Topic: Assault weapon bans (Read 36524 times)

i completely support banning assault weapons because i am against individual arming. these weapons can be very lethal in the hands of some crazy people. I think that law-enforcement officers just have those weapons for society's sake.

Science says guns are dangerous obviously, just as many implements are dangerous.    That doesn't give anybody the right to start deciding who gets to own them and who doesn't.  The minute you shoot someone with one is when it becomes an issue, just as you get questioned the minute you decide to impale someone with your kitchen knife but not before just because you own one.

If by equivalent you mean: "made less trustable when a majority is ruling", then yes it is a fact.

Its not an opinion, its a fact. Bitcoin is built on, and i equivalent to, democracy.

Don't tell me this is SEC_Agent reincarnated...

Wow, a little grumpy are you?  A difference of opinion doesn't make you right.

M

You know what? I could also start my own little state here, right here in my apartment and declare sovereignty.
But you really know what? That does not make Denmark less a democracy.
And you know what else? People would laugh at you and not respect your sovereign state, they would likely put in a cell with soft walls.


You people are just of far off in your own little philosophical libertard world where everything is redefined to suit your state of mind. Wake up people and join me, Marx, and Stalin, and the rest of the world.

I think this depends on the definition of democratic.  Just because 51% supports it, doesn't mean it's democratic.  The very nature of BTC or it's variants requires that everyone supports it as it is.  Forks will kill it.  I would equate "democracy" to forks, more than I would 51% majority.

M

no, it does not. Democracy is the core strength of bitcoin.

"We make money democratic." - Amir Taaki <- and that's from one of the main developers

You should educate yourself about bitcoin before speaking bad of it.
http://www.weusecoins.com/

No, what I'm saying is that this
is wrong. Bitcoin doesn't accept such a situation. In fact, democracy breaks Bitcoin.

so... what you are really saying is that the evil mining pool operators is oppressing the people and trying to demolish their right to democracy, by 'tax' manipulation?

Yes, but the democracy you describe is considered a very very bad thing, since it will break Bitcoin. Bitcoin can only continue to work as long as that democracy is resisted. Even to the point that mining pools try to avoid it (like how BTC Guild raised their fees from 3% to 7% when they got close to having 50% of mining power. As more and more people adopt it, Bitcoin will teach people that democracy rule is a bad thing and to be avoided.

and if the majority(strictly more then 50%) of the miners decides to block a transaction the transaction will be block, as miners can decide that blocks including it is artificially invalid. Also if 51% majority decides to rewrite blockchain history it will happen too, the only thing that they cant touch is the 21M limit, and block creation rate. everything else they decides, even in every fork at once, as they can just switch chains as they like.

The majority ultimately decides, its a democracy.

How do you figure? A majority (51%+) getting together to decide something is considered an "attack," a group getting together to change Bitcoin ends up creating a fork that all individuals simply ignore, no one can force any changes or rules on anyone (unless it's a 51% attack), and everyone only follows their own best interests, with only changes being accepted are ones people consider to benefit themselves, such as security and bug patches. To me it looks like complete anarchy and a specific rejection of democracy.

and yet bitcoin accepts such a situation as legitimate => bitcoin is democracy.

Bitcoin is not an ideology; it just happens to be attractive in certain freedom-based political philosophies as a currency both taking the properties of gold and practicality of fiat.  Instead of having to store gold in some location and having those people write you a note redeemable for a certain amount of that gold (this didn't work out very well, considering then to now), we now have something similar without the need for central authorities.

It's as simple as that; Bitcoin is a protocol, Bitcoin is a currency, but it is only people who can use Bitcoin with intent.  We can also argue that the Internet is an ideology for freedom of speech and the availability of information, or not, but you would lose; only people can decide what to use the Internet for, as it is not itself a person, only a technology, a tool.

It is an interesting point.  Perhaps no where else in modern society is the threat of Democracy devolving into Ochlocracy given so dangerous an incentive as it is with Bitcoin.  If there is any politics in Bitcoin (and I'd maintain that there isn't), it would be this lesson: the necessity of mustering the individuals to prevent this Tyranny of the Majority against the rights of all to the freedom of transaction.

Or if we recall our Tocqueville:

"If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."
-"Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America

If you like democracy and think 51%+ should control all decisions about currency, why are you on this forum and why do you like Bitcoin, if it specifically considers 51% democracy as a threat?

oh, so you took all the good stuff, and then left. thats a bit of an asshole move to do.

and btw. if one did receive such a claim of taxes would one pay or would one laugh?

OMFG and i thought i was the troll! have you even looked around this forum? people thinks and behaves like is a ideology. in this case you cannot just say that you can't compare apples and oranges, because bitcoin is both.

oh man cool down, take it easy. i was only trying to spread fun and happiness while educating people through the socratic method of trolling.

Physically, yes. To some extent. Unless they decide they want to keep you down.

But, given the largest proponent of democracy out there, you can't just opt out. If you officially renounce your citizenship, leave the fuckin' country and never look back, they still claim the right to tax you for TEN YEARS.

and @Kokjo, Bitcoin is a currency, not an ideology. Your editing of my post was, I admit, amusing. It had no merit in the discussion at hand, or in fact as anything more than a parlor trick. Unless you stop just trolling me, as you admit, then this is the last direct response you'll get from me.

Back to FA, 30 years ago it was relatively easy to emigrate and change or discard citizenship. But that wasn't working out for the rulers, so they altered it and made it just about impossible to completely escape unless you were a criminal or politically connected (but I repeat myself).

It can still be done, but something that used to cost a couple hundred dollars in adjusted fiat now takes tens to hundreds of thousands just in lawyer fees. It's not a viable option in most cases. And if you do not renounce citizenship, you will be "liable" for their taxes and their bullshit laws for ever, no matter where you go. Becoming a fugitive or a non person is not a reasonable option for someone who objects to another's method of doing "business".

Besides, I was born here, I am Cherokee, and they have NO RIGHT to my allegiance. Nor will they ever get it.