You mean to say you dont believe that these things were conceived with this in mind from the very outset?
Silly libertarian tricks are for kids
Ok. Iâ€™m thinking down the line of it being used for purchases of cars, homes just like any other currency. Something where taxes do come into play and people have to show/report how they aquired it. As is, Bitcoin looks like a perfect money laundering tool. Iâ€™m probably missing something.
Youâ€™re saying Bitcoin is an alternative stock market that is unregulated. Currency is exchanged, although unprotected and you can pull out of investment to get your returns. Right?
Honestly no I don't.
I have read about it, and I'm pretty sure it was not conceived as an enabler of the system, but as a means to destroy it.
I guess the idea that something libertarian or right-wing could be revolutionary doesn't sit with some people though, as people tend to associate revolutionary with left-wing.
Right. You buy it, wait til' it goes up, and then sell it to a bigger fish who wants to get it when you need the money, or just want to cash in.
In the book I read the author says to watch out for coin exchange sites that are not legitimate. So I think it can certainly be used to scam people, though I'm not sure how that would work, I don't know enough about it myself, I've grasped the basics of it fairly well, but not the details.
No, not for a moment, revolutionary is revolutionary and for the most part ALL revolutions have been failures, just not the same sort of failure but the lessons havent been learned about revolution per se.
I think its ridiculous to talk of "destroying the system", especially in a positive sense as a good to great development, its a little about raving about how much you'd like to be racing along the highway only to discover you've got no breaks or steering, yeah, that'd be great.
When I posted what I did I was kidding but ultimately the fact that the status quo can and does and probably will co-opt most conceivable forms of radical change is something that none of those left or right who dream about or imagine radical changes are willing to acknowledge or recognise, yet its exactly why the status quo has come about and will endure, like it or not.
All of which isnt going to please anyone with an oversimplified world view whether its a conspiracy or some shade of that sort of thing which is the basis of the thinking, like if the status quo is as much accident as the deliberate work or plot of some conveniently cast villains its not as easy to do the whole "cowboys and injuns/cops and robbers" dichotomous thinking, or continue to maintain the belief that with the right interventions/activism something more conforming to the choosen dogmas might result.
Anyway, the whole "destruction" = great idea just convinces me that its not about any sort of change for the better anyway but hating on someone, usually a bunch of poor, dumbasses, which is a little like how kids in highschool treat the kids at the special needs table and there's no way I'd want an actual society to function like that. I dont know why most libertarians dont move to Somalia to try out a stateless society for themselves.
Not all libertarians want a stateless society but...
Essentially I agree with you, about revolutions and destroying the system, be it left wing or right wing attempts to do so, you end up destroying the throne but not the power, the power is just transferred to a different throne of a different shape. You destroy the grail that contains the elixir, but the elixir is transferred to another grail, another container if I'm making my image clear...
I was just saying that the intent behind Bitcoin was not one of complying with the system, but rather of opposing it, I get you were joking but I just wanted to clear that up, we can debate all we want about whether destroying the system is worth it or not, I don't think we disagree, but the question I ask anti-system types is "what do you want to replace it with?". Left-wing revolutions also started out with genuine intentions, but they were recycled by power hungry dictators who took advantage of the chaos.
We already discussed this though, with chaos and anarchy, you know where I stand on this issue and that I'm not a fan of anarchy and destroying institutions.
So...this brings us also to [MENTION=5223]MDP2525[/MENTION]'s point about Bitcoin being recycled by powerful people if it gets big enough, I guess it might, if it gets big enough, the taller the tree, the closer the lightning strikes...I don't know exactly how authorities would do this, but if there's a will there's a way...
I dont think any libertarians are about a stateless society, just one which is not remotely democratic, a privatised state, in every way, private power reigning unchallenged and unchallengeable is what its about, either by design or by default, but by and large I'm not sure its even as sophisticated as all that, there's a real hatred for anyone who's destitute or a deadbeat. Way out of proportion or perspective to what those sorts of people impact on their lives usually.
We're probably not going to see eye to eye on that one, MDP is spot on about how any business fix which is meant to be way to drive positive social change, whether you are left or right wing (and local exchange token systems, LETS, systems are an example of left attempts to use alternative currencies to permit mutual aid or economic activity between people rendered cashless by "the system"), will and is generally co-opeted.
If you even want to think of something as outlaw and radical as the market in legal highs and cannibas in the US, the most clever businesses in that field, like Medicine Man, have been up front about how they only aim to grow a business for sale, even in the event of federal legalisation and their having a large market share or monopoly powers they know that big tobacco or transnational capitalism will either cut them a deal or put them out of business through dirty competition.
The bolded - well, that's a pretty broad generalization, considering libertarians are a fairly diverse bunch...though I do generally agree that private power is no better than public power, classical liberalism was a healthier philosophy in that regard, since it wanted to limit power, not just government power, Adam Smith wrote about limiting the power of cartels for example, he foresaw the abuse of power the private sector could become monopolistic. Libertarians want to bar force from human relations, not necessarily limit power, the problem with it though, is that they assume that force cannot be used by private companies and if it is, they seem to downplay it or ignore it...
