>>And to the extent that people are using crypto as alternative to their local currency, they're almost all using it for some form of laundering (e.g. wealth extraction from the PRC).
Laundering in a country like the PRC with extreme capital controls is not necessarily a moral evil. It could very well just be an attempt to guard wealth from a repressive government that is known to confiscate the wealth of those who fall out of favor with the political elite.
By arguing against crypto, you are arguing for the PRC having more control over the people of China. But I guess that's par for the course for the anti-crypto crowd.
>>Objectively, crypto has been far more volatile than fiat currencies as a whole, not less.
Stablecoins are not volatile, and their usage is skyrocketing:
Wealth is why we enjoy the quality of life that we do.
The spread of private property and contracting rights, and the consequent rise in wealth, is credited for the largest reduction in poverty in human history:
That's a common idea in capitalist theory, but it's not necessarily true. The opposite of hoarding wealth is not poverty. If you don't hoard wealth, it doesn't disappear, it just becomes available to more people.
In most situations, money is a zero-sum game. Any wealth you make is by taking it from others. That's not fair or desirable.
>In most situations, money is a zero-sum game. Any wealth you make is by taking it from others. That's not fair or desirable.
For a fixed money supply, money is zero-sum. Wealth is not. If more stuff is made, and you're envisioning a system where that money commands all the goods, then same money commands more goods. That is desirable. But regardless of money system, if you make more goods and services then there are more goods and services.
In your fair world there would be no more than one generation's worth of success in science and innovation. Success of the next generation depends on our own.
What I think you mean is a fair world socializes the success by removing the ability for consensual trade/gifting of resources from a person of one generation to another. But that is also unfair because it uses coercion on individual success.
If you remove the ability to pass on success, I would just quit my job and abandon my children. Why try if they gain nothing.
> In your fair world there would be no more than one generation's worth of success in science and innovation. Success of the next generation depends on our own.
Scientific knowledge usually goes into the public domain through patents and other information-sharing techniques. We didn't lose Newton's, Einstein's, and all our other scientific forebears' knowledge because they died. Come on.
> But [socializing successes] is also unfair because it uses coercion on individual success.
Coercion isn't always necessarily unfair. It depends on context and on what your society's values are. If one of your children takes all the candy away from their siblings, and you redistribute the candy to your other children, that's a type of coercion to enforce fairness.
If you believe that a fair and just world is one where, by the sheer luck of being born to wealthy parents, you get advantages that others don't; and that you get to build on that wealth by keeping everything you accumulate based on that and get to pass it to your children, where the cycle repeats endlessly -- well, then, you have differing values than the rest of us. But that doesn't mean that alternatives are "unfair."
> If you remove the ability to pass on success, I would just quit my job and abandon my children. Why try if they gain nothing.
Or, you could not be a dick and instead spend it while you're living on your children's education, or give your excess earnings to charity.
>Scientific knowledge usually goes into the public domain through patents and other information-sharing techniques. We didn't lose Newton's, Einstein's, and all our other scientific forebears' knowledge because they died. Come on.
But if I use it it is unfair. You said to be fair, I quote, "the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." That means I can't use Newton's work because that is not my own action or work. If I use it my sucess depends on his action and work too.
> If one of your children takes all the candy away from their siblings, and you redistribute the candy to your other children, that's a type of coercion to enforce fairness.
I don't follow how that is fair. One child just robbed another child, that seems the essence of unfairness. This is even more apparent when I say "one farmer worked hard and bred 9 cows while the lazy farmer barely fed his one. I took 4 cows from the hard working farmer and gave them to the lazy one so both had 5."
> instead spend it while you're living on your children's education
But that would be unfair as the child would benefit unfairly from my success rather than solely his/her own.
> But if I use [scientific knowledge] it is unfair.
No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge.
> You said to be fair, I quote, "the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work."
I said no such thing.
