Topic: How evil is Bitcoin ? (Read 15017 times)

Kongratiev maybe ?

No, you are not the only one.  You just stumbled onto Forth Turning social theory, but the full cycle is 80-88 years.  It's a well researched, and little known, theory about generational cycles.  Well worth a read, very enlightening.

As somebody already said, capitalism is not the reason of Your troubles.
Currently, there are almost NO capitalistic countries in the world.

Canada is a demo-socialist country, and so is now Poland (i know, i come from there). The last known fully capitalistic country was probably USA in the XIX century. After that, it is only more and more socialism.
However, the Poland which You escaped from, was more capitalistic than either Canada or today's Poland, which by the way perfectly explains, why You are now so poor that You have to steal to live while you had so good life in the "old" Poland.

16 years ago, just after gaining independence, Poland had very small bureaucracy and was a very capitalistic country. Then came the regulations....

And it will, again. BTW:

1. 1929 (Great depression) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression
2. 1970 (EDIT: 1973) (Oil crisis) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
3. 2010 ?? ??
4. Profit !

Am I the only one that notices a pattern here ? A mega-crisis every 40 years perhaps ?
I myself have a theory that inflationary & fiat money economy causes crisises regularly every X years, because every X years the bubble pumped by government & massive speculation has to explode. You can't pump a baloon forever, it has to blow some time.

IMHO the "current" mega-crisis is either a little late, or has already started. The second is more probable.
I wonder if this is the one that will end USA imperialism.

EDIT:
Actually, current crisis is not late at all. As the oil crisis happened in 1973, not in 1970, we should still have at least 2 years until it hits...
So... 2012 ?

The US should never have been an empire to start with.  I would say that the end of the US empire is a good thing in the long run, but we live in the short run.  It will be a better nation for those who survive the short run, even if the federal union fails and states break apart.  The best state to live in under such a breakup is probably Texas.  I'm probably too old to see the end of such a conflict, myself, and would just bail on the whole nation and retire to some English speaking third world country.

And inflations have a tendency to end empires.

More like moronic times.

We live in barbaric times.

+1

Yeah, the way taxation usually goes is, "Give me money or I'll hurt you" "Okay, here you go"

Bitcoins CAN be taxed. Tax evasion can happen in any currency, easier or harder, but can happen.

What makes bitcoin different from dollars or any other important currency is that its a voluntary currency, and therefore it wont be inflationary.It will keep the natural market rates and avoid the boom and bust cycles.

Thing is :  bitcoin is not just a currency amongst other currencies.  Bitcoin is a form of money that can't be taxed.

Keynes called gold "the barbareous relic".  Imagine what he would say about bitcoins. 

I don't know if sb already said that and im too lazy to check, but money itself in any form is not "evil" nor "good".

It is what the people do with the money that is either good or evil.

I do think that violence is sometimes unavoidable.  That includes the initiation of violence as opposed to the use of it in defense.  I think it should be avoided if possible, but there are times when it cannot be.  Also, what is perceived as violence varies based on a person's perspective.

For example, if all of the fields in an area are owned by one man, we'll call him mister farmer, and he pays those that labor in his fields barely enough to get by for their labor, while demanding exorbitant prices from those that work in other ways for the products of the fields.  Not to get into the nature of ownership, since in this case it is largely a legal construct in any case.  If a group of people from the local area come and start farming those fields without Mr. Farmer's permission and redistribute the vegetables thus produced to feed themselves from Mr. Farmer's point of view that is initiation of force against his property.  However from the point of view of those people it is Mr. Farmer and his employees (who are, presumably, paid to defend his fields) that are initiating force by physically preventing them from farming food and feeding themselves.

I identify as Anarcho-communist because I feel that the engines of economy and social justice are best situated at the small community level, not at the individual level and also not at the level of states. 

To Hugo, If I am compelling behavior from someone through threats to their physical well being then I am exerting control over him.   Whether I am doing so through a threat of physical violence or through control of the things that he needs in order to survive is, to me, fairly irrelevant.

