Topic: Government & Bitcoin - page 70. (Read 70850 times)

The Government in my country will never accept it as a national currency as the Government themselves are involved in corruption so why they would support such thing which would be full stop to their corrupted activities?? The only thing we need is the adoption from the people and for that Government has no control.

The governments of all countries are not same and when we talk or think about the government the first thing comes to our mind is the corruption. Most of the government employees are involved in scams or corrupted activities so it becomes difficult for a ordinary person to trust them and when it comes to bitcoin I don't think that corrupted government will come in support of bitcoin.

Not really the problem is the population, the problem is the people who have a power to control or to rule this country. You won't understand me until you live in this country and if you now the pork barrel scam, They scam the taxes that we pay its almost 10 billion pesos or $224 million. Think of that money, they must lend it to the people or give the people a good services and renovate the bridges, hospitals,schools etc.

I do live in a Democracy country and that is why I knew about this thing that is why I relay to the fact about what I knew about Democracy country. It is not that the law is not strong in philippines, it just that the population is too many and that most people there are living not according to the rules, this actually makes an assumption that the law in that country is not strong enough

Your logic got some flaw and you might want to take a quick snap at google for the word "democracy". Democracy doesnt mean that you can do whatever you want. It actually mean that you are free to choose who to govern you. Instead law in democracy country is strong and based on "not guilty until it is proven". Also democracy means that the highest power is from the people

[/quote]
But by the meaning of democracy government didn't follow. And if you live in this country you will know what exactly what i mean. So only said that and you only refer to its meaning not into the situation of the philipines.

Your logic got some flaw and you might want to take a quick snap at google for the word "democracy". Democracy doesnt mean that you can do whatever you want. It actually mean that you are free to choose who to govern you. Instead law in democracy country is strong and based on "not guilty until it is proven". Also democracy means that the highest power is from the people


Bitcoin community? NO. Oppose bitcoin then Not for the moment either. Cant be sure about it in the future


Perhaps you should post this instead in bitcoin discussion since it suits there more. Country that have accepted BTC could be mark with the same colour

P.S : interesting idea indeed

I dont think so, my country is a democracy country but about gambling things it is illegal and guarded strictly. if some of them get caught do gambling or even just a game, we will directly go into station to be interrogated and may be you will be jailed for some days, but still there are many people out there in my country do gambling but need to do it secretly to make sure not get caught

Do government oppose bitcoin community....

Yeah i think its right, if they do that we all know what country we are going or giving a sympathy to introduce bitcoin and also how using it. It may help to raise the price of bitcoin.

Related to the topic, an interesting project idea came to my mind. Someone who is able to do it should create a world map that shows which countries are accepted Bitcoin, countries which banned Bitcoin and countries which have not come to an official decision yet.

Most of the countries that are legal to gambling is in the country that have a democracy government, because its a free country and you can do what you want and their law are not strong so that foreigner went to that country and they just do a wrong thing and make a money and not having any doubts that they will caught because they know that , the law of that country are weak. LIKE  PHILIPPINES.

Not in all countries. In most part of the Asia I believe that it is illegal especially in the middle east countries and/or in the country where the Religion law is strong enough . Though there are alot of illegal gambling activites in such countries but if the legal feds finds out who operate it, the operator would be charge with fine and prison sentences . In some countries however ( like you stated, especially the west side ), the goverment legalized gambling and got a income in form of tax from it

Gambling is a profitable industry, specially when it is monopolized. That is why goverments gravitate into gambling. Gambling is allowed in all countries, it is just the degree of free market gambling that is different. Sometimes the government wants it all.

I don't think being a slave is the natural human condition. The historical era of enlightenment showed that the ideas can change. We could have a second enlightenment, elevating the freedom a notch. It is conceivable, and it is not impossible.

The basis for a law will be the human rights especially about everyone deserve to live and life. Goverment controls the law and alter it to match the current condition in which case is your example about gambling where someone is deemed guilty but there is no victim to it. I would say that actually it depends on the goverment, in some countries gambling is legal and even protected i.e Macau

I should state explicitly actually if you break the laws and you are not found out than you will not be treated as a criminal ( broken society logic here).

I do agree that even without goverment, a place could be a good place to live as well but the fact that there will be always a goverment within the society. Human are in natural wants to lead, thus this create ruler that evolve into goverment.

I read half his book. Maybe I take it on again sometime.

Indeed.  Actually, Graeber is a great read, even if you don't agree with his conclusions (as I don't): his historical account is very eye-opening. Even the putting in circulation of gold and silver money was mainly an act of government, in order for it to pay soldiers with it.  If you acquire mines with military force, you use local population as slaves in the mines, then that's nothing else but a more burdensome way of "printing money" to get seigniorage, if you have imposed precious metals as money earlier on.

I have been reading some economic history from the viewpoint of precious metals lately, and it seems governments have always been dependent on looting the money systems, even in the gold money times - plundering historic gold, pirating, and monopolizing mines directly or indirectly, like the spanish control of the south american mines through mercury, which was used in the refining process.

Bitcoin can change all that.

So if a criminal is defined as someone that breaks a law, then everyone is a criminal right?  But more importantly, what is the basis of the law?  Moral integrity?  No not really.  There are several crimes to which there is no victim, yet there is unusually harsh punishment.  So really that is just a law taking away civil liberty (gambling, consenting prostitution, illicit drugs, gay marriage) partly due to the lack of separation between church and state and partly because of the profit incentive.  At what point does civil liberty become priority vs. implementing restrictions to which there is no benefit?

Another problem is that the government creates laws and then polices or enforces the laws.  But who polices the police?

Countries with large, small or no government can all be good places to live.  If the government is benevolent, then it's good, but I don't see many realistic examples of that.  And in that case, smaller government is better.  No technological solutions, innovation or evolution (which are really the only solutions) comes from government.  It's the only place where you can be treated like shit and still have no choice but to do business with them.  I'm not saying that's always the case, but it is definitely the case sometimes.  Any private organization run like the government would go bankrupt.

I think that what you want to say, is that a violence monopolist is inevitable, because if there isn't one, it's an opportunity for just any thug to become the violence monopolist.  So no violence monopolist is a totally unstable situation, where that vacuum will make one appear.

As such, a violence monopolist is an inevitable burden.  

Yes.

I think the next best thing to do, is to get that violence monopolist to be as much limited in its prerogatives as possible.  If it could JUST limit itself to stop others from being violent, that would be the best.  Which is not an easy thing to do, because given that it is the violence monopolist, it will of course want to maximize its prerogatives, to serve itself in goods, services, and satisfaction by dominance (which, in its ultimate stage, is going to war and wanting you as a soldier).

I would also like to point out that there's no such thing as "government" without government people.  Only people are sentient beings that can make decisions.  Abstract collections of people, such as "government", are not sentient, deciding entities by themselves.  We use these terms to abstract and simplify discussions.  But "government" is nothing else but a bunch of people with prerogatives and privileges.

I don't think that government and bitcoin can travel in a same boat.. "NEVER"

Everyone is aware that what government as done so far for the betterment of country and society. They are just busy in filling their own pockets with black money and scandal and scams if they start supporting bitcoin then it would end all their corrupted activities.