> I don't follow how [redistributing candy among siblings] is fair. One child just robbed another child, that seems the essence of unfairness.
Usually, when a child gets all of everything compared to their siblings, it's because the first child got it unfairly in the first place. Redistribution in this case is correcting for the original unfairness. Note the fact pattern I stated: one child "took the candy away."
> This is even more apparent when I say "one farmer worked hard and bred 9 cows while the lazy farmer barely fed his one. I took 4 cows from the hard working farmer and gave them to the lazy one so both had 5."
So what you're telling us is that you don't actually have children and this whole thread is just some libertarian claptrap. Okay then.
I have one kid, it was an honest mistake that I pluralized them as it's one of my linguistic tics. I'm sorry but I don't see why the number of children I have is relevant.
Your rebuttal is outrage at the number of children I have?
>No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge.
The definition of fair presented on the thread we are on specifically said, "In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work." If you want to change that definition then why are you arguing with me? My whole point was the absurdity. Newton's work was performed by Newton, not you or I or any other living person.
>Usually, when a child gets all of everything compared to their siblings, it's because the first child got it unfairly in the first place
That's far from a given. I was an only child but had best friends with a lot of people with siblings who commonly had scenarios with winner-take-all for certain goods because of chores they did, gambling, won a game, whatever. But it's true, unfairness does exist in the world. I never said unfairness doesn't exist at all.
>one child "took the candy away."
Yes it is unfair to take away things that one obtained consensually, like to take away someone's inheritance.
>I said no such thing.
Sorry I was quoting the original quote we both responded to above, I didn't realize you were actually disagreeing with it. If that was not your belief then you aren't really even rebutting against me because my rebuttal was against this statement I replied to and then you replied to me.
[reproduced here ]
In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work. Inheritance acts against this principle.
>No it isn't; everyone gets to use it by nature of it being public knowledge.
BUT THE PERSON I REPLIED TO SAID, "In a fair world, the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work". What do you not get about that? You're AGREEING WITH ME that by the OP definition using scientific knowledge is "unfair."
> Yes it is unfair to take away things that one obtained consensually, like to take away someone's inheritance.
If it's never obtained by the heir in the first place because it's taxed before the property comes into the heir's possession, is that still unfair?
Does that same logic also apply to income taxes that must be paid post-earnings? How about sales taxes? And if taxes are unfair, how do we ensure all the public things we want as a society get funded, if we assume everyone is equally selfish, while avoiding the free-rider problem?
The more you pull on this thread, the more you begin to realize that we can't live in a functioning society without us all sacrificing.
>If it's never obtained by the heir in the first place because it's taxed before the property comes into the heir's possession, is that still unfair?
Yes, that's back to one kid stealing from the other kid. Only the kid stealing is the government.
>Does that same logic also apply to income taxes that must be paid post-earnings? How about sales taxes?
Yes
>And if taxes are unfair, how do we ensure all the public things we want as a society get funded, if we assume everyone is equally as selfish as you?
If you want something, you trade for it, obtain it through consensual pact (like insurance or farm co-op), beg, do it yourself, or seek charity. Something that involves not stealing. You don't steal from others.
>The more you pull on this thread, the more you begin to realize that we can't live in a functioning society without us all sacrificing.
Exactly, you sacrifice by performing labor and engaging in trade and you get what you want. It's unfair to say I want a pony or a free CT scan and I'm going to rob that rich guy to get it. Do you go robbing guys in suits to feed starving African children?
> If you want something, you trade for it, obtain it through consensual pact (like insurance or farm co-op), beg, do it yourself, or seek charity. Something that involves not stealing. You don't steal from others.
I think most of us would prefer not to have to go back to pre-Roman times. We get a lot more done when we as a society (if not necessarily individually) agree to what outcomes we want and what the rules are, and are forced by law to contribute to make it happen.
