7 ms·

The primary use case of Bitcoin is to evade governments control over capital. Sometimes that’s good (governments disgorging kidnappers of their ransom). Sometim

The primary use case of Bitcoin is to evade governments control over capital. Sometimes that’s good (governments disgorging kidnappers of their ransom). Sometimes that’s bad (Nazis seizing wealth of targeted groups). Sometimes it depends on your perspective (governments preventing the trade in illicit drugs). Overall how you feel about this in aggregate will depend on how comfortable you are with government power. Let’s even ignore the fact that Bitcoin today is being used to circumvent unquestionably oppressive governments (Venezuela, China, Iran). Even as a hardened libertarian, I’ll freely admit that Americans and Europeans live under a generally fair and just government. Bitcoin is still worth it as a fail safe against future totalitarianism. It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. Not that it’d be impossible, but small frictions can have big impacts on the course of history. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying.

maxqin1 5y ago
> It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying. And how'd that work out for you guys on January 6th?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jl2718 5y ago
  It worked out horribly. They were shot, prosecuted, embarrassed, fired from their jobs, and forever surveilled and hunted by the entire domestic apparatus. Your othering use of ‘you guys’ suggests a derogatory view of this event, but your suggestion of its applicability to the text implies that it was a failed protest against ‘would be tyrants’. So it’s a little confusing ideologically, but your rational point is spot on. The notion of any kind of physical power held by citizens over the government was overwhelmingly refuted. Any weakness shown by lack of enforcement against the prior summer of violence, was shown to be fully at their discretion. Absolute physical power. No more delusions. But we’re talking about crypto here, and the international response to this has apparently been an unprecedented wave of panic crypto buying, or equivalently, state fiat selling. Imagine what they must think. I believe the markets; not the ‘official’ sources, not the press, and definitely not social media.
scoopertrooper 5y ago
> It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment [...] would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. Yet, somehow the rest of the democratic world spins around just fine without millions of semi-automatic weapons sloshing about.
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  Most of the democratic world fell under fascist and/or Marxist-Leninist totalitarian regimes within living memory. There’s only four independent democracies uninterrupted over the past century. Two have widespread civilian firearm ownership.
  - maxqin1 5y ago
    Based on your numbers, owning guns has no affect or even a negative affect.
    - dcolkitt 5y ago
      100% of democracies with widespread civilian firearm ownership remained democracies during the entirety of the past century. Less than one in ten democracies without widespread firearm ownership did. How is that a negative effect?
      - maxqin1 5y ago
        Where are you getting your numbers from, the NRA?
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    > Most of the democratic world fell under fascist and/or Marxist-Leninist totalitarian regimes within living memory. Are you suggesting that a few extra light weapons floating around in the 1930s would have stopped the Nazis and Soviets steam rolling across the Europe? Are you suggesting civilian firearm ownership somehow prevented the Nazis from skipping over the Atlantic and taking over America? Why did America waste all that money on submarines and aircraft carriers, when they had such deep reserves of plucky gun enthusiasts at the ready? I'm so confused by your comment.
stepanhruda 5y ago
You… really think a tyrant would fail because of a bunch of armed general population? The make or break is having public support, a bunch of people armed with guns don’t make a difference - maybe they would when the amendment was written, but the efficiency gap between a person with a gun vs US military has increased 1000x.
- maxqin1 5y ago
  Yeah, these people are delusional to think otherwise. If it was ever going to happen, it would have been with all of those lunatics that supported trump.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  This logic only holds if you assume that the US military are merciless killing machines that unquestioningly follow orders. There are plenty of examples of much weaker revolutionary forces prevailing over modern well-funded militaries.[1] Heck, there are many examples of civilian areas that are so persistently violent that the state simply refuses to enforce laws there.[2] No leader has unilateral control to unleash the full force of the military on their own citizenry. Imagine what would happen if POTUS tried to order a nuclear strike, or even aerial bombing, on an American city? The Joint Chiefs would almost certainly arrest him immediately. Ordering soldiers to fire on their fellow citizens drastically raises the probability of outright mutiny. This is true even in the most oppressive regimes. Even the Nazis were genuinely scared of average German citizens turning on them for perceived abuses.[3] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#The_Oster_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#The_...
  - maxqin1 5y ago
    But the joint chiefs are OK with tear gassing protesters for a photo-op. I wish I had your blind faith.

