Topic: What happens when the US makes crypto-currency illegal? - page 3. (Read 8850 times)

Think that though.  Not all rectangles are squares but that doesn't mean a square is not a rectangle.  Not all humans are citizens but all citizens are human.  

Try proving.

Try google. 

We are humans and have always been humans. We are beautiful creatures

The problem is some of us were brainwashed (since they were kids for a long period up till now) to believe some of the humans somehow are superior (and have moral right to extract money from others) because of the objects called:

- gods (although no-one ever empirically evidenced an existence of a single god - yes, there are pictures of gods, but they rather prove creativeness of painters) or

- states (although no-one ever empirically evidenced an existence of a single state - yes, there are lines on maps drawn by people called politicians, but these lines were never proved to be a reality when looking at satellite pictures)


I am even more surprised that a guy whom I labeled a ''pussy'' and the other guy labeled a ''troll'' has no courage to earn BTC 100 from me for providing an evidence he is a citizen and the so called US government regulations apply to him.

Lets see.  You re-define words to mean that people who agree with you are clever and everyone else is less than human. 

Pathetic.

Surprised to read here, that there are 'Hero Members' who believe to be a human, the same time as they are enslaved and forced to pay protection money. A protection money payer who is proud to be such a citizen, can only be a mafioso, a happy slave, but never ever a human. An enslaved domestic pig is not a pig. Therefore a domestic human cannot be a human; at best a cartoon of it. As hard as it sounds: we are not humans, as long as we accept gods and rulers, and exactly that is the case since the so called neolithic revolution, the birth of the tragedy: the monogamous patriarchy (idiocy/imbecility) instead of anarchy.

Do I correctly read your statement that ''a state'' factually is a few / many humans? More than one and less than all 7 billion? - it doesn't matter at the moment (for this exercise) what these humans do.

Factually, and historically provably, a State is a group of people who claim and attempt to enforce a monopoly of violence over a given territory. Statists hate that definition, but cannot FACTUALLY counter it.

Citizen is a bit more slippery. In a democracy (which in my opinion is potentially the most oppressive of all forms of tyranny), a citizen is generally a nominally human person who has the franchise.

However, in operating practice, the only place I can think of where having that franchise ACTUALLY gives an individual even a modicum of power over the ruling apparatus is Switzerland.

The term "citizen" is deliberately obfuscatory. It can mean a number of contradictory things. In it's original conception (as near as I can determine), it literally meant "city dweller" and purposely excluded the people outside the boundaries of the city state as in the case of Athens.

Back then it had significantly more impact on the individual outside of their own head. It entailed a great deal of responsibility, including being an active part in the rule of the city-state. That principle carried through somewhat to Rome, where being a citizen gave a man much more privilege and personal power than NOT having the title. It could be purchased, in fact, and often was. The cost was great, and not just in sestercii. Prior to the idea of universal suffrage, the commoner (peasant, denizen, vagabond) understood that they were subject to a ruling authority, but had no illusions as to being actually a PART of said hegemony. Democracy is a grand con game. It allows the commoner to have the illusion that they make  a difference to the State, other than as a milch cow. As Emma Goldman put it so well: If voting could make a difference they would make it illegal.

Just like the price of anything that becomes prohibited by law (and for which there still exists an enormous demand for), Bitcoin's value will skyrocket through a few thousand dollars at least. While doing business in BTC will no doubt become close to impossible in broad daylight, keep in mind that there's always Tor (however slow and tedious).

True. I called him a pussy. This is my opinion of him that he is a pussy (I can put forward convincing arguments). Although factually he is a human. He can use this thread to defend himself.


1. It is not a good definition of a citizen. It does not tell me what a citizen factually is (is it a cat, is it a dog, is it a pudding or is it a piece of paper, is it a human, is it a bicycle, is it a brick?).

2. Let me give you an example what I mean by ''factually'':
- if I want to know what your ID document factually is, I want to know it is a piece of plastic or a piece of paper; I do not want to know your or somebody's else opinion that it is / might be a proof of your ID or your age or a document allowing you to raise a loan - these are opinions / these are subjective.
- if I want to know what a constitution factually is, I want to know it is a piece of paper with ink on it; I do not want to know your or somebody's else opinion that it is / might be a supreme law of the land or a document giving you certain rights or bullshit or legal gibberish - these are opinions / these are subjective.

