|
Nefario
|
|
May 11, 2011, 02:29:41 PM |
|
I was thinking the same. The fact is people want to do business with each other, it's been normal activity since we started doing this kind of thing.
The government saying we can't unless we play by their (pain in the ass) rules means nothing if there is an alternative.
Yes bitcoin is probably going to be illegal, but if everyone's doing it, and very few, if any are caught then it doesn't matter. We don't have to deal with the government anymore if we don't want to.
|
PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
|
|
|
Cryptoman
|
|
May 11, 2011, 05:07:26 PM |
|
It's pretty scary that even states are passing crap like this. It seems that no government, large or small, wants you to have control over your money. The author posted this in the comments section: I'm not a lawyer but I think it's inevitable that for a variety of reasons (tax evasion, non-sanctioned currency, and money transmission among them) Bitcoin is legally a lost cause.
|
"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." --Gandhi
|
|
|
hazek
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
May 11, 2011, 05:10:55 PM |
|
It seems that no government, large or small, wants you to have control over your money. It's the sole source of their power.
|
My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)
If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
|
|
|
hazek
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
May 11, 2011, 05:11:26 PM |
|
Yes bitcoin is probably going to be illegal, but if everyone's doing it, and very few, if any are caught then it doesn't matter. We don't have to deal with the government anymore if we don't want to.
Oh how I wish exactly this happens.
|
My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)
If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
|
|
|
no to the gold cult
|
|
May 11, 2011, 06:04:42 PM |
|
Thanks for posting, very interesting link. Self-serving money monopoly abuse helps to feed the bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
no to the gold cult
|
|
May 11, 2011, 06:06:58 PM |
|
It's pretty scary that even states are passing crap like this. It seems that no government, large or small, wants you to have control over your money. The author posted this in the comments section: I'm not a lawyer but I think it's inevitable that for a variety of reasons (tax evasion, non-sanctioned currency, and money transmission among them) Bitcoin is legally a lost cause. In the US, government is entirely enthralled to the major forces of Finance and Industry (Finance more, now that non-military industry at least has been mostly exiled to China). The influence these interests and agendas wield is mistaken by some as an inherent characteristic in the concept of government itself. This is an error, and not at all useful.
|
|
|
|
rezin777
|
|
May 11, 2011, 06:57:05 PM |
|
You could not pay me to live in California.
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
|
|
May 11, 2011, 07:11:55 PM |
|
You could not pay me to live in California.
If someone is paying people to live in CA, I'm available.
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
May 11, 2011, 07:59:31 PM |
|
You could not pay me to live in California.
At one time, I was paid to live in California. Southern California is a continuous slum. I lived near Oceanside, and it costs a fortune to live anywhere within walking distance of the ocean, and the water is freezing. The best views are from the "Coaster" commuter train, but if you get off and walk over the berm from the tracks, nothing but slum.
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
May 12, 2011, 07:24:09 AM |
|
The influence these interests and agendas wield is mistaken by some as an inherent characteristic in the concept of government itself. This is an error, and not at all useful.
This is not an error. Government, by definition, will attract the worst elements of society who will use its unique powers on their interest. An industry cannot use guns itself to rule out competitors, but it can bribe government to pass laws which end up doing the same thing. Just think in terms of costs and incentives. Put it in numbers to make it simpler. For example, imagine there is some particular law which, if approved, would cost every 300 million US citizens the equivalent of $1 each. On the other hand, this same law would benefit a small group of 100 individuals making them earn the equivalent of $2 million each. Net = 100*2.000.000 - 300.000.000*1 = -100.000.000 The entire society loses the equivalent of $100 million. It's clearly a "bad law", even if we just get the net results, ignoring the unethical aspects of income redistribution. And it's clearly a law that inevitably will be approved. That is simply because, if you're among those who would lose $1, you won't even bother knowing about such law, not to mention organize with others in order to prevent it from being approved. Those in loss will not do anything to stop the law, because the costs for doing so would largely exceed the losses they will suffer with the law. On the other hand, those earning $2 million each would probably be among the ones writing the law, and would even invest more than one million each in lobbying and organization to get such law passed. They will win. This "overtake by unscrupulous interests" is inevitable, and it is an inherent characteristic of government.
|
|
|
|
db
|
|
May 12, 2011, 07:38:24 AM |
|
caveden, that was the best explanation of that problem (does it have a name, I think "public choice" is broader?) I've read. Well said.
|
|
|
|
malditonuke
|
|
May 12, 2011, 07:56:33 AM |
|
caveden, that was the best explanation of that problem (does it have a name, I think "public choice" is broader?) I've read. Well said.
it's called 'rent-seeking'. from wikipedia: "Rent-seeking agents will spend money in socially unproductive ways, such as political lobbying, in order to attain, maintain or increase monopoly power."
|
|
|
|
caveden
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1004
|
|
May 12, 2011, 10:45:52 AM |
|
caveden, that was the best explanation of that problem (does it have a name, I think "public choice" is broader?) I've read. Well said.
