenomenon where unrelated, yet very similar actions of individuals create a seemingly concerted effort.

Thanks for introducing me to concept Stand Alone Complex.  Yes, there is no conspiracy, but rather The State is an ecosystem/organism that, through natural processes of the self-interested individuals making it up, evolves it into a parasite living off of its subjects.

Bitcoin should be above politics.

Exactly.  BTW, please stop implying that anarchism is a political ideology.  Anarchism is a lack of political beliefs, just like Atheism is a lack of religious beliefs.

I was speaking specifically to anarchists who fault the state on its use of force.

I think you are conflating anarchism with pacifism.  Anarchists of the market-anarchist variety are not necessarily pacifists, but rather simply believe that voluntarily-funded competing providers of law, security, and any other good are preferable to a coercive monopoly.

Nice try.

But let's wait and see what happens when BitCoin takes off. Do you really think government will welcome it with open arms?

Depends on the rhetoric swirling around in the bitcoin community at the time. It's possible that we could sell governments on the idea if we undertook to do so. Though bitcoins are a cash analogue, they are ultimately more trackable due to the existence of the blockchain. If a government were to get ahold of a mapping of addresses to identities, calculating tax owed by an individual from bitcoin activity would be as simple as mining the blockchain for data. If a country moved to using bitcoins exclusively as legal tender, they could feasibly replace most of their tax departments with a computer program.

Wait a minute...can't people simply use a new address for every transaction?  But yeah, anyway, I sometimes wonder how long it will take for some government somewhere to reluctantly start accepting bitcoin as legitimate payment of taxes...  Just like how some 3rd world countries have ended up pegging their currency to the dollar or simply just declared the US dollar as their main currency.

Yeah, yeah, we've all heard this "go along to get along" BS all our life, it's not like it is anything new.

The next thing you know you'll be advocating for a new gubmint agency to have oversight powers of the bitcoin OSS development standards, wouldn't that just be boon for all you mainstreamists, it would be the ultimate stamp of approval for those that need "official" affirmation before taking a pee ... then what?, back to square one, vested interests co-opting the agency that has the reins of power, you could make your bitcoin agency a branch of fed. res., is that 'official' enough for ya?

At some point you've got to show some spine and say which side you are on. If you go along to get along you are putting your stamp of approval on everything the State does in your name, the blood is on your hands. The crimes are too great and obvious now, you can no longer just pay your taxes and close your eyes, their sins are your sins once you have knowledge and acquiesce. Politics and money are intertwined, no third way sorry ... free money or socialist crimes against humanity?

+1.  I'm tired of all this "go along to get along" harmonious BS too.  I wasted so much time in Libertarian Party and Ron Paul politics where they would always tell me to shut up whenever I tried to point out the gun in the room.

Anyway, another great thing about bitcoin is that it introduces a lot of statists (def: staism is the advocacy of the state to solve social problems) like eMansipater who are intrigued by the secure, distributed, p2p nature of bitcoin to the wonderful world of secure, distributed, p2p law/security of market-anarchism, even though they really didn't want to be!