3 ms·

If someone takes your property, you should have the agency to get it back. What do you think the government will do to you if you don't pay millions in taxes?

If someone takes your property, you should have the agency to get it back. What do you think the government will do to you if you don't pay millions in taxes? You don't think armed agents will come (even before you are convicted)? We live in a land of law and order. Without any law or order, or organization, your recourse is to do something similar to what the IRS does when they do not get paid.

salt-thrower 5y ago
> We live in a land of law and order. This is pretty rich coming from someone who's legitimately suggesting vigilante justice as a policy. "Law and order for thee, freedom to be judge, jury and executioner for me."
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  No, I said without a government you could just "deal" with it yourself. I didn't say if government was good or bad. The statement here was folks were up in arms that someone was talking about going through legal process to get bitcoin back. Now you're upset that I stated that government was what was holding them back from taking non-legal options. Tell me oh wise one, how do you get your money back if you live in a place with no government or organization and there are no legal means? Do you expect all of society is just going to get it back for you? All you'd have is yourself, and your way to deal with it.
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    You're 100% correct that without a government, vigilante justice is the option that people will take. But we don't live in that thought experiment. In our current society, let's say Joe tricked Bob into sending him all of his bitcoin. Option A: the government recognizes crypto as property, and the government intervenes to get Bob his property back. Of course, this also means that crypto is subject to taxes and regulations. Option B: the government does not recognize crypto as property, and does nothing because no "crime" has been committed. Bob is out of luck. But, there are no taxes or regulations on crypto, so if you don't get robbed you can get rich and evade taxes. Option B is the logical outcome of the scenario that many crypto anarchists originally wanted for crypto. No government oversight, which means no taxes or regulations, but also means you're shit outta luck if someone robs you. That's what I was commenting on. Maybe those crypto anarchists also want a world with no government, so they can take Option C and be their own vigilantes. But it's even more ludicrous to desire that kind of world.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      You realize there is no requirement that crypto be subject to taxes in order to have a legal mechanism for enforcing property rights. You're of the misinformed opinion that taxation of crypto is a necessary function of government.
nly 5y ago
The world you're describing is one where the weak and poor are beaten down and killed, because they have no agency to protect their property.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  Then why is anyone mad that a bitcoin holder is talking about using the legal process? If you think bitcoin holders should be hardcore anarchists you should believe that they should live in a world with those outcomes, whatever you believe they are.
- meowface 5y ago
  Yes, the point is that most people don't want such a world. With very few exceptions, even hardcore libertarians don't want that world. That's why they're arguing that some sort of court system isn't necessarily incompatible with libertarian values. It's pointing out the issue with the "how can you consider yourself a libertarian but support people using a government system, like a judicial system, when they're wronged? isn't that hypocritical?" argument. It leads to the conclusion "if they're really true libertarians, they'd either let themselves be victims or just take justice into their own hands", and neither of those would be desirable outcomes. The argument would make more sense if, say, the victim had gotten taxpayer-funded federal law enforcement to find and apprehend the perpetrators. But in this case they hired a private investigator, sent a request to the parents of the alleged perpetrators, and filed a lawsuit when the request wasn't responded to.
mikestew 5y ago
You don't think armed agents will come...? No, I do not, because that's not how the IRS works. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Perhaps even a single example of "armed agents" showing up to the residence or workplace of someone who has failed to pay those taxes? your recourse is to do something similar to what the IRS does when they do not get paid. Except that I don't have the authority to garnish wages or put liens on property. Like the IRS does.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  You don't think the agents that arrested Al Capone for tax fraud were armed?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  > Perhaps even a single example of "armed agents" showing up to the residence or workplace of someone who has failed to pay those taxes? Here ya go: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-of-armed-raids-by-irs.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-... “Three businessmen told the Senate Finance Committee today of Internal Revenue Service agents who, with guns drawn, broke down doors, terrified workers and forced teen-age girls to change clothes in front of male agents in raids at the men's homes and businesses that they said were unnecessary. These aggressive paramilitary tactics were denounced as intolerable and ‘’fascist’’ by Democratic and Republican senators as the panel heard testimony for a second day in its second round of hearings on I.R.S. abuses of taxpayers.”

