Topic: [2015-08-27 RedState] How Bitcoin is hostile to property rights (Read 524 times)
I get the idea of freedom of speech, but redstate is going off on just about everything they really hate. No real facts,a lot of gossip, and 90% speculation.
'Bitcoin is incompatible with freedom under the rule of law.'
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/27/bitcoin-hostile-property-rights/
Wow, that author is really a radical crackpot.http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/27/bitcoin-hostile-property-rights/
Mentioning Sacco and Vanzetti as an example of a perceived anarchist threat to liberty.
Just to put that into perspective, the Sacco and Vanzetti case is considered the textbook example of justice gone against civil rights.
the Massachusetts Judicial Council cited the Sacco and Vanzetti case as evidence of "serious defects in our methods of administering justice."
[...]
Many historians, especially legal historians, have concluded the Sacco and Vanzetti prosecution, trial, and aftermath constituted a blatant disregard for political civil liberties,
[...]
Many historians, especially legal historians, have concluded the Sacco and Vanzetti prosecution, trial, and aftermath constituted a blatant disregard for political civil liberties,
(just to prevent trolling: yes, Sacco and Vanzetti were criminals, no way denying that)
I think I understand what he's trying to say: because the state was created with the intention to protect our rights, and because bitcoin is outside the reaches of the state, the state cannot protect our rights in bitcoin, ergo it shouldn't be used i.e. banned.
His folly is in the belief that only the state can, or perhaps only the state should, protect your rights; he has settled upon this belief and he is going to double down on his double downs no matter what perspectives you try to give him proving otherwise. I dunno what else to say about it; he's a psychological vampire, his purpose is to rob you of your energy thinking about what he wants you to think about. Anyone can protect their rights, it's not something you need an official badge for lol You protect your property rights like you protect anything else; someone reaches for your food, you pull it out of reach and say, "No, it's my food, you should ask if you want some." It's just what people do. Someone comes up to you and tries to take 100$ from you, you take any opportunity you can to stop it from happening. Since we can certainly protect our bitcoin by protecting the keys to our wallets, his point crumbles apart very easily; no matter what the state was intended for, it's not an excuse to be lazy about defending your rights. Yeah, some people are going to lose and lose big, but losing is a part of life, something this guy wouldn't understand seeing as he's become comfortable being a writer of opinions where the only opportunity of losing you can experience is in getting your own opinions wrong.
Not to mention, if bitcoin is outside the control of the state, it's outside the control of a ban, at least a political ban; therefore when he calls for a ban, what he really is trying to say is that he feels you should stop using bitcoin and he's willing to get violent to change your mind, same way the war on drugs works, they didn't actually ban drugs they just started filling up prisons and ruining lots of lives. And he wants to make that horrifying experience a reality for bitcoin users.
Let that sink in. All that comes to mind thinking of this is, what bitcoiner raped this poor guy's mother? What caused such destructive resentment? Imagine the invasive lengths the state would have to go through just to make sure you weren't using bitcoin, assuming they plan on being effective in a ban at all. And imagine all the time and energy that could've gone into improving the world somehow, instead spoiled so some asshole on a soapbox can feel secure that nobody will have an advantage over his own poor spending habits; you can't compete when you're fighting courts and jail, you "bitcoin cranks"!.
Here's the image I draw in my head: he's financially insecure, he needs to feel like there's adult supervision in society which can right any wrong he makes, and that adult "fix everything with a flick of the wand" supervision stems from a strong state: people who are prone to risk, e.g. poor financial decision making such as impulse buying and entrusting money with shady people, like an undo button so their risks are minimized and they can risk to their hearts content with little fear of loss. They're often referred to as socialists or fascists, depending on whether they're pussies or dicks, but the point is to eliminate risks in life so you don't have to avoid them. Thing is, having that Daddy Undo government causes problems, considering a government which can undo anything is effectively totalitarian in strength waiting on abuse by a democratically elected dictator, and this drives sane people away from such a predicament, one such venue being bitcoin. What appears a massive problem to one side, to the side of this writer it is a blessing, and those who reject the blessing of undo are the problem, the "anarchists". Whatever, doesn't matter, he has his bias however he got it and he's going to fight for his bias till his heart stops beating or his head is removed from his body, may your biases be damned.
As a rule of thumb, if someone's going to open an argument with ad hominem (e.g. "Bitcoin cranks" instead of "bitcoiners", and implying they're angry like he's a tween on CoD,) you should not consider what they have to say; it's a telltale sign as to what their true purposes are.
