What Matters More: Private Property or Equality?

[zenaku]

Imagine that one day, on a computer just like any other, under the same conditions as millions of people, someone with a bit more curiosity discovers something extraordinary: an intangible piece of computer code called Bitcoin.
A few visionary individuals look at this discovery and think, "This could become very valuable in the future." They decide to buy when almost nobody is paying attention and when the price is extremely low. They are few in number, go largely unnoticed, and take on the risk.
Decades pass, even centuries. Future generations begin to recognize Bitcoin's value, and more and more people want to acquire it. However, by now its price is much higher. Large family fortunes start to emerge: the grandfather bought Bitcoin, then it was inherited by the father, and later by the son. Ownership of Bitcoin becomes a symbol of economic stability and wealth accumulated over time.
Meanwhile, the State has always been skeptical of this currency. It tries to regulate it, restrict it, and even ban it on several occasions, but none of those attempts succeed in eliminating it.
As time goes on, the gap between those who own Bitcoin and those who do not becomes enormous. Social tensions arise, along with political conflicts, confrontations, and even wars. Many argue that wealth has become excessively concentrated among those who had the foresight to buy early or who inherited these assets.
In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.
The question is: would such a measure be fair? Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

What would you do?

Obviously, this thought experiment puts many socialist ideas about redistribution under scrutiny and raises questions about whether society should reward foresight, risk-taking, and long-term ownership.

[hmbdofficial]

If You think forcefully redistribution  is possible  then decentralization has been defeated.
Stay chill.

[FP91G]

As time goes on, the gap between those who own Bitcoin and those who do not becomes enormous. Social tensions arise, along with political conflicts, confrontations, and even wars. Many argue that wealth has become excessively concentrated among those who had the foresight to buy early or who inherited these assets.
In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.

Why shouldn't the government then compensate me for the losses I spent on mining and purchasing other coins that are now long forgotten?
Let's then make it so that all millionaires who have more than 1 million dollars redistribute 10% of their assets among poor people. Why should Bitcoin owners pay while other rich people don't?

[BIT-BENDER]

The measure is even unthinkable, or do you think that the government can tell the 1% who are the most wealthy people in the people in the world to donate a percentage of their wealth to other who do not have.
People have held gold for a very long time, one man who is assumed to be the richest man in history was very rich in gold but was never forced to distribute his wealth he at a point did it himself and it it crashed the economy.
For me your take is impossible.

[Smartprofit]

Unfortunately, our world is unfair. We are not born equal because equality presupposes sameness, and all people are different. 🙋

If we want our world to be fair, we need to change the social system. We must build communism or another social utopia. Incidentally, given the development of modern technology, this task is not impossible (although it remains very difficult)...

Why don't people own Bitcoin? Because they didn't have the opportunity? Of course not! Because they weren't willing to take the risk (to buy Bitcoin). People lacked the courage, intelligence, foresight, and technological literacy to perform this simple act. Why should we rob the smart and brave to reward the stupid and cowardly? Since when are stupidity and cowardice considered worthy of reward? 🙎

And if we're going to redistribute Bitcoin, why don't we do the same with real estate, stocks, bonds, gold, and other assets?  And if the Bitcoin price collapses as a result of the Bitcoin redistribution, is the government prepared to compensate holders for losses? And, by the way, will we redistribute alternative cryptocurrencies and stablecoins? Many different questions arise...

[BlackHatCoiner]

Forced redistribution is just theft dressed up as "fairness". The early guys took a massive financial risk on magic internet money while the rest of the world laughed at them. They earned that wealth, and I'd take inequality based on foresight over equality enforced at gunpoint any day.

As Milton Friedman had once said:

[Rashlyowl]

In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.
The question is: would such a measure be fair? Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

What would you do?

Any form of distribution would be unfair to those who have believed in BTC since its early days, of course that will create new problems. The problem idea you brought up is good, but I don't think it will actually happen in the future since FIAT will still survive. I also believe that in the future the concept of justice will be much better. So, such problems will never arise in the future.

[zenaku]

If You think forcefully redistribution  is possible  then decentralization has been defeated.
Stay chill.

