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

[amspir]

There are some things that I believe in that are not libertarian, for instance, I believe there should be subsidies to get broadband internet service to every rural household in America, just as there was for telephone service and electricity.  

I'm against subsidies not because I don't support the end sought (broadband for rural folks), but because subsidies distort markets and are fundamentally anti-competitive.  The sentiment is just as wrong as "Every person should own a home" or "Every person should have their college loans paid for" both of which have had disastrous results.

Personally, I, as an urban dweller, see broadband internet as means for rural dweller to not remain backwards and ignorant, and get exposed to other views.   Instead, they are led by the nose by two of the richest oligarch brothers in America through shadowy "grass roots" organizations that they fund from their Upper West Side penthouse in Manhattan, and they get them to vote against their own self-interests.   They have an extreme hatred for heathcare.gov, even though they've never seen the website and objectively made up their minds.  But that's just me.

Without a subsidy to jump start the investment needed in infra-structure, rural dwellers are going to wait a long, long time until the free market solution finally allows them access.  Meanwhile, the urban dwellers have the advantage of the information economy, and they don't and society stratifies.

I believe that people and corporations should be made to account for degrading the environment without paying for it (socializing a cost), while making a profit.

Libertarians are pro-property rights, so dumping waste onto others' property or the commons is a big no-no.  The argument is about the solution: whether it be central control, or whether it be by privatizing the commons (like has been done with fish stocks) or  pigouvian taxes.  Libertarians generally prefer the latter because it avoids creating another tragedy of the commons: ensuring the regulatory apparatus is not captured.

I strongly believe in Pigouvian taxes on the dirty energy industry, as it would quickly provide a free market solution to develop the clean energy industry (and get America ahead of the rest of the world in this regard).   But I thought the word "tax" was a dirty word with libertarians.  

[amspir]

...to live in this society, you must obey laws that you may not agree with to keep from going to jail.

Raise your hand if you've downloaded any music, movies, or TV shows lately.

*raises hand*

If you have, you've been breaking the law. Have you gone to jail for it? I haven't.

If I did, would I admit to it on an open forum?  Probably not.   If I did participate in that activity, would I use a VPN located in another country to protect myself?  Probably.   Would I admit to sending some spare satoshis to the donation btc address on piratebay.se which resolves to ip address 194.71.107.15?  Probably not.

[TheButterZone]

The Somali argument is such complete nonsense.  It's in sub-saharan Africa.  Pretty much every country in that region is poor and violent.  Heck, Zimbabwe is an even worse basketcase and it's a socialist country.  What does that really prove?  

So if you don't want the libertarian utopia that is Somalia because somehow they are not worthy due to being located in sub-saharan Africa,  what type of government would you impose on these poor and violent people?  Is not the libertarian ideal the perfect system to generate wealth?  Do or do not large amounts of guns create a polite society and lower the crime rate?

That's a real stretch...

My point exactly.

- The Libertarian system does not generate wealth by itself in the same manner that an aqueduct won't hydrate a farm without first connecting to a water supply.

Then, what is the system of government needed to create the water supply if libertarianism is going to cut it?  You are a hypothetical benign dictator, you choose.

- The amount of guns is not the primary determining factor for "politeness" or crime rate. The distribution of those guns within society is certainly a major factor. When you decentralize gun ownership you decrease crime. A Bitcoiner should grasp that concept because the rule equally applies to the creation of money.

So, "socialize" the distribution of guns?  Anybody that has the money or submits to service to one of the many warlords there can get a gun.  There's no government there saying you can't get a gun.  I'm just not getting your point.

Bullshit. Somalia is governed, not anarchic or libertarian; non-aggressive liberty there is prohibited by law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/somalia

[pungopete468]

The Somali argument is such complete nonsense.  It's in sub-saharan Africa.  Pretty much every country in that region is poor and violent.  Heck, Zimbabwe is an even worse basketcase and it's a socialist country.  What does that really prove?  

So if you don't want the libertarian utopia that is Somalia because somehow they are not worthy due to being located in sub-saharan Africa,  what type of government would you impose on these poor and violent people?  Is not the libertarian ideal the perfect system to generate wealth?  Do or do not large amounts of guns create a polite society and lower the crime rate?