> You sacrifice by performing labor and engaging in trade and you get what you want. It's unfair to say I want a pony or a free CT scan and I'm going to rob that rich guy to get it. Do you go robbing guys in suits to feed starving African children?
Gee, you caught me!
Seriously, there's a huge difference between an individual robbing someone of something that's rightfully theirs by law, and the law (to which we, through representatives acting on our behalf, have agreed) saying everyone has to contribute their fair share to a common cause we think is just.
>to which we, through representatives acting on our behalf, have agreed
I've never voted for a representative who was in agreement with taxation, and I've never agreed to be taxed. If you want to elect to do that voluntarily I have no problem with you doing that. I never even agreed that US government is legitimate. So nah, I don't agree.
>We get a lot more done when we as a society (if not necessarily individually) agree to what outcomes we want and what the rules are, and are forced by law to contribute to make it happen.
I don't take this to be fact. Government monopolies tend to be inefficient and free-rider problem can be rampant.
> has to contribute their fair share to a common cause we think is just.
If something is just and you want to pay for it there's nothing stopping you. Not a big fan of men with guns saying I have to pay to bomb brown in the middle east or fund nun-raping insurgents in Central America. I have looked into waiving my social security rights for instance, but that requires you to file a form 4029 and be part of a religious organization that has been around since about 1960. As an atheist I'm unable to file these forms to waive my rights. I would happily do so if the law is updated.
>Seriously, there's a huge difference between an individual robbing someone of something that's rightfully theirs by law
So which is better, taxing someone to bomb brown people in the middle east, or robbing a guy in a suit and feeding starving children in Africa? To me they're both bad but the robber sounds slighlty better if not because less people are killed with the ill-gotten gains. So yeah there is a difference, I think the child-feeding robber is better than the tax-man.
> I never even agreed that US government is legitimate.
Please, use this line if you ever end up defending yourself in court! I will bring the popcorn.
Sorry, but you don't get to opt out of democracy because you don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives. If you want to change the system, vote for someone who is aligned with your selfish views; but don't expect most civilized, equity-minded people to agree with you. Or if you really don't like it, there are probably other countries that would welcome you.
(To be clear, I also don't agree with many of our Government's policies and actions. There's probably not a single person in our country who agrees with everything our Government does, but disagreement combined with tolerance of imperfection is the price we pay for a system that's proved to be better than all the alternatives we've tried so far. But there's a big difference between trying to influence what we do within our Constitution, and complaining that modern society interferes with my rights to live at maximum individual efficiency -- everyone else be damned -- and that we should all just look out for ourselves.)
>Please, use this line if you ever end up defending yourself in court! I will bring the popcorn.
At least now we understand you take joy in suffering of others.
>don't expect most civilized, equity-minded people to agree with you
You say that what they vote for represents them. If what represents them is bombing little Afghani kids or staging coup in central and south America (and by your statements, it does), I have no desire to be in agreement with such savages.
>Sorry, but you don't get to opt out of democracy because you don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives.
So your response is basically, fuck you do what I say and follow my political system, leave, or get gunned down by government agents if you resist inevitably being ordered to court. You sound like the selfish, others be damned one not I. Wow, how "fair" that sounds on a thread that was originally concerning fairness.
>and that we should all just look out for ourselves
This is a presumptuous and arrogant statement that ignores the charitable and personal contributions I've (and others) made to others without taxation. You think I haven't looked out for others with contributions performed outside of government? Not everyone is so selfish as you may be that they wouldn't help others if not forced at gunpoint.
>there are probably other countries that would welcome you.
Except I would still have to file US taxes and report bank accounts unless I renounce US citizenship, but that cost thousands and has to be done abroad. Even if you leave the US, you can't escape the coercion of US government nor US taxes (either at least filing, or paying the ~$2000 "exit tax" of renouncing). FATCA mean merely having US place of birth many worldwide banks are afraid to take me, US citizen or not.
> So your response is basically ... follow my political system, leave, or get gunned down by government agents if you resist inevitably being ordered to court.
Well, if you don't do these things, you are a criminal. That's pretty much the textbook definition.
> Wow, how "fair" that sounds on a thread that was originally concerning fairness.
You have a strange conception of fairness. Fairness doesn't mean you get to do what you want regardless of what the law says. Fairness is about having rules apply uniformly to everyone. Some, including me, also believe it means having a level playing field for competition (again, subject to boundaries to protect fairness), where new entrants aren't privileged because of who their parents were and all that entails. (This latter goal is nowhere near achieved yet, and I fully admit I'm a beneficiary of this privilege, as are all American citizens to some extent.)
> This is a presumptuous and arrogant statement that ignores the charitable and personal contributions I've (and others) made to others without taxation.
Good for you. I bet you have a Black friend, too.
> Except I would still have to file US taxes and report bank accounts unless I renounce US citizenship, but that cost thousands and has to be done abroad.
Time to get started! It sounds like it should be worth it to you.
>Time to get started! It sounds like it should be worth it to you.
Nah you leave.
>Well, if you don't do these things, you are a criminal. That's pretty much the textbook definition.
I don't have any problem with criminals who operate non-coercively, like people who drop acid or don't pay taxes. I don't equate law with morality (or fairness). To me often to be a criminal is to be the good guy.
> Fairness is about having the rules apply uniformly to everyone.
Nah fairness to me means no coercion. If 51% whites vote blacks have to be their slaves, that's democratic but definitely unfairly and coercive. Same if 2 of 3 siblings vote their house is a country and the law is they get the marble of the third. Democracy here is some people voting for a representative who represents some bombs into others. How many old people do you have to put out on benefits to justify one dead Iraqi, in your opinion?
>Good for you. I bet you have a Black friend, too.
Basically your flippant dismissal of private charity and your smugness of funding social programs at gunpoint. Not surprised though. Why don't you head up to the Red Cross office and tell them "good for you, I bet you have a Black [sic on 'B'] friend."
Did I even tell you what race I am, or are you just racist enough to think me having a black friend means something different? Or is it just you think no one who is black could possibly have an ideology that involves finding taxes illegitimate? Do you see the black mind as different or something? I want to get a real understanding of how deep your racism seeps.
> I don't equate law with morality (or fairness). To me often to be a criminal is to be the good guy.
I think we've reached the end of this conversation with a clear understanding of the type of person you are. This is a garden-variety description of egotistical selfishness -- a person who is totally unwilling to follow rules that seem subjectively unfair to him, regardless of objective fairness, and despite the fact that the vast majority of others are willing to follow these rules, even if they disagree with the details.
We create law to reflect what our shared morality and conceptions of fairness are, even though we admittedly don't have perfect laws yet. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the essence of democracy; you are fundamentally an anarchist. Worse, you are a hypocrite: You gladly take full advantage of the protections the law affords you, while expressing disdain for the protections and fairness-guiding that the law affords others.
>This is a garden-variety description of egotistical selfishness
Yes, I selfishly didn't want to put a gun to the head of the individual who doesn't want to pay a tax to build a gigantic wall to keep out a former president's perceived boogey-man, the Mexicans. I'm selfish that way.
You'd have fit in great on the slave patrols, calling those running the underground railroad egoistical law-breakers who violate "our shared morality and conception of fairness". Yes Yes we both have a clear picture of each other, don't we?
I understand democracy very well. Two of three children vote to take the third child's marble, that's democracy. The majority whites vote to have minority blacks as their slave, that's democracy. Most Americans support legalizing pot? Nah fuck it we'll keep it illegal anyway; that's American democracy.
>you are fundamentally an anarchist
Wow, you sure found me out. What was it that finally betrayed me, my intense dislike of supporting the tasks that allegedly represent the majority like waterboarding foreign nationals, or my intense disdain for coercion? What if I were gay? Then I'd be double bad.
I am an anarchist. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? I don't, it feels great to not have to justify in my head why I support a system that kills thousands of innocent people worldwide in the last couple decades, many of them innocent children whos last moments were concrete ripping apart and tumbling on top of their heads, smothering their family as the bombs collapse the structure in which they live.
>Worse, you are a hypocrite: You gladly take full advantage of the protections the law affords you, while expressing disdain for the protections and fairness-guiding that the law affords others.
Ah yes, the fairness-guiding of the assets of the marine veteran who had over $80,000 seized by a police officer for no fucking reason by the side of the road [0]. Or the protection for a taxidermist to be threatened by agents for refusing a warrantless search of a wildlife officer. Or how about the amazing protection of Daniel Shaver at the La Quinta where he played an impossible game of Simon Says and won an execution by an officer who was paid pension for life because killing an innocent person hurt his feelings so bad. Your fascination with black friends will particularly make you interested in the great protection the law afforded Breonna Taylor, where the only charge the police received was for the shot that they missed.
I don't wish these protections on myself, my friends, not for anybody.
Or perhaps here's the part where you allude that because I grudgingly pay my taxes but consider them illegitimate, I don't get to walk on the pot-hole ridden road outside of my house that I unwillingly paid the government to do in a slow, wasteful, and inefficient manner. Yes I am quite the hypocrite for walking on the road I never asked the government to build but they took my money for anyway. How dare I use that which I paid for.
>I'm done with this thread.
That's a shame, I was really looking forward to more of your racist rants alluding about how the color of the friends I have is supposed to mean something. Or how because I engage in private charity and helping of others, I'm less moral than you the moral one who feels great because they were forced to help others through a wasteful and bloated government bureaucracy.
But I really thank you for the laughs. Maybe the next time I spark up a blunt, I'll stop and think to myself "lawless egotistical selfishness" and think back about dear Otterley, who left my company far too soon.
> you don't get to opt out of democracy because you don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives. If you want to change the system, vote for someone who is aligned with your selfish views
(Not the GP, and don’t necessarily onboard with that perspective, but) this can’t be the only way forward, even if the majority of the time it should be. In fact, to keep it working you need to always consider the existence of the “opt-out lever” you outright reject here. The United States itself is founded on and asserts this principle. Of course you meet with resistance of the incumbent if you try to take that route, but that does not imply impossibility in the long arc of time.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
— Declaration of Independence of the United States
Our own government has already "opted out of the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives."
Otterley quote below is very instructive:
>The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed
Have you ever stopped to think about WHY no amendment was needed to ban intra-state produced drugs as done in the controlled substance act even though it was needed to ban intra-state alcohol by federal government? How it could possibly be interstate commerce for the government to control merely where you store non-commercial use goods in your own state a la gun-free school zone act?
The government has long since dropped the charade of following the constitution; they themselves have "opted out of democracy."
But if you follow this thread, most of it is him/her just trying to out me as an anarchist (something I've freely admitted anyway) as some sort of ad-hominem way of disproving my point of the absurdity of the definition provided of unfairness, under which scientific research would clearly be excluded from those acting fairly. It's the political version of suggesting I'm wrong because I'm gay.
We already have this right "to alter or abolish" the Government, though. The Constitution provides a means for us to make amendments by a 2/3rd majority of the states or Congress (see Article V). The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed. Similarly, we can vote in new representatives if we think they're not acting in our best interests.
The problem here is that some short-sighted people believe, incorrectly, that they don't have to accept the bad parts of democracy along with the good parts; that they are exempt from society's responsibilities; and that anarchy is the solution to the problem that we collectively make decisions that they sometimes don't agree with. They don't make things better; they complain and whinge and don't move the needle in any meaningful positive sense. And they don't see the countless ways in which anarchy is worse than democracy. The human race has tried anarchy; it didn't work long ago, and there's no way it's going to sustain a planetary population of over 3 billion souls.
The Internet has made the problem worse: Whereas these people used to be universally derided as nut jobs who lived on the fringe and communicated via tracts dispatched through the mail, now they can participate in self-congratulatory circle jerks in "safe spaces" on the Internet with hardly anyone sane interrupting them with a dose of reality, history, or common sense. I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better.
>The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed
Banning and unbanning alcohol was an exercise in democracy in accordance with constitution. The lawmakers recognized for federal government to control intra-state commerce without any other constitutional nexus, they needed to amend the constitution.
Then the government decided to 'opt out of democracy because you [they] don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives.' Ever wonder why it took an amendment for federal government to regulate intrastate alcohol trade while no such amendment was passed for controlled substance act regulating intrastate drug trade? It's because the federal government decided to 'opt out of democracy' because it didn't like the 'tenets that bind everyone to the laws made by our representatives.' There's no constitutional nexus for the NFA regulating intra-state produced machine guns nor the CSA regulating pot grown in your own house for your own consumption. It's mere decision to opt-out facilitated between new-deal era corrupt supreme court and politicians who ironically ignore the 51+% in keeping pot illegal.
>he problem here is that some short-sighted people believe, incorrectly, that they don't have to accept the bad parts of democracy along with the good parts;
Well the government has decided that by ignoring the constitution. I've decided we shouldn't accept pure democracy at all; not that we have that.
>The human race has tried anarchy; it didn't work long ago, and there's no way it's going to sustain a planetary population of over 3 billion souls.
I'm not sure any pure political system has been tried if you're going to be pedantic. You don't need aggressive coercion to sustain 3 billion souls. Anarchy is an aim for 'society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.' For instance, I've both been to and fought/volunteered for one of our closest examples to anarchism in Rojava, and it is actually becoming one of the most stable and prosperous regions in Syria. Guess that was just me 'whinging and complaining' though, and it wasn't pure idealistic anarchism so I guess it doesn't 'count.
> that they are exempt from society's responsibilities;
Apparently defined by the 51%, like 1800 era blacks 'responsibility' to be slaves.
> They don't make things better; they complain and whinge and don't move the needle in any meaningful positive sense.
Guess the charity, volunteer teaching, donations, and actual fighting I've done for a more anarchistic-like region of world were all just me complaining and whinging. Oh and my oh so virtuous paying of taxes! If only we were all as virtuous as Otterley.
>The Internet has made the problem worse: Whereas these people used to be universally derided as nut jobs who lived on the fringe and communicated via tracts dispatched through the mail, now they can participate in self-congratulatory circle jerks in "safe spaces" on the Internet with hardly anyone sane interrupting them with a dose of reality, history, or common sense. I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Are you calling HN some safe space for anarchism? I've been derided nearly every time I've defended anarchism here. In this instance it's merely a democratic idealism clap-trap on your end to try and shame by ad hominem my showing the absurdity of OP's definition of unfair. A definition by which any use of others' scientific research is unfair, because fairness is in their words when 'the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work.' That's what this thread was about and this deep diving into politics is your own self-congratulations to regain whatever sense of pride you lost due to defending an ignorant and thoughtless statement.
How do you know?
>>And to the extent that people are using crypto as alternative to their local currency, they're almost all using it for some form of laundering (e.g. wealth extraction from the PRC).
Laundering in a country like the PRC with extreme capital controls is not necessarily a moral evil. It could very well just be an attempt to guard wealth from a repressive government that is known to confiscate the wealth of those who fall out of favor with the political elite.
By arguing against crypto, you are arguing for the PRC having more control over the people of China. But I guess that's par for the course for the anti-crypto crowd.
>>Objectively, crypto has been far more volatile than fiat currencies as a whole, not less.
Stablecoins are not volatile, and their usage is skyrocketing:
https://techstory.in/inflation-jumps-to-36-in-turkey-liras-v...