Not necessarily. I am simply presenting a hypothetical worst-case scenario in which miners are pressured, and Bitcoin holders are pressured through measures such as electricity or energy cutoffs. I am talking about a very harsh and coercive scenario designed to force a redistribution of Bitcoin; obviously, such a process would not be voluntary.
Nor would it necessarily affect decentralization, since the network could continue to operate even if ownership were redistributed under those circumstances.

Unfortunately, our world is unfair. We are not born equal because equality presupposes sameness, and all people are different. 🙋

If we want our world to be fair, we need to change the social system. We must build communism or another social utopia. Incidentally, given the development of modern technology, this task is not impossible (although it remains very difficult)...

Why don't people own Bitcoin? Because they didn't have the opportunity? Of course not! Because they weren't willing to take the risk (to buy Bitcoin). People lacked the courage, intelligence, foresight, and technological literacy to perform this simple act. Why should we rob the smart and brave to reward the stupid and cowardly? Since when are stupidity and cowardice considered worthy of reward? 🙎

And if we're going to redistribute Bitcoin, why don't we do the same with real estate, stocks, bonds, gold, and other assets?  And if the Bitcoin price collapses as a result of the Bitcoin redistribution, is the government prepared to compensate holders for losses? And, by the way, will we redistribute alternative cryptocurrencies and stablecoins? Many different questions arise...

If the same principle were applied, it would actually be similar to what already happens today through taxation, land expropriation, and other regulations. If you possess a large amount of assets that cannot be legally explained, the government can confiscate them. In some cases, assets are also lost due to armed groups or other external factors.
The argument regarding Bitcoin is simply that it represents a new opportunity, one that very few people are aware of. That is why the distribution of Bitcoin ownership is still highly concentrated among those who discovered it early or were willing to take the risk of adopting it before the majority.
---
My dear friends, thank you for your replies, and I encourage you to keep participating. As expected, nobody likes the idea of sharing their coins, nor do they have to. Good luck to those who are not believers.
I would not rule out Bitcoin becoming part of a broader set of grievances that could eventually contribute to a future conflict, one driven by technology and energy. That is simply the dynamic of the world, and sometimes I find it tiring to think about.

[Lida93]

The measure is even unthinkable, or do you think that the government can tell the 1% who are the most wealthy people in the people in the world to donate a percentage of their wealth to other who do not have.

The government don't even earn the right to determine to me how I should spend my legally earned fortune as it's not my obligation to take care of the rest of persons that forefathers failed to take risk and with discipline as did mine. The only right government has is in the area of my capital tax payment and not how I should redistribute my wealth. If this was to happen that would make a great number of families get comfortably lazy with the prospect that in the future the government would demand a redistribution of the wealth of those who dare to take risk and forgone all forms of luxury they could have used that funds to waste on.

[X-ray]

Forced distribution is just delay to another disaster, why do you think the wealth is concentrated in the first place? it's because some people are rewarded for the value they bring to the society, willing to take risks while growing their capital and some people just spend lavishly.

Never fan of a forced distribution and will never support one. Capitalism and free market will always be ahead of any other system. You are rewarded to bring value to the society and this should be the way for a productive and developed nations.

[pooya87]

As time goes on, the gap between those who own Bitcoin and those who do not becomes enormous. Social tensions arise, along with political conflicts, confrontations, and even wars. Many argue that wealth has become excessively concentrated among those who had the foresight to buy early or who inherited these assets.

You are describing wealth distribution not just a bitcoin related hypothetical scenario. It creates unsatisfied masses, not wars. Not to mention that the main reason for unfair wealth distribution is due to a million other factors that have nothing to do with bitcoin. In fact bitcoin is one of those things that helped address that unfair situation by allowing anybody to enter freely and without any restrictions, sanctions, bans, ...

In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.

That would never happen.
For starters when you say "government" you are thinking too locally. There is no global government. One authoritarian regime like US or Nork Korea for example may try to do this. But generally this is not going to happen everywhere.
Secondly, when you say "government" specially those authoritarian ones, they are the oligarchs themselves too. They are the ones that usually hold most of the wealth (eg. 1% in America holding 99% of the wealth). They never propose any measures that would force themselves to distribute the money they have accumulated by being the ruling class.

