4 ms·

> There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. That's one major difference. There would be no police, fire agencies, etc etc, I highy

by snitko 12y ago

> There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. That's one major difference. There would be no police, fire agencies, etc etc, I highy recommend you watch this video, it's an illustrated talk by David D. Friedman, explaining how police, courts and other things would exist and work in a world without government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o All of those things are just services. And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. > So it is outright impossible for groups of people to gather to cause serious violent harm towards members of a minority, leading to loss of life with no potential legal recourse? Is this what you are saying? It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. How many people, do you suppose, would oppose gay marriage or, say, pot if they were presented with a bill for outlawing it? My guess most of them would prefer to keep the money and make their peace with it. But because the cost of outlawing certain things is paid by all the taxpayers, they essentially pay for what they believe is right out of everyone else's pockets.

vertex-four 12y ago
> And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. Most countries have a benefits system which allows the poor a minimum level of quality of life. Additionally, cars, shoes, and computers, are all available second-hand for much reduced prices, because of consumerism. That is how they can afford these things. Are you suggesting that the poor should only be allowed to access lesser court systems than the rich? Why don't you look up fire services in the past - if you did not have the money, which some did not, they would let your house burn to the ground. Why don't you look up medicine today - in the countries where the Government does not provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, the poor regularly die of very treatable diseases. Your theory that everybody will be able to afford what they need does not work out. > It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. We have a history of this happening. It still happens in many countries which have weak or compliant court systems, India for example. I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world.
- snitko 12y ago
  > I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world. In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. My argument is that it's not going to be necessarily perfect, but simply better and more fair to the poor if government wasn't a monopoly on police and courts. Of course the rich would get better everything. They always will. The point is to improve the lot of ordinary people, not to hurt the rich. If you intend to help the poor by robbing (taxing) the rich, you're trying to do good by doing harm - that's not moral.
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    > In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. And the solution to that is not to encode those inequalities into the fabric and rules of how a society works. It's to try and solve the issue as best as we possibly can.
    - snitko 12y ago
      The solution is to encourage everyone to become richer, not equalize people. If you argue that rich people should not get better treatment in court, then why not argue for the rich people to buy the same cars as everyone else, the same houses, the same clothes and same everything else. You see, what you're arguing is selective communism. I for one have no problem with the fact that rich people get better protection from the police, provided they made their money honestly. If you truly wanted equality, you'd be arguing for lesser or no government intervention into the economy, so that people could easily and freely start businesses without the need to acquire licences and red tape. In the words of Milton Friedman: "If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that [free market]. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."
      - 12y ago
gnaritas 12y ago
Please stop trying to tie Bitcoin to your radical political worldview, you're hurting the adoption of Bitcoin for the reasonable folks among us.
- snitko 12y ago
  Well, why do you suppose Satoshi created Bitcoin? Because he wanted everyone to keep paying taxes and governments keep printing fiat? Or is it because he was a fan central banking and couldn't wait until Bitcoin is heavily regulated and centrally controlled? You call yourself reasonable, but you didn't even care to learn a bit about why Bitcoin came to be so popular and why it was invented in the first place.
  - gnaritas 12y ago
    > Well, why do you suppose Satoshi created Bitcoin? Not relevant, it's not his now, it belongs to the public and his intentions are no more relevant than anyone else's. > You call yourself reasonable, but you didn't even care to learn a bit about why Bitcoin came to be so popular and why it was invented in the first place. I know all about it, so please keep your silly baseless presumptions to yourself.
    - snitko 12y ago
      I'm sorry, but the problem is that due to Bitcoin's inherent properties you cannot completely detach it from political and economic agendas. Its deflationary nature, its pseudonymity, it's decentralization - how do you detach it from the free markets ideology and libertarian ideals? I just don't understand it. I honestly believe you guys are for a big surprise. Go ahead and use Bitcoin, I'm all for it. But don't expect everyone else to keep paying taxes and obey regulations. It's just not going to happen. In fact, the reverse will happen, with more people not willing to participate in government scam. If you truly believe society cannot survive and prosper without government, then the only logical step I see is for you to stop using Bitcoin or even lobby to ban it. If you don't, I'm personally fine with it, but you might regret it.

by snitko 12y ago

vertex-four 12y ago

> And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. Most countries have a benefits system which allows the poor a minimum level of quality of life. Additionally, cars, shoes, and computers, are all available second-hand for much reduced prices, because of consumerism. That is how they can afford these things. Are you suggesting that the poor should only be allowed to access lesser court systems than the rich? Why don't you look up fire services in the past - if you did not have the money, which some did not, they would let your house burn to the ground. Why don't you look up medicine today - in the countries where the Government does not provide free-at-point-of-use healthcare, the poor regularly die of very treatable diseases. Your theory that everybody will be able to afford what they need does not work out. > It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. We have a history of this happening. It still happens in many countries which have weak or compliant court systems, India for example. I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world.

snitko 12y ago
> I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world. In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. My argument is that it's not going to be necessarily perfect, but simply better and more fair to the poor if government wasn't a monopoly on police and courts. Of course the rich would get better everything. They always will. The point is to improve the lot of ordinary people, not to hurt the rich. If you intend to help the poor by robbing (taxing) the rich, you're trying to do good by doing harm - that's not moral.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  > In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. And the solution to that is not to encode those inequalities into the fabric and rules of how a society works. It's to try and solve the issue as best as we possibly can.
  - snitko 12y ago
    The solution is to encourage everyone to become richer, not equalize people. If you argue that rich people should not get better treatment in court, then why not argue for the rich people to buy the same cars as everyone else, the same houses, the same clothes and same everything else. You see, what you're arguing is selective communism. I for one have no problem with the fact that rich people get better protection from the police, provided they made their money honestly. If you truly wanted equality, you'd be arguing for lesser or no government intervention into the economy, so that people could easily and freely start businesses without the need to acquire licences and red tape. In the words of Milton Friedman: "If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that [free market]. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."
    - 12y ago

gnaritas 12y ago

Please stop trying to tie Bitcoin to your radical political worldview, you're hurting the adoption of Bitcoin for the reasonable folks among us.

snitko 12y ago
Well, why do you suppose Satoshi created Bitcoin? Because he wanted everyone to keep paying taxes and governments keep printing fiat? Or is it because he was a fan central banking and couldn't wait until Bitcoin is heavily regulated and centrally controlled? You call yourself reasonable, but you didn't even care to learn a bit about why Bitcoin came to be so popular and why it was invented in the first place.
- gnaritas 12y ago
  > Well, why do you suppose Satoshi created Bitcoin? Not relevant, it's not his now, it belongs to the public and his intentions are no more relevant than anyone else's. > You call yourself reasonable, but you didn't even care to learn a bit about why Bitcoin came to be so popular and why it was invented in the first place. I know all about it, so please keep your silly baseless presumptions to yourself.
  - snitko 12y ago
    I'm sorry, but the problem is that due to Bitcoin's inherent properties you cannot completely detach it from political and economic agendas. Its deflationary nature, its pseudonymity, it's decentralization - how do you detach it from the free markets ideology and libertarian ideals? I just don't understand it. I honestly believe you guys are for a big surprise. Go ahead and use Bitcoin, I'm all for it. But don't expect everyone else to keep paying taxes and obey regulations. It's just not going to happen. In fact, the reverse will happen, with more people not willing to participate in government scam. If you truly believe society cannot survive and prosper without government, then the only logical step I see is for you to stop using Bitcoin or even lobby to ban it. If you don't, I'm personally fine with it, but you might regret it.