But Bitcoin/crypto isn't a business fix, not sure how you could come to that conclusion, I think it this comment shows you understand little of how it works, no offense or anything...
Its not a charitable, non-profit or mutual aid idea, so its a business idea, its how I choose to define terms but you may define your terms differently, that's alright, people divided by a common language and all that. I do understand crypto-currencies alright.
The thing about Smith et al is that they believed in the doctrine of laissez faire (spelling) or small or limited government, which by now is a dogma of libertarianism, the issue of private power was supposed to take care of itself, spontaneous order and all that, the market being the ultimate self-regulating mechanism.
The problem is, any reading of Smith confirms this, that competition was certain, approximating perfect, consumers had near perfect information too, products were generic, demand stable, supply stable, increasing productivity would create super abundance and never be threatened with scarcity, super abundance overcomes poverty by supply no question of distribution. Its a pretty picture, a great theory but pretty removed from reality and more so by the day, its popular more as a normative theory, for people hating on the supposedly workshy or free loading, than anything else.
I like classical liberalism, I think its still a progressive idea, though I wonder how the fiction stacks against the facts.
Alright I see what you mean, yeah I guess we have a different definition of the terms...I just don't see how Bitcoin (or LETS for that matter) have been, or even could be co-opted by business since Bitcoin is de-centralized and LETS are non-profit.
I'm not saying we should resort to basing our ideas on Adam Smith in the 21st century, many of the ideas of his you bring up were and are highly theoretical and yet they are still considered canons of many economists to this day, I like classical liberalism too, though I think it needs to be remodeled for today's concerns, which include crony capitalism, globalization, outsourcing, global warming, lobbying, all things which weren't issues or weren't considered such during the days of Smith, I don't adhere to any poltical ideology rather I pick different things that work here and there, I like the freedom that liberalism is about and I think capitalism brings a great deal of it, but I am also a social liberal as I believe a person in extreme poverty can't work their way up, so I believe in a safety net and government providing healthcare costs etc.
To get back to Bitcoin, I think it can be a tool to fight the monopoly government/banks have on the economy, hence it can be used to fight excessive power and thus it is in line with liberal ideas, though it's hard to say what impact it will have long term or even if this impact will be positive. I'm tempted to utter "I don't know where cypto will lead, maybe it will lead to something but I doubt it", remember people were saying such things about the internet and emailing in the 90s, so I wouldn't underestmate it nor the Blockchain technology that goes with it.
Picture a spreadsheet that is duplicated thousands of times across a network of computers. Then imagine that this network is designed to regularly update this spreadsheet and you have a basic understanding of the blockchain.
Information held on a blockchain exists as a shared â€” and continually reconciled â€” database. This is a way of using the network that has obvious benefits. The blockchain database isnâ€™t stored in any single location, meaning the records it keeps are truly public and easily verifiable. No centralized version of this information exists for a hacker to corrupt. Hosted by millions of computers simultaneously, its data is accessible to anyone on the internet.
Its to do with economies of scale, beyond a certain size the "first families" of capitalism will just buy it, whatever it is.
I probably believe in more of a institutional than a residual form of government, I dont believe that's a partisan issue but others would disagree and they're free to, though to be truthful, unless other more fundamental things change and a lot of the liberal trends are reversed, not by state action, not by populists but by a resurgent common sense or cultural revolution, I dont believe capitalism, socialism or anything else will be possible or sustainable.
As I say, in relation to crypto, the same as anything else, its economies of scale, beyond a certain size the small firms, individual bitcoin miners, dont matter a damn, and they will go to the wall, the larger ones, which can pay the electricity bill to remain "solvent", they will be bought off and the futures speculation is the beginning of discovery as to the means by which the same old, big old money will do their thing.
What you're talking about reminds of what happened in Russia post communism. Soviet state-owned firms were sold off and all Russian citizens were given vouchers worth ten thousand rubles in Russian firms which had been privatized. But insiders and the Russian mafia were clever, they all bought out the vouchers, there was this vast consipracy to buy out what the people owned and since people were either very poor, very ignorant or both, they sold their vouchers and thats how Russian oligrachs were created, if I'm not mistaken those same capitalist oligrachs had been soviet insiders.
This could very well happen with Bitcoin, too, but since we're talking an object of speculation and not something that is essential for survival such as food, clothing, shelter, utilities, if you have like one oligarch owning all the Bitcoin what would be the interest in doing that? Because then noone else would be interested, there would be no demand, and the value would plummet due to lack of interest. I agree that in this case the big fish will buy out the small fish, the richer folk with buy out the modest speculators, but whats the point of being a big fish in a small pond? If government has control over money and supply of money, they have a monopoly on it, all the private sector has to do is join forces with the government, but with crypto even if Bitcoin is being monopolized, people will turn to Litecoin, Ethereum etc since there is no monopoly.
I think there will be problems with Bitcoin, challenges so to speak, but they will not be the problems of centrally controlled fiat money. They will be of a different nature altogether, I suspect.