Rumors of Bitcoin's libertarian death have been greatly exaggerated.

[BittBurger]

My friend told me:  "Libertarians are just Tea Party-ers who are Athiest".

-B-

[1714607119]

1714607119

[1714607119]

1714607119

[1714607119]

1714607119

[~Coinseeker~]

Do you think it is ok for goods and services to be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Yes, or No.

Man, what country do you live in? I didn't read the whole thread, but is this why I see Somalia being mentioned?   

[amspir]

Uhm, if you should act selfish, It's perfectly rational to get some of what you paid in taxes back later. So I see nothing wrong from Ayn Raind cashing her social security checks.

I feel that principle is the same as "it's ok to steal from someone that stole from someone else."   It makes as much sense as selfishness as a moral positive.  If I were to hold a strongly held belief against a certain system, I would not participate in anyway that I was free choose to, as voluntarily participating would be endorsement.  I would not think her a hypocrite if she chose to become homeless and suffered her condition without medical care, because she did not have the funds to sustain herself near the end of her life.   At the very least, she should have lived at the mercy of the charity of any supporters she had.

I personally find hypocrisy to be morally repugnant, but each person is different.

[~Coinseeker~]

Uhm, if you should act selfish, It's perfectly rational to get some of what you paid in taxes back later. So I see nothing wrong from Ayn Raind cashing her social security checks.

I feel that principle is the same as "it's ok to steal from someone that stole from someone else."   It makes as much sense as selfishness as a moral positive.  If I were to hold a strongly held belief against a certain system, I would not participate in anyway that I was free choose to, as voluntarily participating would be endorsement.  I would not think her a hypocrite if she chose to become homeless and suffered her condition without medical care, because she did not have the funds to sustain herself near the end of her life.   At the very least, she should have lived at the mercy of the charity of any supporters she had.

I personally find hypocrisy to be morally repugnant, but each person is different.

+1

[amspir]

That's the problem with extreme ideas, is that you do not consider any possibility between authoritarianism and anarchy.  And morality is subjective.  Ayn Rand believed it moral to be selfish, yet died while accepting social security in her final years.

You can answer the question, or be ignored - doesn't matter much either way to me:

Do you think it is ok for goods and services to be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Yes, or No.

It's not a black and white answer, IMHO.  In general, no.

Let me ask you this:  Is it okay for a society in which you reside, by barrel of a gun, to have you banished from that society because you refuse to contribute what is considered to be a fair share to the commons needed for that society to exist?

[cryptoanarchist]

That's the problem with extreme ideas, is that you do not consider any possibility between authoritarianism and anarchy.  And morality is subjective.  Ayn Rand believed it moral to be selfish, yet died while accepting social security in her final years.

You can answer the question, or be ignored - doesn't matter much either way to me:

Do you think it is ok for goods and services to be provided at the barrel of a gun?

Yes, or No.

It's not a black and white answer, IMHO.  In general, no.

Let me ask you this:  Is it okay for a society in which you reside, by barrel of a gun, to have you banished from that society because you refuse to contribute what is considered to be a fair share to the commons needed for that society to exist?

It's absolutely a black and white answer. If you think some services can be provided at the barrel of a gun, that counts as a yes.

As for your question, it proves you don't have a private sector job. If you did, you'd understand that private sector workers get paid by contributing to society. People WILLINGLY give me money to build websites for them. I don't have to threaten them to pay for my services, whether needed or not. The fact that people pay me more than I even need for my standard of living, proves that I produce for others more than I consume.

Furthermore, being forced to contribute isn't a contribution at all. It's actual name is "armed robbery".

[amspir]

It's absolutely a black and white answer. If you think some services can be provided at the barrel of a gun, that counts as a yes.

I realize that you are angry in being told what to do by a government.  I totally get that.

