Economy Bitcoin Doubters, Come Eat Your Crow

[xcvbn]

I'm guessing you, like I, voted for the US Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party in 2016.

I voted Stein's dumbass just to take votes from Clinton.

 

[Greoric]

I voted Stein's dumbass just to take votes from Clinton.

Very Machiavellian.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

We started out with the most air tight constraint on the growth of state power, and the smallest government in world history....

Yep. Then we decided to stop letting states appoint a federal representative (i.e. Senators), incorporated the Bill of Rights, and let stand an absurd ruling on the commerce clause that puts pretty much every human behavior under federal authority.

 

[Greoric]

Yep. Then we decided to stop letting states appoint a federal representative (i.e. Senators), incorporated the Bill of Rights, and let stand an absurd ruling on the commerce clause that puts pretty much every human behavior under federal authority.

Indeed. The difference between myself and most all of the minarchists on here, @waiguoren and I presume @mr.bigglesworth included* is that they think if we just did it all over again.... the next time would be different. It won't be. The state is gonna state.

 

[Brodels]

if it was silkroad, silkroad 2.0, alphabay, blackmarket reloaded, or agora that shit is long gone bro

I think it was called The Oasis but it was also shut down.

 

[Quipling]

Thanks for the thorough reply. Distilling it down, in investment terms, is that called a premium. Knowing you'll pay x-taxes with y-gains and zero taxes with z gains must factor in. When people are scraping for 6%, it's hard to beat tax free gains.

Well then...


https://www.yahoo.com/news/coinbase-ordered-turn-over-data-235635616.html

I'm considering changing my answer.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm considering changing my answer.

 

[waiguoren]

Indeed. The difference between myself and most all of the minarchists on here, @waiguoren and I presume @mr.bigglesworth included* is that they think if we just did it all over again.... the next time would be different. It won't be. The state is gonna state.

As @Cubo de Sangre expertly pointed out, there were specific changes---judicial rulings in particular but even some constitutional amendments---that led to the dramatic expansion of federal authority. If the population at large had been better informed, it's possible the people would have fought these changes at the very beginning.

Your view seems fatalistic to a fault. There are people within the system right now who are repelling the growth of federal power effectively. Trump's judicial nominees will be a powerful force in that direction. There is an extent to which the egg can be repaired, if not put back together.

That said, I have often thought that a new constitution, with much more precise language on matters such as "equal protection of the laws" and "interstate commerce"; more explicit restraints on government authority ("the federal government shall not....."); and perhaps a non-amendment mechanism to update itself with the growth of technology, would be in order.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Why would the IRS want to tax money that's already been taxed?

Motherfucking pieces of shit.

They do it all the time.

 

[Greoric]

As @Cubo de Sangre expertly pointed out, there were specific changes---judicial rulings in particular but even some constitutional amendments---that led to the dramatic expansion of federal authority. If the population at large had been better informed, it's possible the people would have fought these changes at the very beginning.

Your view seems fatalistic to a fault. There are people within the system right now who are repelling the growth of federal power effectively. Trump's judicial nominees will be a powerful force in that direction. There is an extent to which the egg can be repaired, if not put back together.

That said, I have often thought that a new constitution, with much more precise language on matters such as "equal protection of the laws" and "interstate commerce"; more explicit restraints on government authority ("the federal government shall not....."); and perhaps a non-amendment mechanism to update itself with the growth of technology, would be in order.

What's fatalistic? Have we seen any country make a permanent adjustment to a radically smaller government without a catastrophic collapse? Have we seen it stay that way? We had the smallest government in world history.... what is it now?

You're calling me fatalistic while acting out the definition of insanity. Take all the reasons that make you want to reduce government to their logical conclusions and you arrive at no government... not just a small constitutional one.

 

[waiguoren]

What's fatalistic? Have we seen any country make a permanent adjustment to a radically smaller government without a catastrophic collapse? Have we seen it stay that way? We had the smallest government in world history.... what is it now?

You're calling me fatalistic while acting out the definition of insanity. Take all the reasons that make you want to reduce government to their logical conclusions and you arrive at no government... not just a small constitutional one.

