Topic: Should we be trying harder to stop the BTC black market? - page 6. (Read 14845 times)

Damn, hazek! You are on a roll my brother. School these fools on liberty.

Let's review the reality of bitcoin: an environment that places a premium on free speech and the absence of regulation, besides that imposed by the technology, ie bitcoin, it's highly improbably that anyone will make a stand and change the technology to prevent those activities.

However, I strongly believe that if bitcoin wants to go beyond the core of purely anti-fiat prompters and technically proficient users, it will need to implement some type of technological buffer.  I don't know what the solution will look like or what it will do.  But, we live in the real-world, where a global society which has by implied consensus, defined certain activities globally undesirable.  

So, if the folks in bitcoin wants to grow beyond a certain point, some activities will need to go further underground.    

If bitcoin wants to attract mainstream folks, work needs to be done to make the undesirable activities invisible.  On the other hand, I don't think most folks are in any hurry to leave the safety of the fiat world.  The lack of regulation, is why bitcoin is attractive to a large number of bitcoin users.  

Now, for a message directed at the currently greedy and psuedo financial gurus who hate Wall-Street, but somehow want to re-create it here: if you want to start making the real money, you need more innocent users.

Good luck resolving that with your handgun.

And i never said we live in a perfect world.
I'm just saying that owning a gun doesn't change this.

We in europe can protect ourselfs because the US is dependant on goods from europe (just like europe is dependant on goods from the US). That gives both parties some power to disrupt the economy of the other and it becomes a diplomatic status quo.
It would be incredibly disruptive to both parties if these relations broke so it is in the interest of both to cooperate and seek a midle ground.
The US would commit economic suicide if they abruptly break realations with europe.

Population density was lower in those days and there was no middle class that could be robbed. US was sparsely populated and so personal protection becomes a nessesity.
All that changed because of industrialization and the population increase that came along with it.

If the reason for more violence in the US is rooted in the pressure of the government then it seems to me the violence is directed at the wrong people.
If what you say is true and it is all a game to plunder the masses then the game played is: "Hey, lets rob these people and give them guns so they can shoot each other!".
So they would actually want people to own guns and you'd be just playing their games if you have one.

Oh and btw, how do you figure there are less incidents and more stability especially in the last couple of years of mass violent protests and people literaly getting plundered by foreign bankers. You see, a violent killer or thief may not be only an individual, how are we here in Europe going to protect ourselves vs the state now since we don't have any weapons while they have oh so many?


The stuff you say only a 5year old could believe and even a child would need to trust you first because it's utterly ridiculous and goes completely against any logic or historical evidence.

Ohhhhh we're going to quote statistics now are we? Well then let's look at Switzerland then and their statistics. They have an assault weapon in almost every home in the entire country, amongts the biggest army reserves per capita on this planet and yet it's a safe, relatively violence free and prosperous country. How do you explain these statistics?

Correlation != Causation.

Maybe, just maybe the real reason that there is so much more violence in the States is because of the ever bigger government, eroding ever more personal freedoms and the freedom to own property and causing an ever wider wealth gap with their plundering through taxation and the inflation tax caused by the creating of dollars out of nothing.

If you were right, why then was there barely any violence back in the so cold wild wild west era pre WW1 when practically everyone carried a weapon? In case you thought cowboy movies were an accurate depiction of how those times really were you are highly mistaken, actual history shows there was barely any violet crimes back then.

So yes by all means, please, let's talk statistics and historical facts.

Well, i think that is not the basic point.
Society can only prosper when there is stability.
And there are different ways to achieve this.
In the US this stability is sought in personal protection. You get to have the same toys as everyone else.
In europe we as a society have decided we don't want to play with these toys and we banned them.
And according to the statistics it is a better stability (less incidents).
So it can't simply be that the 'powers' want to rule over you.
And seriously, what will your handgun do against a well trained and equipped military. So you say 'Ima gonna start my own militia!'.
But then you'll be taking the threat level up another notch, won't you?
So this is not a stability that naturally flattens out. There is always the risk of escalation because the tools of applying power are still in place.

And those who you suppose that rule over you also provide society with a lot of institutions. A coutry is realy much much more than just their chief in command.
What you can see in, for instance, europe is that the controlling forces have a heavily reduced arsenal as well.
There are very strict rules about using guns by the police force. You won't be shot by the police unless you deliberately threaten someones life. There is a proportionality to the alowed use of force and people living here generally agree with that.
But we also know that, as was said before, there are always ways to get a gun if someone wanted it bad enough. And that is why we feel that the police should have the option to use guns in certain situations. It's just that we don't want guns to be widely available to anyone. A police officer works within a framework of rules decided by society. That cannot be easily said about a random person with a gun.