However, I think the anarcho-libertarian utopia can never exist.  I would be totally down with a society that doesn't need government, and everyone treats everyone fairly and nobody steals from eachother.  But the moment more than two people have to exist with each other, one will find a way to take something from the other. 

If my neighbor decides he needs my money, he could come to the door with a gun and demand it.   I could go mad max and try to shoot him before he shoots me, but I am glad that I paid a reasonable tribute to my local government so that there exist police that deter this from happening.

I could live in Somalia, and go mad max on the local warlord that shows up with his militia to demand tribute.  There I would have no choice but to capitulate or fight.

I live in the United States, and I pay tribute by mailing a check when filing my taxes.  It may be onerous, but it could be worse.   The rules are decided in a democracy rather than a dictatorship, and I am fine with that.  I realize that you are not OK with it.  We disagree.

But the world that is the ideal anarcho-libertarian utopia does not exist.  I've been to places in the Pacific-Northwest where entire communities live off the grid, but there are people with guns that are in charge, and those who don't follow the rules are made to leave. 

As for your question, it proves you don't have a private sector job. If you did, you'd understand that private sector workers get paid by contributing to society. People WILLINGLY give me money to build websites for them. I don't have to threaten them to pay for my services, whether needed or not. The fact that people pay me more than I even need for my standard of living, proves that I produce for others more than I consume.

If you are an active tax-resister, then I hope you would be aware that if a client files a 1099 to report what they paid you, that the IRS may come after you.  I once did this, and when it caught up with me several years later, I paid the taxes with penalties rather than fight off government agents in a gun battle. 

I am not a public sector employee, and in fact, I run several businesses, and file a couple of schedule C's a year.   I pay my taxes because I don't want men with guns to come to the door, I'd rather work and make money than waging war against the federal government.  I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with being a public sector employee.

[cryptoanarchist]

It's absolutely a black and white answer. If you think some services can be provided at the barrel of a gun, that counts as a yes.

I realize that you are angry in being told what to do by a government.  I totally get that.

You totally don't. I'm not angry in the slightest - you wish...lol. I think you're projecting - you're angry that I don't care what the people you work for think. You're upset that the government you worship is being ridiculed and ignored, and the people doing the ignoring are totally getting away with it.

If you are an active tax-resister, then I hope you would be aware that if a client files a 1099 to report what they paid you, that the IRS may come after you.  I once did this, and when it caught up with me several years later, I paid the taxes with penalties rather than fight off government agents in a gun battle. 

I am not a public sector employee, and in fact, I run several businesses, and file a couple of schedule C's a year.   I pay my taxes because I don't want men with guns to come to the door, I'd rather work and make money than waging war against the federal government.  I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with being a public sector employee.

My experience is that the IRS is completely incapable of pursuing 1099 cases. I think you're lying about not being a public sector employee. You run several businesses? Name 'em. If you really do, you should be proud of them.

I think being honest is completely out of your nature, though. I can see your future, and its in my ignore box.

[Elwar]

I paid the taxes with penalties rather than fight off government agents in a gun battle. 

I am not a public sector employee, and in fact, I run several businesses, and file a couple of schedule C's a year.   I pay my taxes because I don't want men with guns to come to the door,

There is no anarchist/government. You have pinpointed the exact way of things. People with guns and power can do whatever they want against people with less power and guns.

Your neighbor coming to your house with a gun is the same thing as the government coming to your house with a gun. Some people pool their money for protection. But after some time you are no longer paying just for protection, you are also paying for whatever crazy ideas those with power may want. And the more money and power they get, the more insane things they can come up without your permission because there is no competition and no one else to go to for protection.

[Alonzo Ewing]

I feel that principle is the same as "it's ok to steal from someone that stole from someone else."   It makes as much sense as selfishness as a moral positive.  If I were to hold a strongly held belief against a certain system, I would not participate in anyway that I was free choose to, as voluntarily participating would be endorsement.  I would not think her a hypocrite if she chose to become homeless and suffered her condition without medical care, because she did not have the funds to sustain herself near the end of her life.   At the very least, she should have lived at the mercy of the charity of any supporters she had.

