3 ms·
"After all, no bank or bitcoin-emitter can be as public-minded as a government..." Ahem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe http://en.wiki
by apsec112 13y ago
"After all, no bank or bitcoin-emitter can be as public-minded as a government..."
Ahem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe
You can't slap a sticker saying "public-minded!" on a government, and expect it to therefore be public-minded, any more than you can slap an "environmentally friendly!" sticker on a coal power plant and expect it to stop polluting.
"What kind of role, if any, should a government take in supervising a parent's choice of genes for their child? Could parents deliberately choose genes for schizophrenia? If enhancing a child's intelligence is expensive, should governments help ensure access, to prevent the emergence of a cognitive elite? You can propose various institutions to answer these policy questions—for example, that private charities should provide financial aid for intelligence enhancement—but the obvious next question is, "Will this institution be effective?" If we rely on product liability lawsuits to prevent corporations from building harmful nanotech, will that really work?
I know someone whose answer to every one of these questions is "Liberal democracy!" That's it. That's his answer. If you ask the obvious question of "How well have liberal democracies performed, historically, on problems this tricky?" or "What if liberal democracy does something stupid?" then you're an autocrat, or libertopian, or otherwise a very very bad person. No one is allowed to question democracy.
I once called this kind of thinking "the divine right of democracy". But it is more precise to say that "Democracy!" functioned for him as a semantic stopsign. If anyone had said to him "Turn it over to the Coca-Cola corporation!", he would have asked the obvious next questions: "Why? What will the Coca-Cola corporation do about it? Why should we trust them? Have they done well in the past on equally tricky problems?""
http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/
- 21echoes 13y agodid you read the article? the article is about how he views bitcoin as a response to governmental failures in practicing responsible monetary policy.
- scotty79 13y agoHe didn't seem to go beyond backyard of his suburban American home with his analysys. Lots of countries have explicitely recognized that putting control of the money in the hands of public-minded government is often horrible idea. Those countries created separate institutions that are responsible only for keeping value of money stable by regulating its supply. They don't care about what public or government wants. They don't care what effects on the economy will their decissions have. They just have to keep inflation around 2-3% by adjusting rates. USA money controller for some reason has to support the economy with their decissions. The only reason they get away with it without hiperinflation so far is because dollar is strongly tied to the oil and because USA after the WWII had thriving economy, not economical wasteland like almost all other countries that took part in the war.