maxqin1 5y ago

> It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment. Having a bunch of people run around with guns probably doesn’t help much today, and may even have ongoing social costs. But it would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. That’s a civilizational insurance policy worth paying. And how'd that work out for you guys on January 6th?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jl2718 5y ago
It worked out horribly. They were shot, prosecuted, embarrassed, fired from their jobs, and forever surveilled and hunted by the entire domestic apparatus. Your othering use of ‘you guys’ suggests a derogatory view of this event, but your suggestion of its applicability to the text implies that it was a failed protest against ‘would be tyrants’. So it’s a little confusing ideologically, but your rational point is spot on. The notion of any kind of physical power held by citizens over the government was overwhelmingly refuted. Any weakness shown by lack of enforcement against the prior summer of violence, was shown to be fully at their discretion. Absolute physical power. No more delusions. But we’re talking about crypto here, and the international response to this has apparently been an unprecedented wave of panic crypto buying, or equivalently, state fiat selling. Imagine what they must think. I believe the markets; not the ‘official’ sources, not the press, and definitely not social media.

scoopertrooper 5y ago

> It’s the same reason I support the Second Amendment [...] would make things a hell of a lot harder for any would be tyrants. Yet, somehow the rest of the democratic world spins around just fine without millions of semi-automatic weapons sloshing about.

dcolkitt 5y ago
Most of the democratic world fell under fascist and/or Marxist-Leninist totalitarian regimes within living memory. There’s only four independent democracies uninterrupted over the past century. Two have widespread civilian firearm ownership.
- maxqin1 5y ago
  Based on your numbers, owning guns has no affect or even a negative affect.
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    100% of democracies with widespread civilian firearm ownership remained democracies during the entirety of the past century. Less than one in ten democracies without widespread firearm ownership did. How is that a negative effect?
    - maxqin1 5y ago
      Where are you getting your numbers from, the NRA?
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  > Most of the democratic world fell under fascist and/or Marxist-Leninist totalitarian regimes within living memory. Are you suggesting that a few extra light weapons floating around in the 1930s would have stopped the Nazis and Soviets steam rolling across the Europe? Are you suggesting civilian firearm ownership somehow prevented the Nazis from skipping over the Atlantic and taking over America? Why did America waste all that money on submarines and aircraft carriers, when they had such deep reserves of plucky gun enthusiasts at the ready? I'm so confused by your comment.

stepanhruda 5y ago

You… really think a tyrant would fail because of a bunch of armed general population? The make or break is having public support, a bunch of people armed with guns don’t make a difference - maybe they would when the amendment was written, but the efficiency gap between a person with a gun vs US military has increased 1000x.

maxqin1 5y ago
Yeah, these people are delusional to think otherwise. If it was ever going to happen, it would have been with all of those lunatics that supported trump.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dcolkitt 5y ago
This logic only holds if you assume that the US military are merciless killing machines that unquestioningly follow orders. There are plenty of examples of much weaker revolutionary forces prevailing over modern well-funded militaries.[1] Heck, there are many examples of civilian areas that are so persistently violent that the state simply refuses to enforce laws there.[2] No leader has unilateral control to unleash the full force of the military on their own citizenry. Imagine what would happen if POTUS tried to order a nuclear strike, or even aerial bombing, on an American city? The Joint Chiefs would almost certainly arrest him immediately. Ordering soldiers to fire on their fellow citizens drastically raises the probability of outright mutiny. This is true even in the most oppressive regimes. Even the Nazis were genuinely scared of average German citizens turning on them for perceived abuses.[3] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#The_Oster_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#The_...
- maxqin1 5y ago
  But the joint chiefs are OK with tear gassing protesters for a photo-op. I wish I had your blind faith.