That's a real stretch...

My point exactly.

- The Libertarian system does not generate wealth by itself in the same manner that an aqueduct won't hydrate a farm without first connecting to a water supply.

Then, what is the system of government needed to create the water supply if libertarianism is going to cut it?  You are a hypothetical benign dictator, you choose.

- The amount of guns is not the primary determining factor for "politeness" or crime rate. The distribution of those guns within society is certainly a major factor. When you decentralize gun ownership you decrease crime. A Bitcoiner should grasp that concept because the rule equally applies to the creation of money.

So, "socialize" the distribution of guns?  Anybody that has the money or submits to service to one of the many warlords there can get a gun.  There's no government there saying you can't get a gun.  I'm just not getting your point.

 - No system of government will ever create wealth. Different governmental systems only protect the interests of different people. A Libertarian government affords little protection and favors an individuals right to choose for themselves. The protections afforded by other forms of governments come in the form of restrictions and have a high cost. The cost of regulation is a piece of freedom + the financial draw of regulatory oversight. Everybody is losing money just to protect a few people from themselves, essentially.

 - The distribution of guns should not be "socialized" because that would imply that the guns weren't owned by the person carrying it. Guns should be owned diversely by society, if a warlord wants to steal your food supply then the people should outnumber the warlords... Allow the people equal access to power and the oppression will end. Gun ownership is power; think of Yin and Yang. The guns will exist and the power is real; the people deserve equal access to that power necessary to protect their lives and equalize the distribution of power. The force of the people should exceed the force of the government ALWAYS and at every point.

[amspir]

- No system of government will ever create wealth. Different governmental systems only protect the interests of different people. A Libertarian government affords little protection and favors an individuals right to choose for themselves. The protections afforded by other forms of governments come in the form of restrictions and have a high cost. The cost of regulation is a piece of freedom + the financial draw of regulatory oversight. Everybody is losing money just to protect a few people from themselves, essentially.

 - The distribution of guns should not be "socialized" because that would imply that the guns weren't owned by the person carrying it. Guns should be owned diversely by society, if a warlord wants to steal your food supply then the people should outnumber the warlords... Allow the people equal access to power and the oppression will end. Gun ownership is power; think of Yin and Yang. The guns will exist and the power is real; the people deserve equal access to that power necessary to protect their lives and equalize the distribution of power. The force of the people should exceed the force of the government ALWAYS and at every point.

Are you then arguing that Somalia is or is not a libertarian utopia?   I regard it as the closest thing in the world in this point and time.   You are adding on to an argument in which the other poster doesn't believe it is because the people are poor and violent, and I am arguing that from a libertarian point of view, the absence of government and increased gun ownership solves these problems.  However, I don't see many idealistic libertarians flocking to this paradise.

[cryptoanarchist]

...to live in this society, you must obey laws that you may not agree with to keep from going to jail.

Raise your hand if you've downloaded any music, movies, or TV shows lately.

*raises hand*

If you have, you've been breaking the law. Have you gone to jail for it? I haven't.

If I did, would I admit to it on an open forum?  Probably not.   If I did participate in that activity, would I use a VPN located in another country to protect myself?  Probably.   Would I admit to sending some spare satoshis to the donation btc address on piratebay.se which resolves to ip address 194.71.107.15?  Probably not.

Sorry, but you sound really pathetic. Like you're the type to wait for the crosswalk light to switch to "walk" even if its in the middle of the night, and well lit and no cars for over a mile in every direction.

Do you really think the Feds are gonna bust down your door for streaming the final season of "Breaking Bad"?

[cryptoanarchist]

- No system of government will ever create wealth. Different governmental systems only protect the interests of different people. A Libertarian government affords little protection and favors an individuals right to choose for themselves. The protections afforded by other forms of governments come in the form of restrictions and have a high cost. The cost of regulation is a piece of freedom + the financial draw of regulatory oversight. Everybody is losing money just to protect a few people from themselves, essentially.

