Topic: OccupyLA on 10/1 !! We will be there in Bitcoin Attire! Financial Revolution! (Read 7996 times)

Thanks for your efforts.

I went back home, sorry.
They were lagging so hard on bitcoin donations.
Just to make it clear, I wasn't discussing politics, but rather only discussing Bitcoin and how it works.
That's why when I finally got home I had to vent here

I believe that we have to first come to an understanding that many people who lack education and intelligence are also the product of this current failing system. This understanding is the foundation where people can build a new system on. Without this, we are no better than the Wall St thugs that justifies their actions because they think the rest of the world deserves exactly what they are getting. First knowing the current system has failed, which is happening now, then helping each other understand the real problem out of love that comes from that common understanding is how we will change this world.

I'm gonna go protest the color Purple instead. I wish to have it removed from the spectrum.

The sad thing is, my lone protest against the color Purple probably has a better shot at getting something accomplished than these OccpyMyStreet guys have.

Right, any healthcare system based on third-party payment, whether the third party is an insurance company, your (self-insured) employer or the government, will have difficulty controlling costs.  Even if you believe that their should be a social safety net to help poor people access medical care (I do), it would be far better to give the money directly to the patient.  This also preserves the sanctity of the patient-doctor relationship.  The healthcare debate should be about eliminating third parties, not which third party should be responsible.

+1  

And in Canada one generally doesn't have to fear losing their entire life savings when they get sick.
( edit/ also think of car insurance. Everyone complains about having to pay it, but how many would wish they didn't have it when they get into an accident they are responsible for?  ) 

And also just because something is not managed properly is not prove against the concept.

And I would dare suggest that most people in this Country approve of a system of socialized ( for lack of a better term ) healthcare and tend to vote 'provincially' for leaders that say they will protect it...  it is not something forced on us...  it's called democracy.    

Which tent are you guys? I took a stroll over (I live nearby) but didn't see any Bitcoin logos.

The rapid price increases in America are very easy to explain, and in fact this was made clear to me on a recent doctor visit.

The problem is that the patient (customer) is not the one who pays for the service. There is a disconnect between customer and merchant. This disconnect enables the incentive of a company (hospital/doctor) to raise its prices to go unchecked. The doctor can prescribe anything, run any tests, and generally "over-service" the patient, because the patient wants "all the health he can get" and isn't paying the cost directly. For the most part, it's paid by the insurance provider or an employer via the insurance provider.

This singular dynamic is the primary reason healthcare costs in America seem "unrestrained." The incentive to reduce costs is gone, or almost gone.

I had understood this conceptually for a while, but on a recent doctor visit it was made terribly clear. I went to get a prescription. Before the doctor would prescribe the drug, he said I needed to take some blood tests and other types of analysis. It sounded a bit excessive, so I asked him, "How much will all that cost?"  You see, I cared about the cost, because I don't have insurance. I have to pay for the services I receive. The doctor said the tests would cost roughly $900-$1,200. I gasped! He looked surprised at my question, and asked, "don't you have insurance?" I said no. He looked more surprised, paused, and then said, well, I guess we don't need to run all these tests. He crossed some things out on the clipboard, and said, "okay, just these three tests are required. The cost will be about $350.

So I paid for those tests, and got the prescription.  If I had been a "normal client" with insurance to cover every expense, the cost of acquiring the services would be over a grand. But when the discipline of a price-conscious customer is added to the equation, the cost dropped to $350. Remember that when insurance companies pay your bills, their costs are distributed amongst all their policy holders. That is why insurance premiums keep rising - because doctors and hospitals have no incentive to control what they provide for a given demand.

This isn't the full story of why prices are rising, but it is a large portion of it. Insurance should not be paying for normal medical expenses. It should cover only catastrophic events, and people should get used to paying for the services and goods they demand. The overall price of health in the country would fall, or at least stabilize.

It is not a coincidence that those industries with the most government distortion are the industries in which prices are out of control (college, healthcare, war, etc.)

Yeah, Canada doesn't have a single national healthcare plan.  They have 13 different systems based on broad national requirements administered by each individual territory/province.  Their system isn't perfect, but I would say it works somewhat better than the current US system, at least in the area of controlling the kind of out-of-control price inflation we're seeing in the US.

Also, emergency room wait times suck in America as well, and people dying during the wait isn't completely unheard of.

If you are so out of place at the demonstrations I would suspect that it probably shows.  In that case, it may be somewhat better to _not_ make a big deal about Bitcoin.  If people sense that you are considering them universally stupid and backward, they very well could have some non-positive perceptions of you as well and may not be as receptive to considering and exploring Bitcoin as they could be.

It is, of course, a free country (for now) and you can do as you like.  I'm just saying as a practical matter it might be a better strategy to pay some attention to selecting the messenger as well as the message for a target audience in promoting Bitcoin.  I do hope that you balance your desire have Bitcoin promoted successfully with your other priorities.