The question is: would such a measure be fair? Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

What would you do?

Obviously, this thought experiment puts many socialist ideas about redistribution under scrutiny and raises questions about whether society should reward foresight, risk-taking, and long-term ownership.

Instead of doing silly things like these focused on one thing (ie. bitcoin in this hypothetical scenario) the people have to try to address the real problem which is the unfair distribution of wealth and opportunities in general. If there are opportunities for everyone (not just the Epstein Ruling Class) then nobody would seek weird and radical socialist or other -ist crap to disrupt the society and take back what is theirs from the oligarchs.
The problem is the oligarchy system and the Epstein Class of rules and I always believe in solving problems at the root.

[Fiatless]

I know that this is just an assumption. But why would the government target Bitcoin as the means of wealth redistribution, when other assets are worth more? They should target the gold, artificial intelligence, fintech, media, and other industries. Income redistribution should target the wealthiest people and I doubt that many Bitcoiners are part of them. As far as I know, Bitcoin has been a tool of income redistribution because many commoners have gained financial freedom through it.

[m2017]

Imagine that one day, on a computer just like any other, under the same conditions as millions of people, someone with a bit more curiosity discovers something extraordinary: an intangible piece of computer code called Bitcoin.

Life is such that pioneers find themselves in a more advantageous position. Is this a reason to deprive them of their "award" and reprimand them?

A few visionary individuals look at this discovery and think, "This could become very valuable in the future." They decide to buy when almost nobody is paying attention and when the price is extremely low. They are few in number, go largely unnoticed, and take on the risk.

They paid the price for this risk and therefore fully deserved their victory.

As time goes on, the gap between those who own Bitcoin and those who do not becomes enormous. Social tensions arise, along with political conflicts, confrontations, and even wars. Many argue that wealth has become excessively concentrated among those who had the foresight to buy early or who inherited these assets.

Throughout history, there have been conflicts, clashes, and wars over resources. How is this different from bitcoin? Nothing.

There have always been those who are dissatisfied with the success of others. Want equality? Start "working" and catching up with those you're dissatisfied with.

In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.

Countries with communism \ socialism have passed this stage. Do you know what all that led to? It will be exactly the same here.

Why doesn't the government redistribute current wealth, such as money or real estate? Let's do that with the current "pioneers" of traditional capital.

The question is: would such a measure be fair? Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

It's not a question of fairness, but a question of having enough power to enforce this idiotic redistribution.

How will you take it away from those who are the anonymous owners?
 

Obviously, this thought experiment puts many socialist ideas about redistribution under scrutiny and raises questions about whether society should reward foresight, risk-taking, and long-term ownership.

No one owes anything, because life is a cycle of chaos. Those who were first got their share of the resource, and they're a great. The opinions of those who were late don't matter.

Why these latest tears of a latecomer to the dawn of the bitcoin era? Are the thoughts of missed opportunities haunting? Maybe should focus on more useful actions instead of whining about how others were lucky enough to get a bitcoin easily, while weren't?

[Marvelockg]

In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.

It should never be to a person's disadvantage that he saw an opportunity where others didn't see and toke the risk of buying while others might have rediculed him and when it's time to gain from his investment, should he now distribute his wealth back to same people that probably rediculed him?

Government interference in a decentralised system always brings disadvantage to the system and to those involved in the system. If you were not part of earlier investors, there's no way you should think of benefiting from bitcoin without buying a chunk of it yourself. There's nothing free for you and the government can't suddenly make it free for you.

[Bastketsrus]

In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.

It should never be to a person's disadvantage that he saw an opportunity where others didn't see and toke the risk of buying while others might have rediculed him and when it's time to gain from his investment, should he now distribute his wealth back to same people that probably rediculed him?

Government interference in a decentralised system always brings disadvantage to the system and to those involved in the system. If you were not part of earlier investors, there's no way you should think of benefiting from bitcoin without buying a chunk of it yourself. There's nothing free for you and the government can't suddenly make it free for you.

Exactly. Early holders took the risk when Bitcoin was far from proven. It doesn't make sense to punish them now for being early, especially in a system that's supposed to be voluntary and decentralized.