I personally find hypocrisy to be morally repugnant, but each person is different.

I have no affinity (or disaffinity) for Ayn Rand, but I don't see any hypocrisy.  She does not believe her money should be taken from her to fund the social security program.  Yet funds are taken from her.  In her old age, she accepts that money back.  What's wrong with that?  Why shouldn't she accept her stolen money back?

In her ideal world, no money would be taken from her, and she'd take none back.  In the current world, her money was taken from her.  She has every right to take it back.  No hypocrisy.

[amspir]

You totally don't. I'm not angry in the slightest - you wish...lol. I think you're projecting - you're angry that I don't care what the people you work for think. You're upset that the government you worship is being ridiculed and ignored, and the people doing the ignoring are totally getting away with it.

Complying with the law is not the same as worshiping the government.  I really don't care that you ridicule and ignore the government, that is your prerogative.  It's the attitude concerning that I don't join you in ridiculing and ignoring the government because I am more risk-adverse than you, that I find objectionable.

If you are an active tax-resister, then I hope you would be aware that if a client files a 1099 to report what they paid you, that the IRS may come after you.  I once did this, and when it caught up with me several years later, I paid the taxes with penalties rather than fight off government agents in a gun battle.  

I am not a public sector employee, and in fact, I run several businesses, and file a couple of schedule C's a year.   I pay my taxes because I don't want men with guns to come to the door, I'd rather work and make money than waging war against the federal government.  I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with being a public sector employee.

My experience is that the IRS is completely incapable of pursuing 1099 cases. I think you're lying about not being a public sector employee. You run several businesses? Name 'em. If you really do, you should be proud of them.

If you are proud of your work, you might want to list your customers, which would also allow government agents lurking in this forum to line them and you up for scrutiny.   I personally don't care, and if I were you, I wouldn't do it.   Believe that the IRS is incapable of pursing 1099 cases, think of me when you get that first certified letter.  I know that assumption to be false through personal experience.  Believe me or not, I am not going to post a scan of my notice from the IRS even if I could find it.

If you want to check out my latest business, look here and thank you for giving me an opportunity to advertise in context.   With this low in bitcoin, my shirts are really cheap at the moment.

I think being honest is completely out of your nature, though. I can see your future, and its in my ignore box.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I really don't hold any animosity towards you.  If I have lied in a provable way that doesn't violate my privacy (which I strongly believe in), please point it out.  I enjoy a good debate, and if you wish to no longer defend your position, then show some self-control and stop replying.  If your ignore box helps you do it, so be it.

[edit] Let me hit you with some math:  According to the IRS, they examine returns (or non-existent returns, based on reported W2 and 1099's) at a rate of about 0.7% in the income ranges 50-75K a year.  The bracket below that is about the same.   Thus, the chance that you will get caught not filing a return consistent with your 1099s is 0.7% for one year.   If you do this for the next N years, the chance that one of your returns will be examined is  1-(1-0.7%)^N.   N=5 years, that is 3.4%.  N=10 years, 6.7%.  N=20 years, 13.1%.  I'm going to guess you are about 25, based on your idealism; and that you will retire at 65.  At N=40 years, the risk is 24.4%.   Be aware of the risk going forward in your 1099 career, and sincerely, the best of luck on not getting caught.

[amspir]

I have no affinity (or disaffinity) for Ayn Rand, but I don't see any hypocrisy.  She does not believe her money should be taken from her to fund the social security program.  Yet funds are taken from her.  In her old age, she accepts that money back.  What's wrong with that?  Why shouldn't she accept her stolen money back?

In her ideal world, no money would be taken from her, and she'd take none back.  In the current world, her money was taken from her.  She has every right to take it back.  No hypocrisy.

It is the same distinction as between "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" versus "do to others what they do to you."