Glad you liked it. The first time I saw this explanation was in the video of a speech done by Patri Friedman for the first Austrian Economic Seminar done in Brazil. Judging by the slide he shows while talking about such incentive structure, the author is a guy named Mancur Olson and in the slide it names "The logic of collective action". This speech, about seasteading, is quite good an inspired me. If you want to watch, it is in English, here: http://mises.org.br/FileUp.aspx?id=47
|
|
|
|
no to the gold cult
|
|
May 12, 2011, 11:33:52 AM Last edit: May 12, 2011, 12:20:03 PM by no to the gold cult |
|
The influence these interests and agendas wield is mistaken by some as an inherent characteristic in the concept of government itself. This is an error, and not at all useful.
This is not an error. Government, by definition, will attract the worst elements of society who will use its unique powers on their interest. An industry cannot use guns itself to rule out competitors, but it can bribe government to pass laws which end up doing the same thing. Just think in terms of costs and incentives. Put it in numbers to make it simpler. For example, imagine there is some particular law which, if approved, would cost every 300 million US citizens the equivalent of $1 each. On the other hand, this same law would benefit a small group of 100 individuals making them earn the equivalent of $2 million each. Net = 100*2.000.000 - 300.000.000*1 = -100.000.000 The entire society loses the equivalent of $100 million. It's clearly a "bad law", even if we just get the net results, ignoring the unethical aspects of income redistribution. And it's clearly a law that inevitably will be approved. That is simply because, if you're among those who would lose $1, you won't even bother knowing about such law, not to mention organize with others in order to prevent it from being approved. Those in loss will not do anything to stop the law, because the costs for doing so would largely exceed the losses they will suffer with the law. On the other hand, those earning $2 million each would probably be among the ones writing the law, and would even invest more than one million each in lobbying and organization to get such law passed. They will win. This "overtake by unscrupulous interests" is inevitable, and it is an inherent characteristic of government. Yes, it's true. Sweden for instance is ruled by a small clique of mink-clad gold-toothed government beaurocrats that rule by balance-book dictat over vast apathetic swarthes of a population that languishes uneducated and diseased in the dark and sprawling slumps of Stokholm. Have you ever considered that the problem might be with the kind of governments that are produced by the Market-Liberal tradition? If your political sphere is a mere market-place, you should expect trade. Ironically people who talk like you do tend to want precisely that, unfettered market fundamentalism. That's why things like democracy and socialism is opposed by such people, it would interfere with their profit margins. That's why I'm against libertarianism, I don't want a government that is free to be bought and sold by the highest bidder with the necessary market power. I want a government that is kept honest by a well-informed enpowered population that demands quality for it's tax-money, a government restricted to spending its taxes on public goods and subsidizing the value of non-commodified human existance. If bitcoin takes off then the shaddowy handlers of payment companies wouldn't think they get to pull levers in the background to stiffle innovation at the expense of everyone else like this. Market-liberalism and libertarianism mean oligopolies and monopolies get to get together and game the system to their own benefit with precisely those Austrian calculations you posted. This is precisely what communism, democracy, anarchy and socialism etc are strategies to oppose. People taking government seriously as a common-good, engaging and demanding it to be used for common-goods is what crashes your Austrian School calculation. Political decision is not a market and if it behaves like one then you should change the architecture. I'm no communist or socialist or anarchist (I'm social democrat) but I am against being ruled by private dynasties and corporations of various kinds lording it over politically unconcious and unempowered populations that vehemently oppose their own interests. Anyway all that aside, this particular payment-system game has already been outmanouvered by the coin, and that's very satisfying. It's almost Thai-Chi... use the energy of their attack against them. Unjust legislation like this just goes to help the bitcoin value. It's a classic example of bitcoins democratization of money dissempowering price-makers and causing their basis to buy government for their own ends to dissapear. An elegant solution in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
malditonuke
|
|
May 12, 2011, 07:22:01 PM |
|
People taking government seriously as a common-good, engaging and demanding it to be used for common-goods...
And on that day, Satan will be skating to work.
|
|
|
|
just_someguy
|
|
May 12, 2011, 09:55:30 PM |
|
Very nicely put nttgc.
|
|
|
|
ryepdx
|
|
May 12, 2011, 10:33:42 PM |
|
1000 internets to nttgc! :-)
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
May 12, 2011, 10:53:24 PM |
|
I want a government that is kept honest by a well-informed enpowered population that demands quality for it's tax-money, a government restricted to spending its taxes on public goods and subsidizing the value of non-commodified human existance. Then you want what has never been, and can never be. No matter how one might look at it now, the establishment of the United States as a federated republic was an experiment to do exactly what you profess you desire; and that experiment was a failure by any metric I can imagine. Yet, it was also literally the closest any nation in the history of the world has ever come, and that includes modern Sweden. After a point, a rational person looks at the evidence and concludes that the concept of government itself is fundamentally flawed, and therefore the ideal is impossible. The irrational person convinces himself that the implimentation (or some other detail) was flawed, and in this way continues to advocate against his own interests and those of his principles. Have you ever stopped to consider, what if my premises are wrong?
|
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|