3. Now tell me, if you can, what a ''state'' factually is - I want to understand your definition of a citizen.

Im sure this has been said before, but if cryptocurrencies are made illegal then they are dead in the water. Without the ability to switch them out for real money that are effectively worthless.

You, my lovely and intelligent and correct comrade, need some better deriding slurs.
Don't get me wrong, I ignored that deluded halfass lazy troll, but in all fairness, resorting to discouragement of pussydom doesnt nearly do your argument justice.
/nitpicky form critique
Here's a good definition for citizen... the proud consumer of a police state.

So we have. I just simply can't resist when a fellow human being calls himself a citizen / slave and seems to be proud of it.

the answer is to let them try to stop it. they cant anyway and their attempt will show the world just how naked the emperor really is.

I think you and I are in agreement on this. Though as noted, I think we've gone significantly off topic.

I also note how you illuistrated how much more of their income the ROMAN slaves/citizens got to retain, and back somewhat on topic, The Caesars, especially later in the Roman experiment, became infamous for debasing the currency and requiring the "Citizens" to use the debased coin as if it were at full weight. Which, currently, is very difficult if not impossible for OUR Caesars to do to bitcoin, which is why it will be/is seen as a threat to their hegemony.

GOOOSES!
A libertarian is a commmon anarchist who watches fox news, has money, and is scared of stuff.
A redemopublicratian is an anarchist who doesn't read books.
A monarchist is an anarchist who likes simple structure.
A statist is an anarchist who is also a sociopath, or who doesnt read groovy books.

On topic: The government as an abstract superstructure will lay down and die like an old dog, in favor of a working, equitable series of structures sooner or later. Civil servants themselves, will adopt bitcoin, speeding this along
If it's outlawed, every non-america-victim bitcoiner becomes insanely wealthy overnight. This is pretty unlikely. A smear campaign from ingorant herpderps threatens the propagation of cryptocurrency mote than the threat of legal violence.

+ 1

In ancient Rome unfortunate humans labeled ''slaves'' were allowed to retain 10% of their income. The so called masters received 90%.

In modern times unfortunate humans labeled ''citizens'' are allowed to retain (in majority of places on Earth) 10% - 30%. The so called governments / states and other legal fictions receive 70% - 90%.

In ancient Rome the so called masters provided ''services'' to their happy slaves like, ''free'' healthcare, ''free'' water from aqueducts and most importantly they provided ''free'' education where the so called slaves were taught how good, noble and beneficial the slavery was.

In modern times the so called governments provide ''services'' to their happy slaves, pardon: their citizens, like ''free'' healthcare, ''free'' roads and most importantly they provide ''free'' education where the so called citizens are taught how good, noble and beneficial the citizenship is.

The factual difference between ancient Rome and many places now is:
- in ancient Rome the so called slaves could not choose their masters;
- at present the so called citizens can vote every few years who their masters will be.

Note, some humans in ancient Rome were very proud to be labeled ''slaves, just like now many humans are proud to be called ''citizens''.

The word ''citizen'' is a substitute for the old-fashioned ''slave''.

More wisdom in this post than in the next N pages. The original question was interesting; a flame war about the definition of citizen not so.

Yes, I do. In order to be a citizen, by the general meaning since AT LEAST 100 BCE, one has to give up a degree (or in the modern sense just about ALL) of their individuality and rights. To be a CITIZEN is to be a servant of the body politic. To be a SLAVE, within that reference, is to be a servant to a private individual (who it could be argued couldn't really be a citizen).

Though in this case, especially in the modern world, I think I shall defer to Lysander Spooner's definition that Slavery is that which makes a thing of a man.

As to the use of "latin phrases", we are engaging in formal debate to a loose degree, and the logical fallacies have latin labels.

We are, not very loosely, debating what it means to be human, and whether one can still claim that status and be a citizen. My argument, again loosely, is that the two cannot equate as being a citizen makes a thing(property) of a man, and is thus slavery in an "exalted" form. I freely admit that I am a subject of the empire, and thus a slave. I do NOT believe this is in any way a good or even morally defensible thing.

Good. I assume this exclamation (!) is for a negation.

If you are right that a human is not the same as citizen, than a human cannot be a citizen.  Just like a dog is not the same as a washing machine, therefore a dog cannot be a washing machine.

You just proved yourself not to be a citizen. Why on Earth do you keep calling yourself a citizen?