[Chugalug] More on Bitcoin:
ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 22 21:56:10 UTC 2013
I'd like to point out your whole argument about corporations is INCREDIBLY
Mainly because it assumes, based of your argument, that the only way to not
have corporations is to live in a society of anarchy, because the instant a
government is formed, WOAH LOOKOUT! Here comes corporations!
The BP Oil spill? That was a corporation that failed to heed regulations on
equipment inspections and safety. Are you kidding me with that argument?
Also, the Romans realized, even way back then, that 'Personal
Responsibility' is utter bullshit, and issues a grain stipend to the
general public, because a starving, underpaid, overworked public means one
thing: civil wars and rebellion.
I mean, what you just wrote up is literally what got King Louis of France
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chad Smith <chad78 at gmail.com> wrote:
> You are mission the point. A corporation is an invention of the
> government, not of the free market. Yes, in a free market people can work
> together. But in a truly free market, they couldn't hide behind some "I
> didn't do that, the corporation did that!" bs. A human being built the car
> that had glue under the gas pedal. A human being designed it that way. A
> human being safety inspected it (alledgely) and a human being sold it.
> Those human beings should be held responsible for the results of their
> actions. Not hide behind some fictional "Entity" called a corporation.
> The BP oil spill? That was a human who did that. A human being is
> resposible for that - NOT a "Corporation". Corporations are a fiction that
> we all (or most of us) just willingly accept as truth.
> If there was a Free Market - along with Personal Responsibility (the other
> side of the "Yes, Mr. Obama, I really DID 'build that'." coin) - then you
> wouldn't need government interference. Standard laws that apply to any
> human being (don't kill, don't steal, don't harm, etc.) would still be
> around and enforcable. In fact, they'd be far more enforcable than they
> are today, because - as the law currently recognizes it - so much harm is
> done by "Corporations" who cannot be jailed, or killed, or punished in any
> way other than fines.
> *- Chad W. Smith*
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Well you are right about one thing at least: Money's intrensic value is
>> not a physical item, its set by consumer and producer demand.
>> Which is ironically why Bitcoin will never be a MAJOR currency or a
>> replacement for the Dollar.
>> I never said it couldn't be a currency, see my previous reference to
>> trading sea shells for cash and giving them a value, technically that makes
>> them a currency, but the value of my sea shell currency is still hard set
>> on how many USD I can get for the value of my sea shell, which might
>> fluctuate depending on how many sea shells I have.
>> Its therefore a currency. Not a good one, but a currency.
>> They WERE a corporation. Competing in a market. By driving every other
>> competitor out of the market via either hostile buyouts or threats.
>> In a free market, as you suggest, who is to tell these guys that they
>> cannot do such thing? How do we keep a large, extremely profitable business
>> from simply destroying all other businesses that compete with them? We
>> can't regulate them, that would defeat the whole point of a free market.
>> Innovation? They could just steal an innovative idea. See Thomas Edison
>> for a good example of a man who basically bought peoples ideas, paid them
>> nearly nothing for them, claimed them as his own, and then drove them out
>> of the market.
>> There is no such thing as a free market, its like saying having a game of
>> chess, but everything is fair game.
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Tyler Mittan <
>> flashbatmanquestion at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There has a lot been said since I last checked so I haven't been keeping
>>> up, but I do think that this nonsense about REAL, PHYSICAL things is
>>> nonsense. Money is not all real, physical things.. Not unless you think a
>>> credit card swipe is somehow valuable. All credit is a transfer of, not
>>> funds, but credit it. It's really just a mark in a ledger. It is only when
>>> the bank goes to the other bank that it is fulfilled. It's virtually a
>>> It strikes me as odd for someone who is so anti-gold standard to make
>>> claims like this which are so pro-gold standard it hurts.
>>> Second, value is subjective (you can think Menger and the Austrians who
>>> found this concept in which all modern day economics is built on except
>>> socialists). NOTHING IS INTRINSICALLY VALUABLE. It seems like this is
>>> something we all agree on. Given that money is not necessarily a physical
>>> thing, and that value is subjective, we can see how bitcoin could be
>>> considered money if valued by enough people.
>>> Now that we've established that, we should look at why bitcoin is not
>>> widely accepted which I mentioned before:
>>> 1. People don't know about it. Economists and computer geeks, but if you
>>> were to ask the average, say, psychology student whom has not interest in
>>> politics whatsoever (and there are plenty) or virtually anyone else, they
>>> most likely wouldn't know about it.. this begs the question: even if they
>>> did know about it, would they want it?
>>> 2. They might. The underlying point of me posting this was to show that
>>> competing currencies could be a thing. They could be a thing that work very
>>> well (as they have historically.. look up Richard Timberlake, Lawrence
>>> White, and George Selgin). We can't say for sure if bitcoins would be a
>>> very valuable thing, but we do know that it's getting very popular.. this
>>> begs the question, if it's so popular, why aren't businesses buying it?
>>> 3. This can be answered mostly by the fact that the legality of it is
>>> iffy at best. It can also be answered that people trust the backing of a
>>> government (whom obviously have a pretty poor track record, but people
>>> don't know better).
>>> So, there's no reason to think that bitcoins can't be money. I am not
>>> saying they are widely accepted. I am not saying if they were legal that
>>> they even would be widely accepted. I am saying that competing currencies
>>> can, and should, be a thing to keep the dollar honest.
>>> On Aug 22, 2013 5:05 PM, "Stephen Kraus" <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com>
>>>> John...that is called the exchange rate. It really doesn't make
>>>> bitcoins any more legitimate as a REPLACEMENT for the USD or as even a
>>>> strong competitor.
>>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM, John Aldrich <jmaldrich at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>> Quoting Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com>:
>>>>> Its funny that, Aaron a good comparison.
>>>>>> Because if I sell something on Ebay, I set a price in USD.
>>>>>> And if paypal doesn't give my bank my USD, I get cross
>>>>>> Yes, that's true, Stephen... but if someone in, say, Germany, wants
>>>>> to buy what you're selling, they will pay you via PayPal in DeutschMarks,
>>>>> which Paypal will CONVERT to $USD. Or if you want to buy something for your
>>>>> VW from someone in Germa ny, they are likely selling in DM, and you will
>>>>> pay in $USD, but THEY will receive DM from PayPal. Similarly, in theory,
>>>>> PayPal could start accepting Bitcoins and then convert them to $USD or
>>>>> whatever currency, or just bank them like you do with your local currency.
>>>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>> Chugalug mailing list
>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Chugalug