Topic: The First Political Zone to Officially Recognize Cryptocoins (Read 15151 times)
I find it highly unlikely that this will succeed. I don't think Bitcoin has the political power yet to sustain its own sovereign entity.
November 21, 2013, 09:04:04 PM
updates on this?
Newer, but not as detailed: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/silicon-valley-raspberrycoinscom-edan-yago-coinmktcoms-travis-skweres-316449
how do we contact him or invest?
i haz btc, i like south america... thx
PM, Goat.
Let me know if it's cooler than Galt's Gulch Chile.
November 21, 2013, 07:07:12 PM
updates on this?
Newer, but not as detailed: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/silicon-valley-raspberrycoinscom-edan-yago-coinmktcoms-travis-skweres-316449
November 21, 2013, 04:35:51 PM
Actually, no. Religions don't kill any humans, governments do.
That reminds me of this in-depth research into God's killings as documented by the Bible:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
Total: 25 million. And that was before Jesus.
Actually, no. Religions don't kill any humans, governments do.
That reminds me of this in-depth research into God's killings as documented by the Bible:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html
Total: 25 million. And that was before Jesus.
Entertaining discussion, but I'm legitimately interested in this project... has anyone that was at the conference kept in contact or heard from the OP??
For a society with ~100% internet connectivity, and a Bitcoin-based method of secure voting, is it possible to have something like a pure democracy?
Do we really need over 500 (mostly permanent) "elected representatives" voting on new laws every year? The corruption is enormous.
Do we really need over 500 (mostly permanent) "elected representatives" voting on new laws every year? The corruption is enormous.
A solid question would be:
Does pure democracy work at all?
And as per tradition, unknown noob poster makes vague claims. Herpderp and gl to you.
Shut up, Ms. MPOE.
Not everyone needs to live in a fortified city. We just need one that supports Bitcoin.
But with regards to this one, I think they should at least disclose who their investors are before anyone gets their hopes up.
But with regards to this one, I think they should at least disclose who their investors are before anyone gets their hopes up.
I think this was the most awesome statement in that giant post, and is my entire takeaway from it:
Our little cute stoned hyppie cartoon chick would need a fucking frotress to deal with the outside world.
...
The very fact that we talk to each other via computers and internet is a testimony that we as a society have grown beyond small farm towns that need to defend themselfs.
...
The very fact that we talk to each other via computers and internet is a testimony that we as a society have grown beyond small farm towns that need to defend themselfs.
The amount of bullshit in this video is astounding.
That feeling you have right there...
That's the feeling of an unpleasant truth dawning in on you.
That's the feeling of an unpleasant truth dawning in on you.
Yeah, well, no. The feeling i had was one of hearing a realy realy dumb person talk about their fantasy.
....
....
^^^
....
....
^^^
Oh mobodick!
Let me express my eternal admiration for your patience refuting each and every of these naive believes, and each one to the point.
Enjoyed the read. My favourite conclusion was this:
You need to realize that you are not fighting a system.
You are fighting human nature.
You are fighting human nature.
Incidentally, did you know that free market can impossibly fail?
Because, if it fails, how can anyone call that "free"?? -- thus, by definition
there must have been an evil interference and thus no free market to start with.
q.e.d.
For a society with ~100% internet connectivity, and a Bitcoin-based method of secure voting, is it possible to have something like a pure democracy?
Do we really need over 500 (mostly permanent) "elected representatives" voting on new laws every year? The corruption is enormous.
Do we really need over 500 (mostly permanent) "elected representatives" voting on new laws every year? The corruption is enormous.
If 'government' is evil then how do you call the group of people taking decisions to make society work?
You don't need a group of people making decisions for everyone else.
You don't need someone else for making decisions, that's true.
But you need to make decisions, and this is a tedious, nasty and painful process, the more people are involved.
Only very small groups of people can live and work together frictionless. Very soon, there is tendency to split into sup groups, and each group defines itself as "we" against "them". Above roughly 30 members, a loose association of people becomes quite unstable. All is fine as long as some people can just walk away (read: if they can be convinced to better walk away)
And on top of this, there comes another issue. As soon as you get more people involved, you get a wider variation of people. Chances are that you get some people which don't care a fuck for anything, or which just care for fucking. In a larger group, at some point you get roughly 20% insisting on someone else to make the decisions, because they are too lazy and prefer making party instead of decisions. Then you get roughly 40% which are plain-flat indifferent, and you get 40% which care a lot (and sometimes even too much) about each end everything else. And, as spice on top, you get some very strange individuals scattered in here and there.
Have fun with free governance.
Quote from: BTCLuke link=topic=208333.msg2543742#... Although there are lots omsg2543742 date=1371844952
So I guess for the sake of most conversations like this one, I define "the government" as just that parasitical class of evil rulers who specifically sold outf non-government employees like lobbyists for large corporations and banks that they take their orders from, so they fit in this definition too.
Well, this is very problematic.
If 'government' is evil then how do you call the group of people taking desicions to make society work?
I'm sure there are places on earth today like this...bring your own government...but I'm not exactly sure where and I doubt it's a pleasant place.
Quote from: BTCLuke link=topic=208333.msg2543742#... Although there are lots omsg2543742 date=1371844952
So I guess for the sake of most conversations like this one, I define "the government" as just that parasitical class of evil rulers who specifically sold outf non-government employees like lobbyists for large corporations and banks that they take their orders from, so they fit in this definition too.
Well, this is very problematic.
If 'government' is evil then how do you call the group of people taking desicions to make society work?
Dammit. I'd be like a 3rd-gen copycat if I stole it too. 
Please do copy it and spread the word. The world seems to equate democracy and freedom, though democracy is actually just the tyranny of the majority (John Adams is credited with that phrase, though the idea goes back to at least ancient Greece).
In all known civilizations free markets only blossomed within the stability created by governance.
^This is the only line anyone needs to read from mobodick's wall of garbage. Every last one of his false assumptions is hinged upon the fact that he has no clue what a free market is.
I said this at the conference and I'll say it again here: private political zones will lead to slavery or some form of indentured servitude.
Note that a nontrivial number of people in first-world countries are living under compulsory tax rates of 50%+ once you add up income tax, sales tax, property tax, social security tax, medical insurance tax, etc. And thus technically they're all already slaves. My own thinking is that any nonvoluntary 3rd party claim on another person's labor is a form of slavery, whether the percentage be 1% or 100%.
Regressing to much-maligned "serfdom" frankly sounds like a better deal than most current tax regimes:
Quote
The tax rates in medieval England varied a lot, depending on the King and what was happening in society. The taxes seldom went above 15% but were more often closer to the 10% mark. For most people today this is nearly one third or half of the tax currently being paid. The taxes went to support the military and the King, and even in times of war the taxes were never excessive. Taxes were usually paid based on the quantity of land you owned, so people like serfs were often exempt from national taxes and paid, instead, tithes in the form (usually) of wheat to their land owners.
Terminology is a red herring. "Slavery" or "Serfdom" offered by a private zone could well be superior to most "democratic" offerings in terms of personal freedom and wealth. The only meaningful questions worth asking are: is the contract entered voluntarily by both parties, and how much of your labor do you get to keep under any given system?
^^ That was a very long post.
That redefines "Wall of Text." I bet not one person actually read that wall.
Jump to: