Topic: Is bitcoin democratic? - page 2. (Read 8769 times)

Oh really? that's what you do? How sad. Instead of that I try to analyze why is it that those people don't actually use bitcoins and try to develop systems to fill in the gap. I don't want to transform anybody, and of course i don't want to coercively force anybody to use bitcoins. If they are not using Bitcoin yet there must be a reason, so instead of 'selling' the product i like to build the ecosystem in order to make it more attractive.

Moreover, I assume that even if i think bitcoin is a 'good' thing, i may be wrong or there may be something better that i don't know yet. You don't have the knowledge of how things should be done.



Oh really?


Of course, if you are the owner of your own body and life, then nobody else is the owner of your own body and life. If this is true, then you are not the owner of anybodys body nor life. So in strict anarchocapitalist logic, nobody can deny you to buy whatever you like, but you cannot force anybody to pay it for you. So yes, anarchocapitalist are saying:everybody should be free to choose and pay what they like and can afford.

If you want to read the complete libertarian manifesto by Rothbard, here you are:
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

P.S. Bitcoin is build in a way to make sure nobody makes you pay what you don't choose to pay. Think about that too.

Well, just on paper really, in reality their PR pamphlet i.e. the constitution is being completely ignored.

But the rest of your post is spot on.

DEMOCRACY VS ANARCHOCAPITALISM:
Democracy does not mean 'respect to all views' but 'destroy minority views', it means the majority rules and destroys the minority. Just think how democracy works and you easily see this is just true.

A good example of democracy would be 10 friends sitting on a table at a restaurant deciding what are they going to eat. What democracy means is that they will rise their hands in votations and they will eat all the same. But what if two of them are vegetarians and the other eight want to eat meat? Well they will have to pay the meat even if they don't want it and give thanks for the freedom they have.

What anarchist (anarchocapitalists) say is that everybody should be free to choose and pay what they like and can afford.

Which system is less violent? Obviously the second, just because it doesn't coercively force anybody to do the other's will.

Moreover, if you analyze your believes you'll find out that you defend democracy because your very own superstitions (that were inducted by propaganda). The first and more dangerous of all of them is that you believe and assume as right that there should be a goverment, and you see democracy as the less harmfull system to rule the monster.

If we return to the restaurant, imagine those 10 people were born in that table and forced to eat that way since the begining of their lifes. It is probably that the ones that would fight to stop the system would be the vegetarians, or the ones that were more oppressed by the system, and the ones that will defend it would be the ones that weren't so much oppressed. That's why you can expect hostility from this conversation. Because you're dealing with very deep beliefs.


DEMOCRACY AND BITCOIN:
There is a problem with the rule of the majority and bitcoin, and the problem is that, in case you have not realize it, in real world you are minority.

Is bitcoin democratic? No. It isn't. It is as democratic as cocacola.

It doesn't mind how much people vote for it, the protocol will may remain the same until the end of the days. If the protocol is changed, then it wont be cocacola, it will be pepsi. People are free to chose cocacola or pepsi.

As we have all already discussed, bitcoin has not intrinsic value, and it didn't have value before being a currency. Then, were does this value come from? It comes from the VOLUNTARY aceptance of the system: demand. There isn't a coercitive force or the rule of the majority that said, voted, or forced us to use bitcoin.

Merchants voluntarily accept bitcoins, we have all voluntarily given resources to obtain some coins, and we are voluntarily starting the ecosystem.

There wasn't any votation and there wont be votations for this.

In democracy you don't have the freedom to choose. With bitcoin you can choose not to use it.

And by the way, i'm spanish and i live in a collapsing democracy, i wonder if you know what the fuck a democracy is. If you are north american, you might like to know that you DON'T live in a democracy, but a republic.

Give up, man.  You can't reason with Portnoy.  Whenever he's asked to prove his beliefs, he changes the subject; if he is not indulged in this dishonest bait and switch, he throws a tantrum.  What more proof does a person need to know that he isn't rational and he isn't trying to have a legitimate conversation about the topic?

Just a suggestion if you really care about reality.. pay attention to how many people demonstrate and protest in the streets demanding that the government raise taxes, i.e. steal more from those who worked hard and got rich (calling it the democratic process) which is completely incompatible with the principles I outlined. There really isn't any need to do surveys, all you have to do is walk outside and look around.

Well I disagree...  I am not interested in conducting an extensive survey to prove that, and I doubt you have any interest in doing that ( I hope it isn't a dogmatic belief on your part, but its no big deal if it is ), so there we have it.

I gave voice ( so to speak ) to my thoughts on the subject and others shared their thoughts and feelings. 

Works for me.   

Thanks, everyone, for the glimpse into other reality tunnels.   

Your's isn't shared by most people which makes it a lot harder if not impossible to spread the right ideas. Instead of clinging to a term insisting it means something most understand it not to mean, why not use a "clean" word to be able to better communicate? It is the sole reason why I vehemently insist that Bitcoin is not democratic.

Actually you may have misunderstood. How we define a "government" today cannot exist following those principles, by definition it can't. So it is relevant, what isn't relevant is how we'd end up organized if we adhered to those principles but we never could end up with a government and follow those principles at the same time. Ever.

I call what we would end up with or not a proprietariat. My post on the subject from another forum:

I am not trying to prove anything. "Is Bitcoin democratic?"  That is a question.  

I am, though, trying to show that there are many ways to define "democratic" and the most accepted definitions have to do with equality and government by the people and for the people... etc.     I am not only somewhat anarchistic but also agnostic, not just in terms of religion but everything.  No one person, group, or ideology, has all the answers to anything.  


Thank the gods!  

That is probably the best answer I could have hoped for, and that is democracy as I and many use the term. People working together, finding common ground, finding good compromises and finding solutions that they can all agree to etc.,.  Whether there is any government in the world that is like that is irrelevant, as you say, it is the principles we hold dear as we move forward and strive to improve our lot that is most important.  

Thanks for that.  

I am done with Rudd-O who still thinks I am some statist, showing that he doesn't listen to what I am putting forth let alone taking the time to understand it.  

It is more like a dictatorship you can choose to participate in. The fundamentals of bitcoin, its unique properties, were dictated by one person (or group of persons) known as Satoshi Nakamoto.

Technology has no particular allegience to any one person or group of people, nor does it seek to rule over or subjugate them however, so ultimately the question is inappropriate.

A better question would be "What principles and values does bitcoin help to promote or enable?".

Given that its primary function is as a currency, it promotes the idea of a monetary system, which distorts life affirming and sustaining values and leads to negative outcomes.

The answer to your questions are: I don't know.

But it's also irrelevant that I don't. What is relevant are the principles. As long as people follow those principles any type of rules coming about or agreed upon in any way are fine.

You didn't prove it was irrelevant... you didn't submit it to the board of inquisition in triplicate... you didn't define "offtopic", "because", "answer", "irrelevant" or "question"...
you didn't genuflect to your statue of Ayn Rand before beginning your attack... 

Note how Portnoy attempts to change the subject anytime he fails to prove anything he claims is true.  This is a standard tactic to confuse and sabotage the conversation.  Hold him to his claims, make him prove that he is correct, and he will very shortly throw a tantrum.  Then you've won.

Neither does democracy as I, and many, if not most, understand the term.  Again you are talking about specific systems which are often incorrectly given the label "democracy".  

How would your preferred system work in practice.

Would it have rules? How would such rules be decided upon if not democratically?

I gave you a reason why the topic you're trying to introduce is off topic and irrelevant.  You even quoted it right here.  You didn't even bother refuting that reason -- you just contradicted me.  Contradiction is not an argument.

The fact that you keep trying to change the subject and introduce a new argument means you have officially broke Rule #1 in the rational discussion flowchart on my signature.  You are being deliberately irrational.


That's a lie.  The topic doesn't "come up naturally".  Statists artificially change the subject to this unrelated topic -- exactly like you just did -- usually to avoid being having to admit that they are wrong.  Given the following text, it's no surprise that you're attempting to do the same.  You are being deliberately irrational most likely in order to sabotage the discussion, because you know that you can't prove that your beliefs are correct... therefore you do the dishonest thing and attempt to change the subject, hoping that your interlocutors will forget that you fucked up and bite your bait.

You know you're fucked, so you throw out a red herring.  But nobody fell for your trap.  You have failed.


TADAAAA!  Here is where Portnoy feigns indignation and storms out, running away to save face.  He failed to prove his claims, and he also failed to derail the conversation by introducing a different topic while his previous claims remained unproven.  What course of action remains in his Bat-belt of Intellectual Dishonesty?  Make like an octopus, eject a cloud of black ink, feign indignation and storm out cowardly.

Portnoy can't or won't prove to us that "Bitcoin is democratic".  Therefore, he strepitously exits the discussion with pretend indignation.

His deliberate irratinonality has earned Portnoy a speedy addition to my ignore list.

That is pure fantasy.  

What I described doesn't allow for involuntary payment of subscription i.e. theft, it doesn't allow for through violence enforced arbitrary rules every single individual hasn't explicitly contractually consented to, it doesn't include the taking from some and giving to others through violence and robbery, it doesn't include the phrase "for the common good", and it doesn't allow for the delusion that a piece of paper is going to offer any kind of protection against violent psychopaths.

It is not off topic or irrelevant and has come up naturally in the course of conversation and debate on this subject and I will not subject myself to any more of your unnecessarily strict and formal interrogation, where you only appear to being willfully difficult, until you show you are actually interested in conversation, rather than lecturing everyone on what words they should use etc., by answering my questions and allowing more give and take etc.   

That answers question 1 partially (for example, you don't define "government", or "equality", or "rights", which leaves you an opening to weasel out of logical inconsistencies you might commit).

How about a complete answer to 1 and then answers to questions 2 and 3?  Thanks.

=================================================


That's offtopic because the answer is irrelevant to the question "Is Bitcoin democratic?".  I won't answer that in this thread, sorry.