But there is also this other problem. The thing about the US is that it's pretty big and has lots of places that are sparsely populated.
You cannot count on society to help you out in all cases and so it makes sense to protect yourself better. But i don't think this is true for densely populated areas. Europe has more than double the population density compared to the US and i think that takes europe past a threshold that alows it to maintain gun control. It would be much more difficult and unreasonable to do that in some parts of the US.

We come to a peaceful contractual agreement or I use force to stop you.

But the important point here is that this problem is between you and me. No one else owns either you or me and so no one else can solve it for you or me. We either learn to coexist or we kill each other. Evolutionary evidence would suggest we would learn to coexist and even help each other.

Fair response. So let's say you are on your property. I am on mine. I am doing something. I feel it does not harm you. You feel it does harm you. You ask me to stop. I refuse and continue on.

Solution?

That's all I mean by what I said. There's always exceptions to rules, thus the regulation infringements.

How? Simple. One doesn't.


It's solved by individual contracts. I really don't understand this obsession with universality.

I ask this again and again: why do you presume you can set rules for other people to follow? Do you think you own them and their property?

How does one define a universal explanation for what confines "hurting anyone else or their property" as there are many ways one could explain harm which is not all physical.

That is a risky proposition. The actions of law enforcement have shown that the best thing you can do is clear your cache and move along.

I do ask myself those questions and I can't find an answer other than they want to rule over me. However I'm not as foolish to think that more of the problem (laws) will solve this problem, I know that the only way to solve it is to ignore those who would like to rule me and defend myself and my property with any means necessary.

And in the end it's not about how the proverbial "I" want to organize a society, it's about what kind of relations I personally want to have with other people when I rent. But when I'm on my property, I'm king, and I can do what ever the hell I want if I'm not hurting anyone else or their property. Only a psychopath could suggest otherwise.

However I do agree with you and I will give up the idea of owning a gun when everyone else does too (including so called police and military or private security).

Dunno, society maybe?
Not all people in all countries think it is bad to remove guns from everyday life.
You may just as easily ask why we have traffic laws or why we have any laws at all.
Why do those court dudes and dudettes think they can decide for you what is good and what is bad, uh?
There should be a law against that!

In the end it's about how you organize society.
When it comes to guns you have to be unilateral.
Either you give everyone a gun or you give noone a gun.
And that is up to the country in question and its inhabitants.

Because adults often are just big children...

Back in the mid 90's where internet was not very famous, the same words were spoken, but instead of the "tor network", the "internet" was the "problem". Now, where almost everyone uses the Internet, the Goverments try to regulate it.  So the real message is "Unregulated? Dangerous! Do not touch! Bad for society! etc".

Sorry, but I don't buy that,

A US citizen can own an automatic weapon if it is registered, and they have the right permit. See here: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14337

Also, AK-47s aren't necessarily automatic. Anybody can walk into a firearm shop and purchase a semi-automatic AK-47 after a background check.



With that said, I do agree that the illegal and anonymous sale of firearms with Bitcoin could present a problem for us. The first time somebody performs a high-profile crime with a firearm they've purchased with BTC online... that's a media wet dream. Some people say that any media coverage is good, but sensationalized excrement (which happens often when the media covers shootings) could spark attempts to regulate Bitcoin, or make it illegal.

Who do you think you are that you think you can decide for other people what they should or shouldn't protect and the manner in which they would like to protect it?

I don't get the assumptions that bitcoin is not perfect for the banking systems of the world to co-opt.

They could end up owning almost all the coins to the same extent they ended up owning almost all the gold or almost all the governments or almost all of anything else they wanted to own most of.

It would give them "reserves" easier to bump up in purported value than gold, because gold seems to tend to hit some kind of resistance due to the people who actually use it for something practical finding its inflated price due to ever-growing bubbles more and more crazy.

With bitcoin they can stick a certain amount in their reserves, drive up the price by buying more, put more in their reserves and so on, pumping it up to arbitrary heights while the commoners continue to run around borrowing and spending debt notes as usual.

So whether the black market exists or not, I think the premises as to who will be against bitcoin in the first place are flawed / misguided.

-MarkM-