2 ms·
I'd argue more, according to your definitions, the "fundamental value" of the dollar (which you conveniently didn't specify) relies on violence (as in, pay up o
by imaginenore 9y ago
I'd argue more, according to your definitions, the "fundamental value" of the dollar (which you conveniently didn't specify) relies on violence (as in, pay up of guys with guns will put you in prison). Whereas the fundamental value of Bitcoin is determined by the free market.
It's quite clear to me which one is a more moral system.
Again, based on your own definitions.
- Goronmon 9y agoI'd argue more, according to your definitions, the "fundamental value" of the dollar (which you conveniently didn't specify) relies on violence (as in, pay up of guys with guns will put you in prison). Whereas the fundamental value of Bitcoin is determined by the free market. It's quite clear to me which one is a more moral system. It's not really clear to me how this word salad you've thrown out is supposed to be an actual argument.
- jules 9y agoThe property rights to your belongings are also fundamentally reliant on the government's promise to use violence to enforce those rights. Concluding that it is therefore immoral is too simplistic. You have to take into account the full consequences of not enforcing those rights, and then determine whether society as a whole is better off or worse off.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y agoUsing your same argument, taxes are a peaceful price for civilization. I don't need armed tax collectors busting down my door to take my money because we live in civilized society. The fundamental value of a national currency is not violence. It is civil society.