I was not pretending to say it otherwise, and I am happy to be in the bitcoin project with everyone. Hope that is clear.

Now that we have taken that out of the way I honestly think that your definitions are too subjective or vague. "control to exert power over your neighbors" can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Its very opinable. To support something I need a clearer explanation on how things would work.

Okay, sorry for taking it so slowly, I expected you to have some sort of problem with markets and I wanted to pin down exactly when trading things for labor (even guarding) became bad.

There are plenty of self described anarchists that are opposed to markets though. From what I gather they are not just opposed to some of the current particular 'markets' but actually oppose ownership and trade. I think they are confused, but that's what they think right now.

There is no government. There are simply people who are willing to initiate violence (or advocate for it) and those who are not. I am against all initiation of force, and will be after governments are disintegrated. It just so happens that right now most force is government force so thats what I care about.

Lately I'm learning that people advocate or use force and coercion because it was used on them as children. I am particularly appalled by the use of force on children. Voluntary education is good, forced education is bad. Voluntary sex is good, forced sex is bad.

Sounds good to me.

Anarchists of any stripe are generally not opposed to markets.  I know I am not.  Where I would have a problem is if someone manages to get a group together to control enough of the fields that people locally are unable to feed themselves without accepting the terms that are dictated by that person.  At that point a government has arisen.

I hoped and expected you would be okay with those actions. Now if some neighbors don't like vegetables and trade them for something else is that okay? What if you trade the veggies fist and give them what they want directly?

I'm not a troll,  I've been a part of the bitcoin forums for a while and intend to stick around for a while yet.  I don't check in all that often so don't always respond quickly.

Defending one's fields by having neighbors assist in defending them and paying with vegetables is community action, that is at the heart of Anarchist thought (at least Anarcho Socialist thought) but it does mean that in a certain way the fields belong to all of the neighbors.  Holding a giant compound with security doors meanwhile, I don't know that I can address that properly.  I suppose that so long as you are not using that control to exert power over your neighbors there is really nothing wrong with it.

Very true.

The system we have here is also very deceptive. It is a double-headed snake.

We have a constitutional monarchy (Common Law) that operates upon the 'Dominion of Canada' ('Dominions' are always under empires. The 'British Empire' in our case. The dominion was never properly federated.), and the sovereign provinces. The people on the lands invest their sovereignty with the queen/king in exchange for certain protections that are outlined in the Magna Charta (and the Bill of Rights). The protections are universal. Kind of like the USA's constitutional republic. (Limiting power is always a good idea.)

We have a queen "in trust". The "governor general" is our viceroy (latin for "in place of king"). Essentially she's a trustee. She holds the queen's power on our lands over here. We don't get to vote her in. The queen appoints the governor general.

Our 'overlords' (sarcasm) realized that they could not control the free men/women very well so they incorporated "CANADA". (Do an EDGAR search on sec.gov for CANADA if you don't believe me.). CANADA was incorporated in Delaware. (I have the filings if anyone wants them.) They then offered social security, welfare, and passed legal tender statutes. (This should sound familiar.)

Each new birth (humans are born, not "birthed"), is incorporated (more accurately, it is a trust corporation) under "CANADA". Under this corporate system (our version of a democracy) our rights are given to us as a privilege. We are told we are free, but we are under debt slavery. Our sweat equity floats a bond that is used to borrow money against. This money is injected into the general economy.

As it stands today every province is a corporation, every police "service" (no thanks), every city, and every court.

The corruption is even deeper than this. We have more than one corporation for many Canadian cities. They are often incorporated here, and in some US state. When someone pays a traffic ticket where is the money going? Probably to the corporation in the USA. It keeps it off the books in Canada so they can borrow even more from banks and enslave us all further. And I digress...

I see (your opinions may differ) the corporate/democracy layer over my lands as a complete scam. The Common Law system still exists, but unfortunately, less and less people know how to use it, and less and less courts seem to want to even deal with it.

To quote a great man: "Our forefathers made a nation and we inherited a corporation".