[ABCbits]

Many argue that wealth has become excessively concentrated among those who had the foresight to buy early or who inherited these assets.

I heard somewhat similar argument with gold and other precious metal.

In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.

Excluding insane or authoritarian government, i don't any think government would actually execute such idea. There are better ideas to reduce inequality, such as progressive income tax. Besides, people will simply use loophole such as asking their friend or relative they trust to hold their Bitcoin.

[purple_sparkles]

Imagine that one day, on a computer just like any other, under the same conditions as millions of people, someone with a bit more curiosity discovers something extraordinary: an intangible piece of computer code called Bitcoin.
A few visionary individuals look at this discovery and think, "This could become very valuable in the future." They decide to buy when almost nobody is paying attention and when the price is extremely low. They are few in number, go largely unnoticed, and take on the risk.
Decades pass, even centuries. Future generations begin to recognize Bitcoin's value, and more and more people want to acquire it. However, by now its price is much higher. Large family fortunes start to emerge: the grandfather bought Bitcoin, then it was inherited by the father, and later by the son. Ownership of Bitcoin becomes a symbol of economic stability and wealth accumulated over time.
Meanwhile, the State has always been skeptical of this currency. It tries to regulate it, restrict it, and even ban it on several occasions, but none of those attempts succeed in eliminating it.
As time goes on, the gap between those who own Bitcoin and those who do not becomes enormous. Social tensions arise, along with political conflicts, confrontations, and even wars. Many argue that wealth has become excessively concentrated among those who had the foresight to buy early or who inherited these assets.
In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.
The question is: would such a measure be fair? Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

What would you do?

Obviously, this thought experiment puts many socialist ideas about redistribution under scrutiny and raises questions about whether society should reward foresight, risk-taking, and long-term ownership.

I think that governments are already busy figuring out new ways to reach deeper into the pockets of their people and take as much money as possible. This is already happening through taxes, fines, and various obligations, so adding a few more requirements would not be a big problem for them.That is why, even if the idea of bitcoin inheritance still sounds like a fairy tale to some people, taxes on this kind of inheritance are already becoming a reality.

[Darker45]

What would I do? I won't pay.

Redistribution is generally a bad idea. Tax is already doing that. Tax itself has countless of bad sides. But, well, we can't rely on volunteerism and kindness, so that's how it's done, forced upon the people.

I believe that curiosity, foresight, risk-taking, education, research, discernment, and whatever is involved in this scenario should be incentivized. To take away from them what they deserved or fairly earned goes counter to how nature works.

[michellee]

That is unfair as they firstly don't wants to know Bitcoin and leaves behind. They don't even want to think if Bitcoin will be bigger like today so they skip and focus on their activity. The government should not takes anything on the early Bitcoin investors as buying Bitcoin at first was a choice.

That's why I don't want to tells other my Bitcoin because this case could happens anytime. We already see happen in the tax report where citizens who owned Bitcoin should reports to the government. We don't have anything left that would be our secret without the government know.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

The question is: would such a measure be fair? Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

What would you do?

Obviously, this thought experiment puts many socialist ideas about redistribution under scrutiny and raises questions about whether society should reward foresight, risk-taking, and long-term ownership.

Even if I don't own any bitcoin, I will not support such idea because I dont think it's fair, even though it appears that the government might or may have come up wit such an idea out of compassion for those who were not able to acquire bitcoin when it was fresh out of the oven and very cheap.
The truth is that even if it was everyone who knew about bitcoin when it was still very young and cheap, not every one will have acquired it or bought it because many will say and believe it's a scam, now that it has become a symbol of success and influence, every one wants a part of it, this is why i think asking those who took the risk to donate any amount of their bitcoin for redistribution is a not fair at all.

What I will suggest is, instead of collecting bitcoin from those who own it, take taxes from everyone based on their financial class and ability, use the money raise from this taxes and build companies, industries, employ those who are poor and pay them salaries so they can buy their own bitcoin, provide electricity for businesses to thrive, build good road networks so farmers can easily transport their farm products to the market, sell it and raise money to buy their own bitcoin.