Don't waste your time arguing,man. if you want to be entertained, go read his 50 page thread where
he tried to seriously convince me that the market is literally God and has perfect knowledge of all future events.
This is you, when confronted with a proper understanding of the nature and purpose of markets, calling that understanding religious. It's religious, it's accepted theory that I explained to you, that you do not yet understand, because you are not familiar with the subject.
spoken like a true bankster
fyi, " average bitcoiners " haven't said a thing so far
except maybe,
alex?
I don't know why you are suggesting its bankerspeak for me to point out that if you gave the users the steering wheel to the system they would instantly break it. Its the foundation for the US constitution and government framework. It's what protects Americans from tyranny AND self harm.
Who was speaking of democracy? Only an idiot thinks democracy is the most effective way of governing herds of sheep who can't think for themselves. I'm speaking of economic voters the ACTUAL STAKEHOLDERS.
If you don't have any bitcoins and if you're not a miner then honestly STFU and GTFO you are no one and have no say in governing this network.
Your argument equates to pure democracy, we don't necessarily at all want the stakeholders to vote for the direction of bitcoin, you want it to be decided by the most knowledge and intelligent participants. It's my exact point.
And its the same reasoning as is for the reason that the American system is not a pure democracy:
https://steemit.com/politics/@jokerpravis/why-democracy-isn-t-idealHere is the source writing/explanation by Madision
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
yes clearly communism is superior.
democracy SUCKS
Pure democracy equates to communism, and so does BU, which is the belief that you must overthrow the elite in order to temporarily replace the elite in until the system can be "truly democratized". But pure democracy/communism just ends up in rights and freedom not being upheld while simultaneously installing a dictatorship:
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-absurdity-of-communism-and-hard-forking-bitcoin-to-coup-core-4486aa9191c8#.vm8aops6sCommunismIt would be helpful for the readers to share a common understanding of communism and exactly why it was popular with some populations (and perhaps why it wasn’t in some):
com·mu·nism
ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: communism; noun: Communism; plural noun: Communisms
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Communism is the idea that that the people might rise up in revolt against their rulers and distribute the otherwise concentrated wealth (bounty) among themselves. It’s not hard to see how such an idea would spread among an impoverished class of (uneducated) people or how such an idea could easily spread beyond national borders (although on the other hand it probably wouldn’t be very well received by patriotic nations).
Marx’s view was that capitalism was the great evil that stole the ability to own the means of production from the common person. The only cure was for the people (the proletariat) to rise up and usurp the rulers (the bourgeois). The intermediate step, known as the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, was the “temporary” de facto government that would lead the people to the new found socialist freedom:
In between capitalism and communism there is the dictatorship of the proletariat, a democratic state where the whole of the public authority is elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage;[30]
Dictatorship of the proletariat-In Marxist sociopolitical thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power.
Lenin defines dictatorship from his Marxist view:
….Dictatorship does not necessarily mean the abolition of democracy for the class that exercises the dictatorship over other classes; but it does mean the abolition of democracy (or very material restriction, which is also a form of abolition) for the class over which, or against which, the dictatorship is exercised.
— Vladimir Lenin[20][21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariatBut the idea that such a de facto and temporary government might properly serve the people has been oft criticized. Here a quote by John Nash spoils our conclusion, but without the context that will be given later, following the logical argument for such reasoning as to the absurdity of Marxism as a means to a rational ends:
…in the end the “dictatorship of the proletariat” seemed to become rather exposed as simply the dictatorship of the regime.