3 ms·

Ahh the privilege of not living under an authoritarian government combined with the arrogance to believe your government will never turn on you... Crypto is no

Ahh the privilege of not living under an authoritarian government combined with the arrogance to believe your government will never turn on you... Crypto is no more of a Ponzi Scheme than Fiat currency is, the big difference is Fiat currency is back by threats of violence (aka government).

drewcon 4y ago
…which has proven to be a remarkably effective way to create relatively stable currencies peoples actually use vs. utopian fever dreams that have largely ended in instability, corruption, and financial ruin.
actionfromafar 4y ago
I think you have to take into the account that a competent government turning on you (US) would give you a hard time, crypto or no crypto. It’s different if you are under Venezuelan rule, it’s government is small, authoritarian and incompetent.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deepsun 4y ago
As Robert A. Heinlein put it: "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."
- jfengel 4y ago
  Force is a big part of it, but the flip side is that a vote is also consent to abide by the outcome without force. The force is there, invisible, and most people don't even notice it exists because they consent. That's a delicate illusion and does not survive well when largish minorities declare the social contract void.
  - deepsun 4y ago
    > consent to abide by the outcome without force No, if voters don't like the result, they can still use force, anytime they like. Like what Belarusians did in 2020 after obviously rigged circus election (though their force was far from enough vs. their government-in-power backed by Russia).
  - briantakita 4y ago
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” -- Author Unknown
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Your idea that voting is consent is very flawed, no where in society is the ability to choose not to vote where by they absolves you from rule by the authority. If voting was actual consent then if I were to choose not to vote that would be withdrawing my consent thus I should not be under the rule / jurisdiction of the government.... Try that and you get Sovereign Citizens So that alone invalidates the idea that voting is "consent to be governed", saying that is like saying when a mugger that comes upon you with a demand of "your money or your life" means you "consented" to give the mugger you money when you hand it over. Second people feel the force of government every day, most have assimilated this consent threat into their lives as just a part of living but even in the most "free" nations consent threat is there, did you fill out your tax return correctly... is that cop going to pull me over.... etc etc etc etc The delicate illusion is that this consent overriding threat of violence by the state is somehow legitimate, ethical and moral
  - ycombobreaker 4y ago
    The idea that one consents to be governed is reminiscent of the Sovereign Citizen movement. No, you do not need to consent as an individual. Rather, choosing not to vote is an abdication of your responsibility to participate in democracy.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      I agree that the consent narrative is flawed However so is the "responsibility" narrative. Both are over stating the importance and function of voting. One does not, and can not have a responsibility or obligation to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich [1]. Low participation rate is an indictment of the entire system. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7pfsneLSSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7pfsneLSSM
albertopv 4y ago
What's real problem, currency or authoritarian government? What about solving the latter like they are trying to do in Iran?
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  All government tend towards authoritarianism, just look at what happened under "good governments" during COVID, with full support of the population. (which I am sure is an unpopular opinion here) There is no fix for that.
fortran77 4y ago
> Crypto is no more of a Ponzi Scheme than Fiat currency is, the big difference is Fiat currency is back by threats of violence (aka government). "Fiat" currency has a lot of people overseeing it, and armies protecting it. I'll take that over SBF any day. Even with fiat's issues--for example, with a stroke of a pen, Biden can print and confiscate money and transfer it to privileged college borrowers, causing inflation--it still works better. In this case, our court system is slowing the process down
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >> is slowing the process down <<Checks US Debt Clock site>>>> Fact Check: False.... not slowing down at all... US Government spending is still extreme irresponsible and fast approaching insolvency... but hey the courts stopped a 0.0000015% increase so yea.....

drewcon 4y ago

…which has proven to be a remarkably effective way to create relatively stable currencies peoples actually use vs. utopian fever dreams that have largely ended in instability, corruption, and financial ruin.

actionfromafar 4y ago

I think you have to take into the account that a competent government turning on you (US) would give you a hard time, crypto or no crypto. It’s different if you are under Venezuelan rule, it’s government is small, authoritarian and incompetent.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deepsun 4y ago

As Robert A. Heinlein put it: "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."

jfengel 4y ago
Force is a big part of it, but the flip side is that a vote is also consent to abide by the outcome without force. The force is there, invisible, and most people don't even notice it exists because they consent. That's a delicate illusion and does not survive well when largish minorities declare the social contract void.
- deepsun 4y ago
  > consent to abide by the outcome without force No, if voters don't like the result, they can still use force, anytime they like. Like what Belarusians did in 2020 after obviously rigged circus election (though their force was far from enough vs. their government-in-power backed by Russia).
- briantakita 4y ago
  “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” -- Author Unknown
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Your idea that voting is consent is very flawed, no where in society is the ability to choose not to vote where by they absolves you from rule by the authority. If voting was actual consent then if I were to choose not to vote that would be withdrawing my consent thus I should not be under the rule / jurisdiction of the government.... Try that and you get Sovereign Citizens So that alone invalidates the idea that voting is "consent to be governed", saying that is like saying when a mugger that comes upon you with a demand of "your money or your life" means you "consented" to give the mugger you money when you hand it over. Second people feel the force of government every day, most have assimilated this consent threat into their lives as just a part of living but even in the most "free" nations consent threat is there, did you fill out your tax return correctly... is that cop going to pull me over.... etc etc etc etc The delicate illusion is that this consent overriding threat of violence by the state is somehow legitimate, ethical and moral
- ycombobreaker 4y ago
  The idea that one consents to be governed is reminiscent of the Sovereign Citizen movement. No, you do not need to consent as an individual. Rather, choosing not to vote is an abdication of your responsibility to participate in democracy.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I agree that the consent narrative is flawed However so is the "responsibility" narrative. Both are over stating the importance and function of voting. One does not, and can not have a responsibility or obligation to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich [1]. Low participation rate is an indictment of the entire system. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7pfsneLSSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7pfsneLSSM

albertopv 4y ago

What's real problem, currency or authoritarian government? What about solving the latter like they are trying to do in Iran?

phpisthebest 4y ago
All government tend towards authoritarianism, just look at what happened under "good governments" during COVID, with full support of the population. (which I am sure is an unpopular opinion here) There is no fix for that.

fortran77 4y ago

> Crypto is no more of a Ponzi Scheme than Fiat currency is, the big difference is Fiat currency is back by threats of violence (aka government). "Fiat" currency has a lot of people overseeing it, and armies protecting it. I'll take that over SBF any day. Even with fiat's issues--for example, with a stroke of a pen, Biden can print and confiscate money and transfer it to privileged college borrowers, causing inflation--it still works better. In this case, our court system is slowing the process down

phpisthebest 4y ago
>> is slowing the process down <<Checks US Debt Clock site>>>> Fact Check: False.... not slowing down at all... US Government spending is still extreme irresponsible and fast approaching insolvency... but hey the courts stopped a 0.0000015% increase so yea.....