 - The distribution of guns should not be "socialized" because that would imply that the guns weren't owned by the person carrying it. Guns should be owned diversely by society, if a warlord wants to steal your food supply then the people should outnumber the warlords... Allow the people equal access to power and the oppression will end. Gun ownership is power; think of Yin and Yang. The guns will exist and the power is real; the people deserve equal access to that power necessary to protect their lives and equalize the distribution of power. The force of the people should exceed the force of the government ALWAYS and at every point.

Are you then arguing that Somalia is or is not a libertarian utopia?   I regard it as the closest thing in the world in this point and time.   You are adding on to an argument in which the other poster doesn't believe it is because the people are poor and violent, and I am arguing that from a libertarian point of view, the absence of government and increased gun ownership solves these problems.  However, I don't see many idealistic libertarians flocking to this paradise.

Have you even been to Somalia? What are you basing your knowledge of its current condition on? "Captain Phillips" with Tom Hanks??

[amspir]

Bullshit. Somalia is governed, not anarchic or libertarian; non-aggressive liberty there is prohibited by law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/somalia

The official government has no control outside of the capital and very little control inside the capital.  Sure, it is the officially recognized government of Somalia.

The gun statistics are based on household surveys done in limited geographical (safe) areas.   "Knock, knock, knock.  Hi, I'm doing a survey and would like to know how many guns you keep in the house.   Thanks you for your time and honest answer, have a good day."   Try doing that in Texas and say with a straight face that you can interpolate the true gun ownership statistics in Texas.

[amspir]

Have you even been to Somalia? What are you basing your knowledge of its current condition on? "Captain Phillips" with Tom Hanks??

I refuse to see that movie, because it glorifies the mighty power of the US Navy brought to bear on a bunch of skinny teenagers.   I read a lot; but no, I have never been there, have you?

[amspir]

Sorry, but you sound really pathetic. Like you're the type to wait for the crosswalk light to switch to "walk" even if its in the middle of the night, and well lit and no cars for over a mile in every direction.

Do you really think the Feds are gonna bust down your door for streaming the final season of "Breaking Bad"?

Copyright law in the United States is moving towards more and more criminal provisions.   People who violate such laws should be aware of that, and not all of them are going to admit it in public.  Just like people that take illegal drugs.  As I have said before, I am sympathetic to a lot of libertarian principles.

Let me be a little less subtle.  Smart criminals are the ones that never get caught.  Dumb criminals are the ones that get caught.  Really dumb criminals are the ones that don't even require a confidential informant to inform the authorities of their actions.

I actually do wait for the crosswalk to light to switch so I can have legal right of way.  I'm usually not in that big of a hurry crossing the street.   Crossing with the light in the crosswalk allows me punitive damages in court if someone chooses to hit me.  It's just a weird thing I do, hopefully it will never pay off.

[TheButterZone]

Bullshit. Somalia is governed, not anarchic or libertarian; non-aggressive liberty there is prohibited by law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/somalia

The official government has no control outside of the capital and very little control inside the capital.  Sure, it is the officially recognized government of Somalia.

The gun statistics are based on household surveys done in limited geographical (safe) areas.   "Knock, knock, knock.  Hi, I'm doing a survey and would like to know how many guns you keep in the house.   Thanks you for your time and honest answer, have a good day."   Try doing that in Texas and say with a straight face that you can interpolate the true gun ownership statistics in Texas.

Statistics are irrelevant to this argument about who can or cannot legally get a gun under the laws of the State, which is covered by gunpolicy.org with cites. Texas with its Jim Crow laws is another example of a State that is covered in "but there's liberty here!" bullshit.

[amspir]

Statistics are irrelevant to this argument about who can or cannot legally get a gun under the laws of the State, which is covered by gunpolicy.org with cites. Texas with its Jim Crow laws is another example of a State that is covered in "but there's liberty here!" bullshit.

You site statistics, then say statistics are irrelevant?   I'm confused.    Somalia is a failed state with no effective government.  The gun laws of the ineffective government don't really figure into the equation.

[Peter R]

Bitcoin is slowly breaking down our shared myths: "deflation is bad," "money must be issued by a government," "people should not be free to transact with each other," etc., etc.  Bitcoin will break down some libertarian myths too.  