By accepting social security money, she causes the government to collect that amount of money from younger workers in the government-enforced ponzi scheme.

By not accepting social security, she would have, in a very small way, reduced the required amount of money taken from these younger workers, and remained true to her principles.

[Peter R]

There is no anarchist/government. You have pinpointed the exact way of things. People with guns and power can do whatever they want against people with less power and guns.

Your neighbor coming to your house with a gun is the same thing as the government coming to your house with a gun. Some people pool their money for protection. But after some time you are no longer paying just for protection, you are also paying for whatever crazy ideas those with power may want. And the more money and power they get, the more insane things they can come up without your permission because there is no competition and no one else to go to for protection.

Some good points.  

People will always form communities and some sort of governance will naturally emerge.  We have this now in the US, we had this thousands of years ago in ancient Rome, as well as many many years before that in our hunter-gatherer days.  We are social animals and we form groups with shared codes of conduct because doing so is advantageous.  

What I find very interesting is the influence that the properties of money play in determining how governance will emerge.  I believe the fiat experiment that began in earnest in 1913--centralized money creation--was the dominant factor in the growth of large bureaucratic institutions like the NSA, IRS, EU, IMF, etc., as well as what gave birth to the welfare state.  

If bitcoin continues to grow, I expect that the way we decide to form communities and govern ourselves will begin to change.  Since bitcoin is decentralized, I believe we will see a return to smaller communities interacting with each other as they choose.  

Perhaps every political ideology can have its own community LOL  

[amspir]

I paid the taxes with penalties rather than fight off government agents in a gun battle. 

I am not a public sector employee, and in fact, I run several businesses, and file a couple of schedule C's a year.   I pay my taxes because I don't want men with guns to come to the door,

There is no anarchist/government. You have pinpointed the exact way of things. People with guns and power can do whatever they want against people with less power and guns.

Your neighbor coming to your house with a gun is the same thing as the government coming to your house with a gun. Some people pool their money for protection. But after some time you are no longer paying just for protection, you are also paying for whatever crazy ideas those with power may want. And the more money and power they get, the more insane things they can come up without your permission because there is no competition and no one else to go to for protection.

Then we are in agreement.   I just so happens that I prefer to be in America, rather than a dictatorship or under the domain of a warlord, as I have some small influence in how things are decided through my vote.

[Alonzo Ewing]

It is the same distinction as between "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" versus "do to others what they do to you."

By accepting social security money, she causes the government to collect that amount of money from younger workers in the government-enforced ponzi scheme.

By not accepting social security, she would have, in a very small way, reduced the required amount of money taken from these younger workers, and remained true to her principles.

But she had money taken from her when she was young to pay for the elderly of that time.  Ordinarily, she'd have used that money to save for her old age.

In her old age, she did not have that money, nor the returns from any potential interest/investment.  There's nothing hypocritical with her accepting it back.

A person might think that the FDA's monopoly on drug evaluation kills more lives than it saves.  Yet they would not be hypocritical in taking FDA-approved drugs.  It's the system they live in.  They're not obligated to sacrifice themselves in order to believe a market for drug evaluation would be a better system.

[amspir]

But she had money taken from her when she was young to pay for the elderly of that time.  Ordinarily, she'd have used that money to save for her old age.

She came to America in '31.   She wouldn't of had to start paying until '35, when the program was instituted.   The first benefits weren't payed until 1940.   

In her old age, she did not have that money, nor the returns from any potential interest/investment.  There's nothing hypocritical with her accepting it back.

Ayn Rand herself initially resisted in signing up for social security benefits, but was convinced by her lawyer.   This, to me, indicates she realized she was a hypocrite.   I don't recall her stating that she couldn't save up for retirement because she had to a pay a burdensome 2% social security tax on her earnings through her working years.  I'm really surprised that she couldn't survive on her continuing book royalties, unless she was in debt.