3 ms·
Just wondering - when is it not a good thing for the state to be able to enforce their rules, then? You said "almost always." Specifically referring to money si
by tboyd47 9y ago
Just wondering - when is it not a good thing for the state to be able to enforce their rules, then? You said "almost always." Specifically referring to money since the topic of conversation is Bitcoin.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoI was thinking about the cases when the rules are needlessly oppressive. Governments aren't perfect. But they're better than the state of nature.
- tboyd47 9y agoSo what would be an example of an economic rule that's needlessly oppressive?
- TeMPOraL 9y agoI started with an assertion that money, in practice, is synonymous to power. I wasn't thinking about just economic rules. But to pick something in big part economical, I'd say the war on drugs can be an example of a rule that's widely considered stupid, needlessly oppressive, and bad both economically and morally.
- tboyd47 9y agoI'm not an anarchist, but I do think that the everyday person (especially in third-world countries) could use an escape hatch from the global economy, and it just so happens that Bitcoin fills that role perfectly. Governments will always be able to tax people and they can tax them in whatever currency they want. This requires people to use their currency. So I don't think that Bitcoin poses any real threat to the powers that be except in harsh circumstances like Venezuela. In some situations, Bitcoin and other cryptos can actually help the government gain power, like in Palestine's situation.