I think it is better to focus on ideas rather than labels.  Labels divide, ideas unite.  When you settle into an ideology, it seems to be an excuse to stop thinking.

[amspir]

Bitcoin is slowly breaking down our shared myths: "deflation is bad," "money must be issued by a government," "people should not be free to transact with each other," etc., etc.  Bitcoin will break down some libertarian myths too.  

I think it is better to focus on ideas rather than labels.  Labels divide, ideas unite.  When you settle into an ideology, it seems to be an excuse to stop thinking.

Exactly!   Bitcoin is usable currency that relies on no central government, a novel invention and a great idea.   Do I believe that it will replace all centralized government currency?  No.  But it will live along side of it.

[snakebit]

In WWII Germany those under the foot of the Nazi government would probably consider themselves libertarians (anti-government) even if they favored taxes, regulations and other government policies.

But as the government becomes worse, we all become libertarian in some way or another.

Yup, anytime a society grants to a special group of people a monopoly on the use of violent power, the psychopaths among the wider population will inevitably be drawn to become a part of that elite power wielding group. As the proportion of psychopaths within this elite group increases, the more deranged and destructive the actions of that group become, and fewer good, well intentioned people will remain in it.

This dynamic is inherently self-reinforcing, inevitable, and unstable. Over the course of time proven in history, it always results in the deaths of thousands and millions of innocent people. Which usually means the destruction of the host society.

Government has become an incredibly foolish scheme in which we grant all the money, all the guns, all the power, AND a monopoly on violent force to a relatively small group of demonstrably fallible human beings.

Our only choice is to never ever grant such power to any group of people.

Before we can progress to a brighter, more prosperous future, humanity must learn to finally and irrevocably turn its back on this destructive fantasy that psychopathic power-crazed control freaks with all the money, guns, and power, will ever be a solution to anything.

With the advancement of technology, communication, and a P2P, decentralized, global, open source, proof of ownership system in Bitcoin, I think we are getting closer to such a realization.

[TheButterZone]

Statistics are irrelevant to this argument about who can or cannot legally get a gun under the laws of the State, which is covered by gunpolicy.org with cites. Texas with its Jim Crow laws is another example of a State that is covered in "but there's liberty here!" bullshit.

You site statistics, then say statistics are irrelevant?   I'm confused.    Somalia is a failed state with no effective government.  The gun laws of the ineffective government don't really figure into the equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You claim Somalia is a failed state with no effective government, yet you admit you haven't even been there. Those who have actually been there, reported from there, such as Unreported World's "The Master Chef of Mogadishu" crew, show Al Shabaab insurging against the government and trying to assassinate them, a government composed partially if not mostly of former ex-pats and refugees. Why would Al Shabaab insurge against a non-threat, non-effective government? Why would ex-pats and refugees return just to circlejerk and get suicide bombed? Why is Mogadishu Central Prison run, if not to lock people in?

How bloody effective does a government need to be before you stop saying it's not?

[amspir]

You claim Somalia is a failed state with no effective government, yet you admit you haven't even been there. Those who have actually been there, reported from there, such as Unreported World's "The Master Chef of Mogadishu" crew, show Al Shabaab insurging against the government and trying to assassinate them, a government composed partially if not mostly of former ex-pats and refugees. Why would Al Shabaab insurge against a non-threat, non-effective government? Why would ex-pats and refugees return just to circlejerk and get suicide bombed? Why is Mogadishu Central Prison run, if not to lock people in?

How bloody effective does a government need to be before you stop saying it's not?

Just to be clear, we are talking about Al Shabaab that held control of Mogasihu only 3 years ago, until the predecessor of the currently anointed government (founded only in 2012) forced them out.   So yes, 3 years of holding most of the capital city under regular attack from insurgent forces, but not the country, is a small start towards Somalian statism.  

[pungopete468]

- No system of government will ever create wealth. Different governmental systems only protect the interests of different people. A Libertarian government affords little protection and favors an individuals right to choose for themselves. The protections afforded by other forms of governments come in the form of restrictions and have a high cost. The cost of regulation is a piece of freedom + the financial draw of regulatory oversight. Everybody is losing money just to protect a few people from themselves, essentially.