His folly is in the belief that only the state can, or perhaps only the state should, protect your rights; he has settled upon this belief and he is going to double down on his double downs no matter what perspectives you try to give him proving otherwise. I dunno what else to say about it; he's a psychological vampire, his purpose is to rob you of your energy thinking about what he wants you to think about. Anyone can protect their rights, it's not something you need an official badge for lol You protect your property rights like you protect anything else; someone reaches for your food, you pull it out of reach and say, "No, it's my food, you should ask if you want some." It's just what people do. Someone comes up to you and tries to take 100$ from you, you take any opportunity you can to stop it from happening. Since we can certainly protect our bitcoin by protecting the keys to our wallets, his point crumbles apart very easily; no matter what the state was intended for, it's not an excuse to be lazy about defending your rights. Yeah, some people are going to lose and lose big, but losing is a part of life, something this guy wouldn't understand seeing as he's become comfortable being a writer of opinions where the only opportunity of losing you can experience is in getting your own opinions wrong.
Not to mention, if bitcoin is outside the control of the state, it's outside the control of a ban, at least a political ban; therefore when he calls for a ban, what he really is trying to say is that he feels you should stop using bitcoin and he's willing to get violent to change your mind, same way the war on drugs works, they didn't actually ban drugs they just started filling up prisons and ruining lots of lives. And he wants to make that horrifying experience a reality for bitcoin users.
Let that sink in. All that comes to mind thinking of this is, what bitcoiner raped this poor guy's mother? What caused such destructive resentment? Imagine the invasive lengths the state would have to go through just to make sure you weren't using bitcoin, assuming they plan on being effective in a ban at all. And imagine all the time and energy that could've gone into improving the world somehow, instead spoiled so some asshole on a soapbox can feel secure that nobody will have an advantage over his own poor spending habits; you can't compete when you're fighting courts and jail, you "bitcoin cranks"!.
Here's the image I draw in my head: he's financially insecure, he needs to feel like there's adult supervision in society which can right any wrong he makes, and that adult "fix everything with a flick of the wand" supervision stems from a strong state: people who are prone to risk, e.g. poor financial decision making such as impulse buying and entrusting money with shady people, like an undo button so their risks are minimized and they can risk to their hearts content with little fear of loss. They're often referred to as socialists or fascists, depending on whether they're pussies or dicks, but the point is to eliminate risks in life so you don't have to avoid them. Thing is, having that Daddy Undo government causes problems, considering a government which can undo anything is effectively totalitarian in strength waiting on abuse by a democratically elected dictator, and this drives sane people away from such a predicament, one such venue being bitcoin. What appears a massive problem to one side, to the side of this writer it is a blessing, and those who reject the blessing of undo are the problem, the "anarchists". Whatever, doesn't matter, he has his bias however he got it and he's going to fight for his bias till his heart stops beating or his head is removed from his body, may your biases be damned.
As a rule of thumb, if someone's going to open an argument with ad hominem (e.g. "Bitcoin cranks" instead of "bitcoiners", and implying they're angry like he's a tween on CoD,) you should not consider what they have to say; it's a telltale sign as to what their true purposes are.
'Bitcoin is incompatible with freedom under the rule of law.'
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/27/bitcoin-hostile-property-rights/
The above link is a follow-up to his previous Bitcoin article:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/26/time-ban-bitcoin/
I thought his previous article calling for Bitcoin to be banned lacked sufficient justification for a ban considering all the good Bitcoin can do. Not to mention his previous article was a bunch of nonsense. The newest article while making some valid points than the last article, still doesn't rise to banning Bitcoin. It's kind of like, ok, so the property rights issue might not be perfect...and...so what? Don't ban it!
Besides Bitcoin is worldwide with all sorts of countries with different laws. So the U.S. should ban it while the rest of the world adopts it? I don't think that's a good solution.
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/27/bitcoin-hostile-property-rights/
The above link is a follow-up to his previous Bitcoin article:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/26/time-ban-bitcoin/
I thought his previous article calling for Bitcoin to be banned lacked sufficient justification for a ban considering all the good Bitcoin can do. Not to mention his previous article was a bunch of nonsense. The newest article while making some valid points than the last article, still doesn't rise to banning Bitcoin. It's kind of like, ok, so the property rights issue might not be perfect...and...so what? Don't ban it!
Besides Bitcoin is worldwide with all sorts of countries with different laws. So the U.S. should ban it while the rest of the world adopts it? I don't think that's a good solution.
Jump to: