Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government-issued currencies usually come with legal tender laws and citizens are required to pay taxes using the government money. Since taxes are not voluntary, this creates built-in demand for the fiat money. The creators of alternative competitor-money are punished as well. The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first. A si…
>Since taxes are not voluntary >The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first. Do you believe obeying property law is voluntary? I find it to be coercive.
The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
151–160 of 327 posts
Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't really true. New USD is created anytime someone gets a loan. The Fed impacts that money creation only indirectly by setting rates (not considering QE -- even with QE, the point remains: new money is created when a loan is made by a fractional-reserve institution) Edit to further elucidate: It isn't exactly the loan that creates money, but what happens with the money after the loan. It will almost certainly…
This is simply false.
Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Early adopters took a big risk on a fledgling technology I can't agree with that. Early adopters really didn't take a lot of risk, they ran a mining program for a while, or bought some BTC for a few cents to a few dollars.
In some countries, Bitcoin has been outlawed. Owning stuff the government doesn't like is certainly a risk. They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could) Some invested time learning about new technology that could've gone nowhere.
Very few. In more/most it's just taxable.
>> They also endured 90% drops in value from early peaks to troughs. Bitcoin could have gone to zero at any point if the system had failed. (It still could)
OK, sure, but again not a massive risk if your initial stake was tiny.
And it was a stake rather than an investment - it's not really an investment as you're not investing in a productive endeavour. More like buying and holding an asset.
Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a very difficult time separating "true" libertarians with members of libertarian parties. Like people don't readily give up how pragmatic they are. On one end, there seem to be people who really yearn for pure individual freedom with no government at all. I'm pretty sure that was tried for the first 50,000 years of humanity and the results are well documented. (spoiler, for populations larger than ~100 people,…
I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, which off the top of my head basically means that: 1. I believe very strongly in the sovereignty of the individual. 2. I prefer more open and incentive-driven markets. 3. I’m skeptical of governments, particularly large and powerful ones, because they’re inefficient, rely on coercion, and are too tempting as prizes to be captured for power, prestige, and wealth. However, the…
* GP surgeries (doctors offices) are private businesses, and may provide NHS services or private services.
* The NHS contracts out for a growing number of services, ranging from operating whole departments (e.g. Virgin operates the out-of-hours walk in centre for non-emergency care next door to the A&E/ER at my local hospital) to cleaning.
* The NHS rents out facilities to private providers, and individual NHS trusts may derive income from carrying out private work (though the proportion of this income is limited, and the revenue goes back into their budgets). This is in addition to NHS staff often renting NHS facilities to carry out private surgeries outside their normal rotation.
* Dentists are mostly private and generally dentists that do NHS work also do private work, and often mix and match with the same patient (e.g. the NHS does not reimburse more expensive types of fillings, so your dentist may recommend e.g. things like porcelain veneers on visible teeth and stick to NHS options for less visible work).
* Pharmacies are mostly private - the NHS mostly operates pharmacies only in hospitals etc. but they too can be privately operated.
* 10% of the population have private health insurance. This is mostly "top up" insurance offering additional services or faster turnaround for non-essential surgeries etc. than the NHS.
* Many types of healthcare services are mostly private. E.g. while you can get some types of cosmetic surgery on the NHS
As it stands, the NHS is the most cost-effective hybrid or private system in any developed country. Too cost-effective some would say; to the point where it comes at the cost of making things more miserable for patients. But that's what you get when we pay far less than any other countries at a comparable income level.
Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government-issued currencies usually come with legal tender laws and citizens are required to pay taxes using the government money. Since taxes are not voluntary, this creates built-in demand for the fiat money. The creators of alternative competitor-money are punished as well. The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first. A si…
>Since taxes are not voluntary >The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first. Do you believe obeying property law is voluntary? I find it to be coercive.
Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right. The toy in my hand is "mine," and when some other kid comes along and takes it, I get upset.
Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, casinos have the edge, it's almost never mathematically sane to engage with a casino. I considered what would happen if something like bitcoin would become a global internet currency, and any way I sliced it, the upside was too huge not to try.
I don't think you're being creative enough with your slicing. Consider what happens when 90% of the primary world currency ends up concentrated with a few thousand - 100K people in the tech world and if that's really any sort of upside for the world.
Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a very difficult time separating "true" libertarians with members of libertarian parties. Like people don't readily give up how pragmatic they are. On one end, there seem to be people who really yearn for pure individual freedom with no government at all. I'm pretty sure that was tried for the first 50,000 years of humanity and the results are well documented. (spoiler, for populations larger than ~100 people,…
I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, which off the top of my head basically means that: 1. I believe very strongly in the sovereignty of the individual. 2. I prefer more open and incentive-driven markets. 3. I’m skeptical of governments, particularly large and powerful ones, because they’re inefficient, rely on coercion, and are too tempting as prizes to be captured for power, prestige, and wealth. However, the…
Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
#158That means Bitcoin has a lot more to grow. That 40% can be sold off to many more people eventually. What worries me more is the elextricity consumption: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/aek3za/bitcoin-co...
Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Untraceable money Bitcoin is not untraceable money, it can be even more traceable than normal currency. It could be stablished as a law that public money when being spent in the blockchain needs to be auditable by the people (identities of sender and recipient known), and this way you would end up with even less corruption than the current system. > Deflation means that the rich will get richer Wrong. Rich people d…
>> Deflation means that the rich will get richer >Wrong. Rich people don't have money, they have holdings. Most of the holdings that rich people nowadays have are not money. Isn't one reason for not hoarding cash (and instead investing it in various holdings, stock market, etc...) is that money loses value? If I was a millionaire in dollars I definitely wouldn't keep that on my bank account, slowly having it lose its…
Lending or investing your BTC would always make you net more than just hoarding it (at least when all prices are denominated in BTC already).
> Sure, but conversely I can tell you that the people who don't save money are overwhelmingly poor. For a big chunk of humanity saving money is a luxury.
True, I didn't say that low-class can save. But most savers are middle class IMO.
> Coin mining will take care of filling that gap, don't worry.
Wrong, 2 links:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-07/bitcoin-i...
https://blog.bitcoin.org.hk/bitcoin-mining-and-energy-consum...
> How can you assume that switching from an inflationary to a deflationary economy "will be almost imperceptible"?
Because when all prices get denominated in BTC, you won't see your holdings appreciate. The only effect you will see, caused by deflation, is that prices of things diminish over time. Which is kind of what happens nowadays with hardware (because it's the goods where the effects of technology improvements are noticed in the most sensible way), however I don't know anyone that hoards their holdings to be able to buy a better and cheaper computer tomorrow.
Re: The Bitcoin Whales: 1,000 People Who Own 40 Percent of the Market
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Since taxes are not voluntary >The libertarian position is that human interactions should be voluntary, so the coercion problem is where libertarians find issue first. Do you believe obeying property law is voluntary? I find it to be coercive.
Instead of answering your question, I will leave this: Very small children understand and recognize property, since it is a natural right. The toy in my hand is "mine," and when some other kid comes along and takes it, I get upset.
When a very small child in a poor family looks at what is under a wealthy family's Christmas tree he's also going to be upset. Does that make a relatively equal distribution of Christmas presents a natural right?
I see no basis for decrying all coercion and mandating transactions be voluntary yet also overlooking the biggest contributor to coercion: property.