 - The distribution of guns should not be "socialized" because that would imply that the guns weren't owned by the person carrying it. Guns should be owned diversely by society, if a warlord wants to steal your food supply then the people should outnumber the warlords... Allow the people equal access to power and the oppression will end. Gun ownership is power; think of Yin and Yang. The guns will exist and the power is real; the people deserve equal access to that power necessary to protect their lives and equalize the distribution of power. The force of the people should exceed the force of the government ALWAYS and at every point.

Are you then arguing that Somalia is or is not a libertarian utopia?   I regard it as the closest thing in the world in this point and time.   You are adding on to an argument in which the other poster doesn't believe it is because the people are poor and violent, and I am arguing that from a libertarian point of view, the absence of government and increased gun ownership solves these problems.  However, I don't see many idealistic libertarians flocking to this paradise.

Asking a person to describe "Utopia" for a diverse group of people like the Libertarian party is impossible. The differences between what two individuals consider Utopia can be very different.

Somalia is closer an an Anarchist utopia than a Libertarian utopia. The difference being that most Libertarians are moderates rather than Anarchists.

A Utopia for me personally in the US would be when the Federal Government doesn't even attempt to blanket every State with the same ridiculous laws. The Federal Government should be limited to enforcing and overseeing the protocol that each State is required to follow. <Legislative, Executive, Judicial> Many States have overwhelmingly different ideas about whats in the better interest of their State.

There can still be a central Federal Government and the congress of all 50 States can control the treasury and tax the States by population. The States would then collect sales taxes from the residents. Each State should be responsible for making its own laws, and international treaties should be ratified by 2/3 of congress. The Federal Government should not be allowed to have a standing army, no DHS, NSA, or any other <insert Federal 3 letter agency here.>
 
There should be no such thing as a victimless crime and people should have the ability to choose the type of life they wish to live while maintaining pride in a US citizenship... If you don't like the laws of your State you should be able to pick a State which better suits your desires and move there. The US was viewed as the last strong hold on Earth for Liberty, the Federal Government should not have the power to control the laws regarding citizens of all 50 States directly.

The Constitution of the United States used to be a list expressing the following: THE US STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS CAN NOT TAKE THESE RIGHTS FROM YOU, CITIZENS.
Somehow it slowly turned into a list which expresses this: CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES CAN NOT DO THESE FOLLOWING THINGS.

The United States Constitution was never intended to be a document enumerating the powers of the US citizens. Had it been, there would be no need for individual State Constitutions... The Constitution was intended to limit the powers of the State and Federal Governments; not embolden them.

[amspir]

Asking a person to describe "Utopia" for a diverse group of people like the Libertarian party is impossible. The differences between what two individuals consider Utopia can be very different.

Somalia is closer an an Anarchist utopia than a Libertarian utopia. The difference being that most Libertarians are moderates rather than Anarchists.

Good, you seem like a reasonable person with realistic ideas about changing our current system of government.   I have some libertarian principles, by I would never be welcomed by the extremists that believe our government is sure to collapse in 2 years, and that bitcoin is going to completely destroy the USD.   Instead, I invite them to set up shop in Somalia, where there exist no effective government, no taxes, no regulations, and lots and lots of guns.

[Bit_Happy]

Asking a person to describe "Utopia" for a diverse group of people like the Libertarian party is impossible. The differences between what two individuals consider Utopia can be very different.

Somalia is closer an an Anarchist utopia than a Libertarian utopia. The difference being that most Libertarians are moderates rather than Anarchists.

Good, you seem like a reasonable person with realistic ideas about changing our current system of government.   I have some libertarian principles, by I would never be welcomed by the extremists that believe our government is sure to collapse in 2 years, and that bitcoin is going to completely destroy the USD.   Instead, I invite them to set up shop in Somalia, where there exist no effective government, no taxes, no regulations, and lots and lots of guns.

Somalia is an example of post-Gov chaos/following civil war, NOT a libertarian experiment.
Nice to know you have "some libertarian principles"...
Perhaps someday you will be an actual libertarian?