They dont, they arent the brightest. I am over it. Its sad to see so many dumb people that are willing to do something about their beliefs.

+1

This is widely known, and you shouldnt have to explain it to these people.

Please don't include Canada on that list.

Universal healthcare may have been successfully implemented, but its a mess currently.

Six month waiting lists for some non-surgical examination procedures. Actual surgery can easily require a 1-year wait unless your condition is critical.

Emergency room wait times are ridiculous, I have had to wait 4 hours on more than one occasion. In one case a person literally died after waiting for 34 hours in emergency. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2008/11/19/hospital-emergency.html

So do we have a donation address for OccupyLA yet?

I am with you guys! FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH! That's all we offer is the truth and nothing but it.

I was worried you would take "trace" too literally. I meant the raw materials have to come from somewhere. Not everbody has the same opportunity to privitize raw materials. I understand people attach value to something they have refined/modified into something else. My point is that "ownership" is not absolute. There are only so many reources to go around.

Some people even go so far as to claim that Capitalism is the most efficient way to distribute resources. I disagree: the "price system" constitutes government intervention that ignores externalities. The reason it constitutes government intervention is that property ownership and contracts are enforced by the courts. Any body controlling a private malitia alternative would become the defacto governement.


When people take from or poisen the commons, they are plundering. They are killing me not with a gun, but through resource depletion. If you think you don't need society's help. You are welcome to become a hermit.

Bitcoin is not Ripple: the chain with the greatest total difficulty wins, end of story.  You either trust that a (hopefully vast) majority of the nodes are honest, or you ought not use it.  Btw-- how exactly do I educate myself about whether I should trust the people who have the greatest amounts of hashing power?


Great, so let's take economic planning.  I save for a vacation coming up in 6 months, opening an account at one of the big banks that charge ridiculous fees for everything.  I do the math for what I think I will need, build up a little money in a savings account where I get some puny interest, and voila-- by vacation time I have what I need for fun in the sun.

There are obviously big, big problems with the way the banks gouge their customers, but are you seriously saying that a current solution is to instead put that vacay money to work in a Bitcoin wallet?

Either you're completely ignoring the very real volatility of the Bitcoin market, or "relatively safe" is relative to something other than what you wrote in the sentence that immediately follows it.

I don't necessarily disagree with the general tenor of your arguments throughout this thread, but when you chain ideas together in praise of something by minimizing its overall difficulties, you leave yourself open to attack.  That should be elementary to any admire of Bitcoin.

Try tracing any property "back to the commons" and you will find it is quite impossible to do. The chain of property ownership is flawed and fallible. Yet for the vast majority of property, there is no contention as to its owner. Nobody out there claims ownership of my computer, nor my car, nor any of the things I have. In those cases of a property dispute, that is a good role for courts.

And I have no interest in contributing to the upkeep of your commons. If it is of value to me, I'll pay for it voluntarily. What you advocate is the forced surrendering of the product of one's efforts, and I think that's immoral. For the same reason that slavery is wrong, partial slavery is wrong.


In biblical times, they did lots of screwed up shit    It's fine if you want to say privatization of the commons is theft... indeed I don't know of one universal way by which "common" things rightly become private. We can dispute that. But once something is known and agreed to be private, without legitimate contention from another claimant, then it ought to be respected as such. And no, animals have a terrible understanding of private property. Animal behavior is more akin to socialism, where force is used to achieve various ends... and perhaps that makes sense in the animal world, where most resources are not produced, but instead taken from the earth. Humans produce their resources and as such have right to claim them privately.



I respect your opinion, and I won't use force on you to convince you otherwise. Sadly, you won't extend the same courtesy to me... if you disagree with me, you'll vote to plunder, whereas no matter how much I disagree with you, I will not plunder or encourage others to do so on my behalf.

All property can be traced back to the commons. No man is an island. It is not theft when you are expected to contribute to upkeep of the commons.

People can't choose how much property their families control when they are born. In biblical times, property rights only lasted 49 years. When Copyright was invented, works lapsed into the public domain after 14 years. Rampant privitization of the commons is theft in my opinion. Property rights have merit: even animals understand the concept of territory; but there has to be a happy medium.

In my opinion, the "happy medium" is reached when collective rights and individual rights are perfectly balanced. It is difficult to achieve, but it is the only way anarchy can work. I find "Anarcho-Capitalist" and "Anarcho-Communists" contradictions in terms.

I've had much more stolen from me by the government... and of course the government theft will continue. At least with bitcoin, people can educate themselves and be prudent with whom they trust. A diligent person can be relatively safe with bitcoin. A diligent person has no such benefit when it comes to matters of the state, social engineering, and economic planning.