3 ms·

Yeah i'm not disagreeing that individuals in gov or buisnesses are benefitting from the run up. But I'm saying that crypto is built on the stability and infras

Yeah i'm not disagreeing that individuals in gov or buisnesses are benefitting from the run up. But I'm saying that crypto is built on the stability and infrastructure that was created by fairly well-run and well-intentioned centralized govs etc.

dnautics 5y ago
> But I'm saying that crypto is built on the stability and infrastructure that was created by fairly well-run and well-intentioned centralized govs etc. That's a trivially true statement for anything that exists at all. 200 years ago you could have said "democracy is built on the infrastructure that was created by monarchies". Ok. So what? That doesn't ipso facto delegitimize the potential of democracy as a viable alternative to monarchy, and history would have proven you wrong.
- randomopining 5y ago
  Lol you use too many pseudo-intellectual words. Democracy is self-sustaining. Crypto is not self-sustaining, it requires institutions to be able to exist and provide the stability and infrastructure for it to exist. Crypto detracts from gov/institutions because it enables individual actors to hold on to "their" wealth more easily and evade paying back into the system that allows the wealth to thrive in the beginning.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    social-democratic government detracts from society because it allows people to not give a shit about their neighbor's well-being because taking care of that becomes government's responsibility, enabling individual actors be spared the responsibility and instead figure out how to make rich people pay for it. Or something. If it doesn't work or if it's mismanaged, it's everyone else's fault because they didn't vote the right way.
    - randomopining 5y ago
      Obviously the best is a balance between individual and collective rights/power. Your simplistic argument is ignoring the negatives of purely "individual actors"
      - dnautics 5y ago
        No, nongovernmental actors don't require full participation to achieve the desired social goals. Unless we have competing governments, governmental actors are unitary, so making something it's mandate means if it doesn't do something then it doesn't get done. Let's give a concrete example. Say it takes $10M to house the homeless in SF. One marc benioff (or, better yet, a few + tens of thousands of individuals, but not necessarily all) can step up and cover the cost and the rest of the greedy billionaires in SF can do what they want. Whereas if only the city takes care of it, then you could be hosed. By its very nature if you want robust social services, you should build a voluntary system because that's not going to have a single point of failure. Indeed your statement belies a serious level of projection: you're ignoring the negatives of a state run solution.

dnautics 5y ago

> But I'm saying that crypto is built on the stability and infrastructure that was created by fairly well-run and well-intentioned centralized govs etc. That's a trivially true statement for anything that exists at all. 200 years ago you could have said "democracy is built on the infrastructure that was created by monarchies". Ok. So what? That doesn't ipso facto delegitimize the potential of democracy as a viable alternative to monarchy, and history would have proven you wrong.

randomopining 5y ago
Lol you use too many pseudo-intellectual words. Democracy is self-sustaining. Crypto is not self-sustaining, it requires institutions to be able to exist and provide the stability and infrastructure for it to exist. Crypto detracts from gov/institutions because it enables individual actors to hold on to "their" wealth more easily and evade paying back into the system that allows the wealth to thrive in the beginning.
- dnautics 5y ago
  social-democratic government detracts from society because it allows people to not give a shit about their neighbor's well-being because taking care of that becomes government's responsibility, enabling individual actors be spared the responsibility and instead figure out how to make rich people pay for it. Or something. If it doesn't work or if it's mismanaged, it's everyone else's fault because they didn't vote the right way.
  - randomopining 5y ago
    Obviously the best is a balance between individual and collective rights/power. Your simplistic argument is ignoring the negatives of purely "individual actors"
    - dnautics 5y ago
      No, nongovernmental actors don't require full participation to achieve the desired social goals. Unless we have competing governments, governmental actors are unitary, so making something it's mandate means if it doesn't do something then it doesn't get done. Let's give a concrete example. Say it takes $10M to house the homeless in SF. One marc benioff (or, better yet, a few + tens of thousands of individuals, but not necessarily all) can step up and cover the cost and the rest of the greedy billionaires in SF can do what they want. Whereas if only the city takes care of it, then you could be hosed. By its very nature if you want robust social services, you should build a voluntary system because that's not going to have a single point of failure. Indeed your statement belies a serious level of projection: you're ignoring the negatives of a state run solution.