Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?

[Hawker]

This mob rule that you advocate winning arbitration, Hawker, is fundamentally inconsistent with NAP.

Hmm.  Sorry but you have not understood the NAP.  Look it up - you have no right to interfere with my property. 

Exactly. You have no right to interfere with my property. Take and fuck off.

Agreed.  Luckily that doesn't matter.  The NAP assumes that there is no state, so there is no body imposing rights.  

Please, do use both a favour.  Read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and then post back.  Right now, I think your heart is in the right place but you don't understand anarchism.

[1714822005]

1714822005

[TheButterZone]

This mob rule that you advocate winning arbitration, Hawker, is fundamentally inconsistent with NAP.

Hmm.  Sorry but you have not understood the NAP.  Look it up - you have no right to interfere with my property.  

Exactly. You have no right to interfere with my property. Take and fuck off.

Agreed.  Luckily that doesn't matter.  The NAP assumes that there is no state, so there is no body imposing rights.  

Please, do use both a favour.  Read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf and then post back.  Right now, I think your heart is in the right place but you don't understand anarchism.

Rights are not imposed, they are inherent. Your Ugly European act is completely and utterly worn out now. You must really love paving your road to hell in your echo chamber.

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...
This is so convoluted and full of logical fallacy I'm not going to bother. The irony is that you started with "Let's be clear"

Good.  As long as I am not on the hook for free-loaders, I am happy.  If I do have to pay for them, then its a brutal infringement of my property rights.

So we've come full circle. Because you're on the hook for free-loaders with your NHS.

[Hawker]

Why are you telling me this?  Its nonsense; the arbitrator will throw it out.  There is no way an arbitrator will allow 1 person to block 2 million people if the increase in the value of the properties of the 2 million exceeds the loss to the one person by even 1 cent.

And, if you are the one person, you will pay the arbitration fees.

Well, that's a lovely theory, but remember:

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

And if I do not consent to your interference with my continued use of my property, you're stuffed, and the arbitrator will tell you so.

You are the one interfering with the use of their property by 2 million people.  The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell you to pack your bags.

Why are you arguing about this? This is how you want disputes to be resolved.

[myrkul]

You are the one interfering with the use of their property by 2 million people.  The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell you to pack your bags.

No, I am not. I am interfering with their use of my property. The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell them to get fucked.

[Hawker]

...snip...
This is so convoluted and full of logical fallacy I'm not going to bother. The irony is that you started with "Let's be clear"

Good.  As long as I am not on the hook for free-loaders, I am happy.  If I do have to pay for them, then its a brutal infringement of my property rights.

So we've come full circle. Because you're on the hook for free-loaders with your NHS.

Free-loading on the NHS is hard.  Like really hard.  You can do it by living outside the UK and then flying home for medical treatment.  You can go to jail young, get sick, be violent and then stay in jail all your life.  You can be mentally ill and never leave institutionalised care.  The vast vast majority of people couldn't possibly avoid paying their dues.

[TheButterZone]

Mob rule of 2 people, 2 million, or 2 trillion is not legitimate, therefore there can be no 'interference' with it that an arbitrator will acknowledge. Unless that arbitrator isn't actually one at all.

[Hawker]

You are the one interfering with the use of their property by 2 million people.  The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell you to pack your bags.

No, I am not. I am interfering with their use of my property. The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell them to get fucked.

In the nicest way possible, you haven't understood "The Machinery of Freedom."  Read it again - the chapters on market law are of particular interest.  In anarchy, there are no property rights as there is no state.  Its all about the economic value of development.  Arbitrators will be market driven and will consider the value to the 2 million compared to the value to the 1 person and will tell the 1 person to pack their bags.

I don't know why I am having to explain the book you recommended.

[Hawker]

Mob rule of 2 people, 2 million, or 2 trillion is not legitimate, therefore there can be no 'interference' with it that an arbitrator will acknowledge. Unless that arbitrator isn't actually one at all.

I know why you say that.  You haven't read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Read it.  If you find a better libertarian manifesto, let me know.  But for now, your problem is that you have not studied your own beliefs.

[Hawker]

I'm done work and off to the pub.  I wonder if it its worth making a thread to discuss http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf since it seems that most libertarian and anarchists don't actually understand what the book says.

[myrkul]

If you find a better libertarian manifesto, let me know.

I have. It's called the New Libertarian Manifesto, by Sam Konkin. As promised, here it is. There is was a severe typographical error in the first section of most versions online, which while it does not alter the overall tone, does significantly change the meaning of the two paragraphs that it combines.

I have fixed that error, though other lesser ones may remain. If you have any questions, I have the full 25th anniversary edition, in real, dead-tree form to clear up any misunderstandings.

I'd also suggest you read the book I offered up earlier, Universally Preferable Behaviour.

[nedbert9]

No taxation without representation + transparency and complete accountability to the people (people of the human variety - not corporations)

The last two we, in the US, don't have.  

So, no.

[myrkul]

No taxation without representation + transparency and complete accountability to the people

The last two we, in the US, don't have. 

So, no.

Whoa, wait, was that actually on-topic? You confused me.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Would you pay taxes if you could live off bitcoins?

