Topic: [Split topic] Speculation, capitalism, etc. (Read 6395 times)

It's common but very immature to call somebody an "indoctrinated religious fanatic who can't think for himself and ignores reality" because he disagrees with you in a debate. These kinds of feelings are usually the speaker's own cognitive bias. Even if you're sure that it's not just your emotional fuss from the debate, it's better to keep these kinds of thoughts for yourself as they lead the discussion in no good direction.

No, it's not.

Well, I just broke that discipline.

I'm not confused at all.  I certainly hope that you are a teenager, because if you are an adult, you have a hard life ahead of you.  This conversation has reminded me of a saying from an old Russian immigrant, "If you are not a communist at twenty, then you have no heart; if you are still a communist at thirty, then you have no sense."


No, you were attacked for being a cocksure wanker.

I think this kinda sums up how I feel too...

What about "speculation for the sole purpose of LOSING money"...  Are you saying that That's ok with you...?   ha ha

Speculation and "Ponzi schemes"... are simply gambling.  Nothing more and nothing less.   Gambling.    By DEFINITION, gambling involves risk -- great risk.   That means they often LOSE all of the money they're playing with.

You can say that gambling is "morally wrong".   But I totally disagree.   If the player of the game understands the terms and rules of the game, then it's certainly fair for them to play that game.

It harms no one.   (Unless they do it compulsively, to their own detriment.  But that's an entirely different topic.  Like drinking so much water that you drown yourself.  Too much of anything can kill you.)

In fact, YOUR very own bitcoin holdings are likely worth much more today than they were last month.  Likely, that increase in value is at least partially a result of investment by speculators.   So, since you believe that that increase in value is "morally wrong"...  Obviously, it would be "morally wrong" to profit from it (even though you took no risks at all, by the way. none whatsoever.)...  Who are you going to donate all that increased value to?   Some charity?  Some anti-gambling organization?   Of course, by your own logic....  It would be "morally wrong" for you to keep any increase in its value.    Right?!?

Okay Macho, help me understand more clearly what you are saying.

Are you saying that you believe speculation and sweatshops etc. are 'morally wrong', and you are spreading your viewpoint that they are morally wrong and that is all?  Are you saying that you would never support governmental prohibitions on these activities, just moral suasion?  Are you saying you would actually oppose a government who attempted to ban speculation?

If that is what you are saying, then I apologize for my early posts linking you to those tyrannizing moralizers of the 20th century, Communism and Fascism.

I fully support your right to free speech, including the right to persuade others of one's opinions, no matter how wrong-headed those opinions are.  If, however you do support the use of force (ie: the state) to impose your 'morality' on others, then we're back to square one.

There is no government. There are only people who will hurt you for not doing as they say and people who won't. I won't hurt you and I won't command anyone to hurt you. I will buy and sell my bitcoins for whatever price I want whenever I want.

I have not read the whole thread but,


What deregulation? Seriously what deregulation?!?

Please, stop parroting and repeating the official propaganda and go check the data. The number and size of regulation has increased, and a lot each decade, specially since the 50's. PLEASE CHECK THE DATA and see it by yourself.

Now, one can argue that the changes in regulation has been for better or for worse, but no one that is honest and checks the data (as opposed to believing the official propaganda) can say that there has been any deregulation. Its the contrary, there has been an increase in the size of the regulatory regime.


Seriously? Do you really think this is the way to create a community? Infected?...

As I said I have not read the whole thread but I hope you have apologized or you plan to.

yeah, what's wrong with that statement? It's true, isn't it?

However criminal doesn't necessarily mean wrong as has been pointed out that many outlandish things were criminal in the past that are not considered wrong now. The same goes for current laws ... most of them are lobbied for by the corporations trying to destroy their competition, get rid of regulations or give them certain advantages.

There is a difference between illegal and wrong, illegal (criminal) is whatever gov says is illegal ... wrong is what you morally consider wrong regardless of it's legality. I hope it's clear now ...

Well, that wasn't very clear.  After all, you *did* write "criminal is whatever gov says is a crime".

But, to be fair, this sentence make sense, if you consider "crime" in a purely juridical meaning.  The thing is that crime is also a common notion, which is based on philosophy more than law.

If you wouldn't be so prejudiced against me you would understand that i mean it in the same exact way as you do and therefore that was the gov says it criminal is irrelevant. They can make something criminal whenever they choose to, they can make it illegal to piss ... that doesn't mean it's wrong. I thought it's extremely clear from the context of my post ... apparently not if the prejudice is strong enough.

I also said that sweatshops are illegal (criminal) in some countries, in others not ... so it's clear that I can not mean it how you interpreted it from that too. You're trying too hard to disagree with me at all cost ... maybe you could stop that and I would make much more sense to you

@creighto you are self-contradicting yourself and are generally very confused about what you're talking about. If I was actually paying you for your services I would ask for my money back

You are confusing two things ... the fact that you're free to do something/anything and the fact how are you going to be judged when you do and how is it going to affect you.

Sure, you're free to walk trough the street cursing at everybody, it's not illegal ... but do not expect people to invite you to a party then. It's the equivalent as people (well, one person) not wanting to do business with me because they disagree with me.

But this is EXACTLY what I was doing from the very start, i was not saying ban ponzi schemes (as if it would be even possible with bitcoin, duh), I was saying recognize ponzi scheme, look here is one, stay away from it if you do not wish to loose all your money.

But I got attacked for pointing out these ponzi schemes, like speculative investment to make money from money ... by people saying that they have a right to make ponzi schemes (it's freedom to make scams). But you see, here is the confusion ... of course people have the right to make ponzi schemes, but bitcoin community should reject them on the informed basis that they're harmful to the economy and bitcoin and point that out when they see one to protect bitcoin economy. Do you understand the difference?

Why are people endorsing these scams? It's like I would be discouraging someone from cursing at everybody on the street and others would condemn me for it because he is free to do it, it's not criminal. It's crazy and confused logic ... that it's not illegal or you're free to do it doesn't mean it's right. the freedom we have entails a freedom to make a moral judgment of someone's actions and voice disagreement. That's exactly what I'm doing ...

Why are people making apologists for ponzi schemes then on the basis that people are free to make them ... I've never said they are not! I said it is immoral, harmful and should be opposed just like slavery is. I've never said they are not free to make them! Again, i said it's worrying that the bitcoin community is accepting them as "legitimate" use of the bitcoin system, that's the problem I see! nobody seems to realize the catastrophe if this is allowed to overtake on a large scale ... and i wanted to point that out

It is indeed very impressive.  I suggest Macho to consider laws of the past, for instance.  Prohibition in US, homosexuality in UK, slavery in France (not so long ago), and so on.

Saying that crime is only what gov says is criminal, is just amazing.  If the governement says the Earth is flat, I won't believe it.  It's just the same for crime.

You're welcome, I'm just uncertain that my target audience understood the joke.

How can a statement so short be so wrong!?  No, government does not define what is criminal, government defines what it shall prosecute, and the differences are paramount.

Hit Google and search for the Two Laws of Civilization.  Those thirteen words accurately define all human law.  Any society that generally respects those two laws, even incidentally, tend to prosper; those that don't tend to decline.

I think those workers should form unions, go on strike and those kind of stuffs, in order to gain some better labour conditions.  I would understand that.  But I don't see what the employer is doing wrong, as long as he doesn't force anyone to work for him.


I disagree.  Crime has some objecive sense, and law is only an attempt to express it.  As whether or not I approve sweatshop, it just seems to me that the notion is very subjective.  If a job is not forced, you can call it sweatshop if you want, but I will approve it.


Concerning Ponzi schemes, I don't really care about that.  I'm not even sure it's that bad if it is based on a lie.  Again, moral risk exists anyway.  You just have to be aware of it.

If there wouldn't be for sweatshops they would have real prosperous economy, owning nice houses and cars not worrying that they might starve to death tomorrow if the CEO of Nike chooses so. They do not have such economy because the corporations came there, set up their sweatshops, destroyed their competition by enormous power they have (thanks to exploiting other people in other countries), bribed politicians to pass "regulations" and "free trade" agreements making sure that no honest business can ever compete.

Your reasoning is EXTREMELY cruel and cynical. Go work for a sweatshop yourself if it's so wonderful, please do ... with the prospect of your children dying if you do not fulfill everything you're told, when your employer has the power *to kill you* for not obeying his wishes. that sure is a dream life. In that situation losing your work means a death sentence ... and the owners know it, that's why these CEOs are more like third world dictators spreading misery and death by colonizing more and more countries for their operations. But this is ok apparently according to you, this is the kind of people i said a despise ... scumbags! Willing to justify modern slavery by economic theory, sick! Just sick! It is no different than slavery other than a whipping to death was replaced by starving to death (by firing them) ... hard to say which is worse.

Hmm, self-selection bias.  Everyone considers himself to be the moderate.

@creighto   Your posts are very entertaining.  I laughed out loud a couple of times.  Thanks.