Incorrect. I think the federal government has legitimate functions. National defense, border enforcement, naturalization, specific cases in interstate commerce, and the admission of new states into the union are all examples.

 

[Greoric]

Incorrect. I think the federal government has legitimate functions. National defense, border enforcement, naturalization, specific cases in interstate commerce, and the admission of new states into the union are all examples.

What about universal healthcare? That should be a legitimate function of the state, right? If not, why not?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

What about universal healthcare? That should be a legitimate function of the state, right? If not, why not?

That depends. Can they provide healthcare to more people than the market? Can they provide Better Healthcare? Can they provide cheaper healthcare?

I'd say right now we're in a hybrid where the Market provides better quality. At the same time there are people that are priced out of the market. So we want market innovation but government needs to keep cost under control and provide for those unable to provide for themselves.

 

[waiguoren]

What about universal healthcare? That should be a legitimate function of the state, right? If not, why not?

Your country won't last long without the first three things I listed.

1 If a country can't defend itself, it will be invaded and conquered.
2 If it has no border, unwanted people will pour in.
3 If it has no process for granting citizenship, it will be unable to deport non-citizens or to have its citizens recognized abroad.

By contrast, a country can exist and thrive without central government involvement in its health care system.

 

[Falsedawn]

I'm waiting for this price correction, i'm gonna make a killing off this shit.

 

[Greoric]

That depends. Can they provide healthcare to more people than the market? Can they provide Better Healthcare? Can they provide cheaper healthcare?

I'd say right now we're in a hybrid where the Market provides better quality. At the same time there are people that are priced out of the market. So we want market innovation but government needs to keep cost under control and provide for those unable to provide for themselves.

Excellent questions. In order to claim that the government provides more efficient and effective care, you must also claim that a compulsory funded monopoly is better able to distribute scare resources than a decentralized market of any number of competing, cooperating, and dynamic actors. That's true of any service you want the government to handle... security included.

Edit: That's a pretty extravagant claim given our understanding of economics.

 

[Greoric]

I'm waiting for this price correction, i'm gonna make a killing off this shit.

We're set for a pretty major correction. Once that's underway we're going to see Bitcoin really pop, in my opinion.

 

[Greoric]

Your country won't last long without the first three things I listed.

1 If a country can't defend itself, it will be invaded and conquered.
2 If it has no border, unwanted people will pour in.
3 If it has no process for granting citizenship, it will be unable to deport non-citizens or to have its citizens recognized abroad.

By contrast, a country can exist and thrive without central government involvement in its health care system.

I don't expect there to be a country.... that's kind of the point. It's silly to have 320 million people, now with vastly different cultures and values under the same governance.

In any event though,

1. Are you assuming we need a standing army to defend against invasion?
2. Do you let people pour into your property? Why?
3. Deporting people is even easier. Are they being an asshole? Ostracize them from your community. All property is private.

 

[waiguoren]

I don't expect there to be a country.... that's kind of the point. It's silly to have 320 million people, now with vastly different cultures and values under the same governance.

In any event though,

1. Are you assuming we need a standing army to defend against invasion?
2. Do you let people pour into your property? Why?
3. Deporting people is even easier. Are they being an asshole, ostracize them from your community. All property is private.

You don't expect there to be a country....but look around the world and you will find well over 200 of them. And guess what? Many are aggressive and expansionist. That's why a common defense is useful.

1. I never said anything about a standing army. The point is that there needs to be a central military command to maximize defensive ability. If you're caught up on the fact that we are much stronger than our neighbors, then consider how you would have advised Switzerland in the years leading up to WWII.

2/3 So all property is private in your utopia? No public parks, beaches, waterways, libraries, or roads/bridges?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Excellent questions. In order to claim that the government provides more efficient and effective care, you must also claim that a compulsory funded monopoly is better able to distribute scare resources than a decentralized market of any number of competing, cooperating, and dynamic actors. That's true of any service you want the government to handle... security included.

Edit: That's a pretty extravagant claim given our understanding of economics.

My sister and Bro in law have Phds in Econ. I lean on some of their expertise.

Where does your understanding of Econ come from?