Topic: Bitcoin and Conservatism (Read 1372 times)

First of all I'm not against the existence of State and I'm not an anarchist. We need some laws, especially the ones that allow us to protect our property, but these laws should concern only the essentials. To give you an example, we don't need the government to tell us what to do in our own homes, to check how much money we have in our accounts, make us ask if we can build a house on our own land and pay for permits on every step. That said, I don't consider all people equal as I've seen that some of them simply can't coexist in a society. The laws are nothing to them and the only law they obey is the law of the jungle. A woman is unfaithful to her husband? Death! A man doesn't believe in Allah? Death! A woman tries to leave her husband, who beats her? He cuts her nose off!
I've seen what migrants are doing in Europe. Last year in Germany there was a young girl, who just got a degree and went to work in social services. In her first year of work she got attacked and killed by a migrant, during an interview. The same year a policewoman in Berlin was attacked by a migrant with a knife. Just watch some clips, like that viral one where a migrant tells a funny (at least to him) story of how they abducted a young girl, a virgin, and then raped her in the housing complex the government has provided for them. If that happened to my daughter I'd have gone there and butchered them like the animals they are. Or read some articles about the attacks during New Year's Eve: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3773014/At-four-women-sexually-assaulted-immigrant-men-rampage-party-Germany-chilling-echo-New-Year-s-Eve-attacks.html

Maybe you, and I'm talking to the social liberals here, who think you can live alongside those people, should pay a visit to Sweden or Southern France? Maybe spending a day in a refugee housing area would give you a perspective.

We are not only supposed to be Libertarians, but also a bunch of drug lords and paedophiles and pornographers, because the media has to

paint people into boxes to define something that are not the norm. This has happened before, with the birth of the internet and just look what

happened with most of those early pioneers. { Was Bill Gates / Chris Hughes / Mark Zuckerberg / Paul Allen any of these labels, when they

created companies like Facebook and Microsoft? } 

What Bitcoin offers is more than political believe of individuals. It is control and freedom of your finances, nobody can give or guarantee this

Libertarians are supposed to be supporters of personal freedom, so how do you square that with not supporting the freedom of people to live and work where they want?  Why do open market principles suddenly not apply when it comes to the labour force?  You should merely consider yourself greedy and a bit of a hypocrite if you believe that you should have all the personal freedoms you desire, but no one else should.  You can't even make the argument that you should be able to protect what you've earned, since you didn't "earn" being born within a certain set of borders. 

Bitcoin is something revolutionary and helping people to become equal at least in the possibilities to earn money and all that stuff. It is ideologically the closest to left ideas, I guess. Conservatists are right, as we know. So, they can't really be for major changes in life and the impossibility to control btc now by the governments can be seen as anarchy.

You hit the jackpot bro. Well determining who are conservative and who are liberals is kinda difficult to know. We don have the technology and mechanisms to capture the actual statistical data of  both parties. But there is one thing I know and we all cannot deny it and that is all bitcoin users want to profit from bitcoin whether he is conservative or liberal.
Do you agree with me?

How did you make a conclusion that most of the btc users are liberal?

Maybe the majority of forum members here are liberals,but most of the btc users believe in the less

government and central bank control over our lives.

Sure, it all started with strong libertarians wanting to make a change. Do you still remember what happened back in 2009, when the Banks nearly caused a global economic collapse? This was avoided with the help of the governments. They used our tax money to bail out the banks, so we had to pay for the greedy bankers mistakes. So this technology was developed to provide a alternative to the banking industry to prevent this in future.

If this is what a libertarian has to do to protect his wealth against banks and governments, then I would support this technology. Now, things are starting to change, because banks and governments are working together again to develop technologies to remove cash from the system, and to replace it with something that would give them even more power. < Danish e-krone >

if you want to be free to travel without being accosted by state troopers demanding your property if its over $10k.. then expect someone else to have the same freedom too

open borders or closed borders is not a liberal vs libertarian debate.. its a racism debate, picking and choosing who should have liberal freedoms is not a freedom.

i laugh when americans think they deserve the right to travel to any country and do as they please, but then dont recipricate.. thats racial hypocrisy not liberal/libertarian/conservatism

EG USA
americans want to go to cuba, tijuana, brazil whenver they like.. but the opposite. they cry out invasion

EG UK
dont let muslims on the euro tunnel to the uk. but as soon as france stops the brits from getting on the euro tunnel to go watch a Euro football game or go on a spanish holiday/club18-30.. there would be uproar

EG UK
we want to go to india for a year. but we dont want indians to come here for a year

You betray personal liberty at the altar of the State.

