snitko

40 ms·

331.
by snitko 13y ago
I wasn't being completely serious, but whenever I hear government trying to get its dirty hands to something not yet regulated, it disgusts me. Regulation robs consumers and prevents innovation and competition, while making politicians
332.
by snitko 13y ago
And this is why regulation is always harmful for the consumer.
333.
by snitko 13y ago
Ah, yes, teaching coding without a licence can lead to some unprecedented consequences. Like what if some crypto-anarchist after learning how to code invents a decentralized currency and undermines the banking system. This shall not happen,
334.
by snitko 13y ago
Slavery was also legal not so long ago. Being gay was illegal not so long time ago. Alcohol was illegal at some point. Weed is still illegal in most places these days. Something being a law doesn't make that something justified or mora
335.
by snitko 13y ago
I don't recommend anyone leaking info about the amount of Bitcoins you have or spend to any third party.
336.
by snitko 13y ago
But that's my choice. See, that's the problem with advocates of any regulation. Regulating != informing. If all government did was saying "This business is not reliable" I'd be perfectly fine with it. But then they
337.
by snitko 13y ago
This is a nice workaround. I've been long thinking about what could be used instead of dollars to trade for Bitcoin. Of course, starbucks cards are not as widespread and their amount is probably limited (in a sense that there's no
338.
by snitko 13y ago
Alright, you have a lot of good questions here. I won't be able to answer them all, since this would expand the discussion enormously, but I'll get through some of the points. > I believe it's easier for the regulators in
339.
by snitko 13y ago
> Why in the world would I pay these regulators? It's an extra cost and their service is provided even if I don't pay because somebody else will pay for it. You pay your taxes, don't you? Why wouldn't you pay privat
340.
by snitko 13y ago
I think all your assumptions come from the fact that you don't believe competition, specifically on the protection market, can work. If I could convince you that in fact it would, then it appears all other questions can be resolved. Fo
341.
by snitko 13y ago
If there's apathy it means people don't care. If they cared they would do something. For example, they would be paying a number of independent market research and consumer protection agencies to keep an eye on all other companies,
342.
by snitko 13y ago
> As to what it's called; the extortion would be called a compulsory service fee, war would be called large scale protective operations. You're missing the point. Paying service fees is never taxation because the result of n
343.
by snitko 13y ago
Also, note that firms cannot grow indefinitely, enormous corporations we see today are actually products of this governmental system, in which they bribe government for regulations and deny competitors opportunities. A great example of a ma
344.
by snitko 13y ago
Two or more big firms are better than having one violent monopoly. Furthermore, if people are well aware those are actually firms, it becomes very hard for those firms to bullshit people into obedience. Extortion wouldn't be called tax
345.
by snitko 13y ago
First, what you forget is that roads are not the only means of transportation. Such a road company would not be able to raise prices indefinitely because customers would either switch to air travel, river transport, or, I don't know, h
346.
by snitko 13y ago
First of all, Google's been around for slightly more than a decade. I can totally see it losing its monopoly over time (same for Amazon). Also, are Google and Amazon doing a bad job? Are customers (e.g. those who place ads or buy books
347.
by snitko 13y ago
Let's say I agree that regulation is a good thing. I agree that even though I myself may not care for my own safety and want to buy a purely assembled car, I should not be allowed to impose danger on other drivers on the road and this
348.
by snitko 13y ago
And to that I should respond with an article called "The Myth of Natural Monopoly" http://mises.org/daily/5266
349.
by snitko 13y ago
I don't suggest governments should exist. I think you had mistaken law and order for government. Think of it this way: law and order are services. Government is just one way of providing those services.
350.
by snitko 13y ago
Monopolies and cartels don't exist for long unless governments subsidize them or otherwise help by regulating the industry (and not allowing new players to disrupt the market). You will hardly find an example of a monopoly which was no
351.
by snitko 13y ago
Actually that's what I meant, indeed, so he was spot on. Anarchy means no rulers. It doesn't mean absence of law and order and violent gangs of rapists running on the streets with molotov cocktails and baseball bats. Law and order
352.
by snitko 13y ago
> It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future oppressors Precisely. This is why I'm no fan of revolutions. > Societ
353.
by snitko 13y ago
Think about how many things in our lives we do that governments don't control. We get married, we choose what to learn, what occupation to pick and what to work on, we choose whom to become friends with. All of those things are done in
354.
by snitko 13y ago
That's a very abstract statement. What kind of dishes are we talking about? Also, I'm not talking collectivism here. As was pointed out by another user, I'm talking about a specific form of anarchy which is anarcho-capitalism
355.
by snitko 13y ago
If that's the rule of your firm then it is going to go out of business pretty fast. Why? Because if you insist that your clients are always right then you will inevitably get into violent conflicts with other firms. Violence is expensi
356.
by snitko 13y ago
Calling something naive doesn't make it so. Saying "Power vacuums will inevitably be filled" doesn't make it true because you say so. What if there is no power vacuums and people don't want to be ruled by anyone? Is
357.
by snitko 13y ago
States did a great job convincing people that anarchy == violence. Yet what is the evidence for that? If you look at history, an average state over the course of, say, 10 years, murdered more people than the bloodiest of all anarchists did
358.
by snitko 13y ago
Let me respectfully disagree with what the real problem is. The real problem is not Russia. You are absolutely right that Russia wants influence in Ukraine. You are right that Yanukovych is a thief. But the real problem is people believing
359.
by snitko 13y ago
I like it how HN sentiment went from "let's ridicule Bitcoin" to "let's ridicule those who consider accepting it because now that everyone does it, it is stupid to make a big deal out of this".
360.
by snitko 13y ago
As I'm watching these news from Ukraine, it makes me really sad. People getting hurt on both sides (a couple of police officers were attacked by molotov cocktails and got burns, really horrific). All the while politicians sit in their

More ›