15 ms·

This is not even wrong. EDIT: James Madison, the principle author of the US Constitution, in reference to a bill proposing to give aid to French refugees, had

This is not even wrong. EDIT: James Madison, the principle author of the US Constitution, in reference to a bill proposing to give aid to French refugees, had this to say: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that Article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=00...

Alex3917 9y ago
Just grab any U.S. history book. The original drafts of the Declaration of Independence talked about the importance of property, because the founding fathers spent an enormous amount of time thinking through the implications of what would happen if citizens just voted to take all the property away from the wealthy. (Democracy was basically Bitcoin of the 1700s.) And they came to the conclusion that the only way to prevent that from happening was through ensuring that every citizen owned a stake in the means of production, and believed that only with welfare would it be possible to unlock the potential of both the individual and the government. Also, in reference to your Madison quote, in The Federal Papers he expressed the fear that if the majority of Americans didn't own land then they would vote to take away the property rights of those who did. His solution was "extending the sphere", aka making the country large enough so that everyone could own land. That way the government could give away "free land", but that once individuals already owned personal land the government wouldn't have to take it away in redistribution programs or whatever. He was never able to come up with a longterm solution, but he recognized that it was a fundamental problem that could eventually destroy that republic.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Democracy was basically Bitcoin of the 1700s History books don't say stuff like this. You are making ahistorical arguments about men who owned slaves.
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    With Bitcoin, those who don't own coins can at any point vote to take away all the coins from those who do. That's exactly the same problem that the founders were worried about. There isn't any sort of fancy historical imagination that's needed.
    - Diederich 9y ago
      > With Bitcoin, those who don't own coins can at any point vote to take away all the coins from those who do. Can you expand on that?
      - Alex3917 9y ago
        The way the Bitcoin protocol works is that there is a worldwide vote every ten minutes or so to decide how much money everyone owns. So when people say they own 5 BTC or whatever, what they're really saying is that the political faction that's currently in power recognizes them as having that many Bitcoin. But if a different party wins control of Bitcoin, how much money they're seen as owning could change drastically overnight.

Alex3917 9y ago

Just grab any U.S. history book. The original drafts of the Declaration of Independence talked about the importance of property, because the founding fathers spent an enormous amount of time thinking through the implications of what would happen if citizens just voted to take all the property away from the wealthy. (Democracy was basically Bitcoin of the 1700s.) And they came to the conclusion that the only way to prevent that from happening was through ensuring that every citizen owned a stake in the means of production, and believed that only with welfare would it be possible to unlock the potential of both the individual and the government. Also, in reference to your Madison quote, in The Federal Papers he expressed the fear that if the majority of Americans didn't own land then they would vote to take away the property rights of those who did. His solution was "extending the sphere", aka making the country large enough so that everyone could own land. That way the government could give away "free land", but that once individuals already owned personal land the government wouldn't have to take it away in redistribution programs or whatever. He was never able to come up with a longterm solution, but he recognized that it was a fundamental problem that could eventually destroy that republic.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Democracy was basically Bitcoin of the 1700s History books don't say stuff like this. You are making ahistorical arguments about men who owned slaves.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  With Bitcoin, those who don't own coins can at any point vote to take away all the coins from those who do. That's exactly the same problem that the founders were worried about. There isn't any sort of fancy historical imagination that's needed.
  - Diederich 9y ago
    > With Bitcoin, those who don't own coins can at any point vote to take away all the coins from those who do. Can you expand on that?
    - Alex3917 9y ago
      The way the Bitcoin protocol works is that there is a worldwide vote every ten minutes or so to decide how much money everyone owns. So when people say they own 5 BTC or whatever, what they're really saying is that the political faction that's currently in power recognizes them as having that many Bitcoin. But if a different party wins control of Bitcoin, how much money they're seen as owning could change drastically overnight.