Ayn Rand, known as one of the most effective and influential exponents of free market capitalism and individual freedom, viewed open borders and free immigration as obvious.

http://openborders.info/self-ownership-versus-state-ownership/

^
there we have my second point in a nut shell.. even within the liberal 'camp' theres a grey area.

same for the conservative camp..

thus the terms are too loose because
not all liberals want to be liberals. and instead want to be an offshoot of liberal
not all tories want to be tories. and instead want to be an offshoot of tories

the terms lack real definition and lack direction. thus become meaningless in the real world of diversity

Hmm, I didn't know about this difference. Looks a conscious vision about immigration... I think nothing too extremist is good. Some people are liberal, but looks more like anarchists, communists than any other thing. They must defend any kind of behavioral liberalism, even it brings the end of world stability, and that is in fashion these days, media loves this. About economy questions I'm fine with the liberal vision, but about society I prefer to stay at conservative side.

Let's not mix liberals with libertarians here. I consider myself a libertarian, but by no means a social liberal. Social liberals are responsible for the immigration problem in Europe. They think we should open our borders and allow people to live wherever they want, share everything with the newcomers and welcome them with open arms. That's what they did in Sweden, France, Germany and many more. They are childish people thinking that we are all equal and will live together in peace singing kumbaya.

The political views are smoothed in front of the mutual interest. The same also applies with the religion. People put aside political views and religious differences when they transact each other and their only goal is the profit. So when money "speaks" people forget their political religious and social perspectives.

Religious superstition is not a very good reason to discriminate against a member of the public.
I do not see why religious belief should desire any special status over moral or intellectual belief.

If you allow such discrimination then you'll have work places refusing to hire people because of their skin colour.
That is a fact that we have seen in the past.

That is extreme BS more likely.
Why are there so many unisex bathrooms in the EU and they don't seem to have this imaginary problem?

Additionally, chromomes are not always so clear.

I personally believe government should have its hands away from marriage, mostly because they do not do anything right. I could care less who you marry. However, now that they have their hands in gay marriage legislation, now we have people being forced to photograph or bake cakes for weddings, even if it is against their religion. We have a 1st amendment last time I checked.

On bathrooms, for the safety of other women it is believed not be proper for a man with every cell in their body with an X and Y chromosome (besides some sperm cells) to use the same bathroom. These are scientific facts, it's concerning that society is normalizing mental disorder. There had been countless instances of men raping women and claiming to be transgender and that is an extreme issue.

I am a political science major and have been extremely active in the Politics and Society forum for a while, it's not hard to determine. I'm just stating what I have observed. I could really care less what side of the political spectrum you're on, I'm just genuinely interested. The free exchange of ideas doesn't only apply when it agrees with you, you will never see me trying to silence someone's voice. If you do not agree with someone, encourage more speech to understand the opposing position, not less speech.

conservatives believe in corporate freedom
libertarians believe in personal freedom.

conservatives believe in people paying tax to hand to the corporations
libertarians believe in corporations paying tax to hand to the people

conservatives believe in people being restricted in what they can do unless they pay a corporation a fee
libertarians believe in corporations being restricted in what they can do unless they pay a fee


though i said all that above.
the 'branding' of political terminology is loose. its a scale because not everyone is a robot that fits perfectly into a descriptor.
so dont knitpick if you dont quite fit either.. and actually be happy that your free to be in the middle or outside.

the downside of this grey area/scaling.. is that one liberal can pledge one thing. but later mean another because its such a loose definition

Why do people always to tag and label everyone, you are who you are and you believe in what you believe    To suggest that most bitcoiners are liberal without anyway of even knowing that is just ridiculous,  keep your labels to yourself.

Gambling, good point.
Again in the US it's the Conservatives that want to ban it. This is not the party of personal freedom.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/GOP-senators-revive-plans/2016/09/28/id/750546/

it's just simply a wrong generalization from you. Firstly if you generalize anything you are reducing the accuracy of the statement. Now to get into meat and potatoes, most people do not care about liberals/conservative when it comes to bitcoin, they only care about gambling. Last time I checked both liberals and conservatives liked to gamble. But, if we are talking about those who dont gamble, then it  still does not matter. Conservatives and Liberals both can enjoy bitcoin without their political stance get in the way.