salt-thrower 5y ago

> We live in a land of law and order. This is pretty rich coming from someone who's legitimately suggesting vigilante justice as a policy. "Law and order for thee, freedom to be judge, jury and executioner for me."

quantumBerry 5y ago
No, I said without a government you could just "deal" with it yourself. I didn't say if government was good or bad. The statement here was folks were up in arms that someone was talking about going through legal process to get bitcoin back. Now you're upset that I stated that government was what was holding them back from taking non-legal options. Tell me oh wise one, how do you get your money back if you live in a place with no government or organization and there are no legal means? Do you expect all of society is just going to get it back for you? All you'd have is yourself, and your way to deal with it.
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  You're 100% correct that without a government, vigilante justice is the option that people will take. But we don't live in that thought experiment. In our current society, let's say Joe tricked Bob into sending him all of his bitcoin. Option A: the government recognizes crypto as property, and the government intervenes to get Bob his property back. Of course, this also means that crypto is subject to taxes and regulations. Option B: the government does not recognize crypto as property, and does nothing because no "crime" has been committed. Bob is out of luck. But, there are no taxes or regulations on crypto, so if you don't get robbed you can get rich and evade taxes. Option B is the logical outcome of the scenario that many crypto anarchists originally wanted for crypto. No government oversight, which means no taxes or regulations, but also means you're shit outta luck if someone robs you. That's what I was commenting on. Maybe those crypto anarchists also want a world with no government, so they can take Option C and be their own vigilantes. But it's even more ludicrous to desire that kind of world.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    You realize there is no requirement that crypto be subject to taxes in order to have a legal mechanism for enforcing property rights. You're of the misinformed opinion that taxation of crypto is a necessary function of government.

nly 5y ago

The world you're describing is one where the weak and poor are beaten down and killed, because they have no agency to protect their property.

quantumBerry 5y ago
Then why is anyone mad that a bitcoin holder is talking about using the legal process? If you think bitcoin holders should be hardcore anarchists you should believe that they should live in a world with those outcomes, whatever you believe they are.
meowface 5y ago
Yes, the point is that most people don't want such a world. With very few exceptions, even hardcore libertarians don't want that world. That's why they're arguing that some sort of court system isn't necessarily incompatible with libertarian values. It's pointing out the issue with the "how can you consider yourself a libertarian but support people using a government system, like a judicial system, when they're wronged? isn't that hypocritical?" argument. It leads to the conclusion "if they're really true libertarians, they'd either let themselves be victims or just take justice into their own hands", and neither of those would be desirable outcomes. The argument would make more sense if, say, the victim had gotten taxpayer-funded federal law enforcement to find and apprehend the perpetrators. But in this case they hired a private investigator, sent a request to the parents of the alleged perpetrators, and filed a lawsuit when the request wasn't responded to.

mikestew 5y ago

You don't think armed agents will come...? No, I do not, because that's not how the IRS works. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Perhaps even a single example of "armed agents" showing up to the residence or workplace of someone who has failed to pay those taxes? your recourse is to do something similar to what the IRS does when they do not get paid. Except that I don't have the authority to garnish wages or put liens on property. Like the IRS does.

quantumBerry 5y ago
You don't think the agents that arrested Al Capone for tax fraud were armed?
sokoloff 5y ago
> Perhaps even a single example of "armed agents" showing up to the residence or workplace of someone who has failed to pay those taxes? Here ya go: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-of-armed-raids-by-irs.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-... “Three businessmen told the Senate Finance Committee today of Internal Revenue Service agents who, with guns drawn, broke down doors, terrified workers and forced teen-age girls to change clothes in front of male agents in raids at the men's homes and businesses that they said were unnecessary. These aggressive paramilitary tactics were denounced as intolerable and ‘’fascist’’ by Democratic and Republican senators as the panel heard testimony for a second day in its second round of hearings on I.R.S. abuses of taxpayers.”