I already live off of bitcoins and I pay taxes. This thread is ignorant because it assumes that Bitcoin will eliminate localized currencies, which is highly illogical for numerous reasons, and in addition forgets that people are already choosing to pay taxes to the network and pretty much every product and service provider in Bitcoin.

[Grix]

Yes, because it only goes back to the people. (Maybe not 100% of it, but whatever).

[ShireSilver]

You are the one interfering with the use of their property by 2 million people.  The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell you to pack your bags.

No, I am not. I am interfering with their use of my property. The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell them to get fucked.

In the nicest way possible, you haven't understood "The Machinery of Freedom."  Read it again - the chapters on market law are of particular interest.  In anarchy, there are no property rights as there is no state.  Its all about the economic value of development.  Arbitrators will be market driven and will consider the value to the 2 million compared to the value to the 1 person and will tell the 1 person to pack their bags.

I don't know why I am having to explain the book you recommended.

You obviously don't have a grasp of economics and unintended consequences. Eminent domain is harmful to economic development because it reduces or eliminates owners' ability to plan and use their property as they want. If you can be held hostage to the whims of others then you cannot effectively plan. So any proper arbitrator will tell you in plain language that you cannot build a road across the land of someone who doesn't agree with your proposal. You are also totally ignoring the fact that there will be many other options besides building that portion of road over the resistor's land. Your attempt to limit the possibilities to only ones that create a conflict are infuriating.

Before I read Machinery of Freedom I was a minarchist. I didn't understand how things could possibly work in an anarchy. I still don't know how every last detail of every economic action by every single actor in the world would happen. What Machinery of Freedom got me to understand was that I don't have to have all the answers. The people making up the market will figure it all out by acting each in their own interest, and so no central planning is necessary. In fact, many things will turn out vastly different than any of us can even conceive. Maybe several technological advances will create options that no one now would expect. Maybe someone will figure out a better philosophy that answers many current social issues. But the point is, not only don't we know how it will all work out, but we don't need to know. We just need to trust that individuals making their own choices and acting in their own interest will provide all that is needed.

[cryptoanarchist]

You are the one interfering with the use of their property by 2 million people.  The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell you to pack your bags.

No, I am not. I am interfering with their use of my property. The arbitrator won't even need a nanosecond to tell them to get fucked.

In the nicest way possible, you haven't understood "The Machinery of Freedom."  Read it again - the chapters on market law are of particular interest.  In anarchy, there are no property rights as there is no state.  Its all about the economic value of development.  Arbitrators will be market driven and will consider the value to the 2 million compared to the value to the 1 person and will tell the 1 person to pack their bags.

I don't know why I am having to explain the book you recommended.

You obviously don't have a grasp of economics and unintended consequences. Eminent domain is harmful to economic development because it reduces or eliminates owners' ability to plan and use their property as they want. If you can be held hostage to the whims of others then you cannot effectively plan. So any proper arbitrator will tell you in plain language that you cannot build a road across the land of someone who doesn't agree with your proposal. You are also totally ignoring the fact that there will be many other options besides building that portion of road over the resistor's land. Your attempt to limit the possibilities to only ones that create a conflict are infuriating.

Before I read Machinery of Freedom I was a minarchist. I didn't understand how things could possibly work in an anarchy. I still don't know how every last detail of every economic action by every single actor in the world would happen. What Machinery of Freedom got me to understand was that I don't have to have all the answers. The people making up the market will figure it all out by acting each in their own interest, and so no central planning is necessary. In fact, many things will turn out vastly different than any of us can even conceive. Maybe several technological advances will create options that no one now would expect. Maybe someone will figure out a better philosophy that answers many current social issues. But the point is, not only don't we know how it will all work out, but we don't need to know. We just need to trust that individuals making their own choices and acting in their own interest will provide all that is needed.

+1   

[TheButterZone]

Mob rule of 2 people, 2 million, or 2 trillion is not legitimate, therefore there can be no 'interference' with it that an arbitrator will acknowledge. Unless that arbitrator isn't actually one at all.

I know why you say that.  You haven't read http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Read it.  If you find a better libertarian manifesto, let me know.  But for now, your problem is that you have not studied your own beliefs.

Maybe you should gather together a mob of 2 million and collectively tell an arbitrator I should be forced to read this "libertarian manifesto" that I don't subscribe to, so the arbitrator and I can laugh in your face.

[myrkul]

Maybe you should gather together a mob of 2 million and collectively tell an arbitrator I should be forced to read this "libertarian manifesto" that I don't subscribe to, so the arbitrator and I can laugh in your face.

As it happens, I offer arbitration and mediation services....

[nevafuse]

I already live off of bitcoins and I pay taxes. This thread is ignorant because it assumes that Bitcoin will eliminate localized currencies, which is highly illogical for numerous reasons, and in addition forgets that people are already choosing to pay taxes to the network and pretty much every product and service provider in Bitcoin.

I wasn't assuming the elimination of localized currencies as much as anonymity & full control over your money.  And the taxes/fees I was referring to were the mandatory ones imposed by current governments onto its citizens for its services.