Here's a quote I saw recently that really spells it out. 😁 “In short, the difference between Communism, fascism, and democracy and all other statist systems, are of degree, not principle. The principle is that the state owns everything (including you), and you can use property only if the state allows it.” - Alan Burris

Replies (5)

DZC's avatar
DZC 2 years ago
I disagree. States have a function. There's a reason human civilization tends to evolve to a state form. We can discuss the functions and reach of the State, the organization of different powers, the controls that have to be stablished by the citizens. Not every State has the same principle (and reach), far from it. But I have not doubt that some State form is needed to organise the living of a big enough group of humans. Sorry to disagree here! 🫂😊
It's an enjoyable conversation! (Forgive my use of numerous hashtags, this will help me find some of these arguments later!) I think it was Jeff Booth who explained how the current financial system requires theft at the base layer ( #InflationIsTheft ) to operate. #BitcoinFixesThis , right? #RulesNotRulers is also a mantra in Bitcoin. I say this because the state is defined as and exists through a monopoly on violence in a geographic region. This coercion by a group of individual actors (wearing special costumes) is unacceptable and exists because the state can take your property from you, threaten to or actually lock you in a cage, and it can even steal your time (through taxation of your labor #TaxationIsTheft ). All of this is morally corrupt and wouldn't be allowed by any individual against another individual, right? But what is really happening here? Most services provided by the state are valid - protection (police), justice (courts), transportation (roads), and defense (military). Since these are simply services, why is coercion and violence needed to fund them? It's not! It's just that the state gives itself a monopoly and threatens any potential competitors. What if these services were voluntarily funded? What if these were private companies focused on serving their customers instead of a monopoly that operates under the threat of violence? There are lots of objections people still raise here, but Bob Murphy's booklet 'Chaos Theory' explains the nuance of how this system could operate... private security, courts, roads, and even national defense. It's an excellent, free, and short read (available at Mises Institute). So, people organizing is great, the monopoly on the use of violence is not! With #Bitcoin, the state's ability to steal your wealth is greatly decreased compared to any physical/centralized form of wealth (gold, fiat, real estate). Leaving with your wealth is a real option now. This will incentivize the state to be customer focused, instead of threatening. This is discussed in the book "The Sovereign Individual" and is really a thought provoking read! Bitcoin will also reduce the state's ability to fight wars significantly, because it will have to get funds through #voluntary contributions instead of violence. #AntiWar Also, conscription of their populace (read: slave labor by the state for war) is much less of an option when the people can leave with their wealth in their head! At the end of the day, a small minority of people use violence to conduct their business... thieves and the state. This is unnecessary and there are real options that Bitcoin will (hopefully) help humans achieve (eventually)! #voluntaryism #liberty #libertarian #peace
DZC's avatar
DZC 2 years ago
Nice chat, indeed!! 🫂 How can I answer every point made? 😊 Let's see if I can explain my position: I agree with you that keeping the money out of the State hands would be great. It will make the government to be more efficient and won't allow it to do whatever they want moving the consequences to the people. And #bitcoin allow precisely that! 👏 I'm not so worry about the monopoly of violence, though. Maybe it's because I'm European, but I think an armed society brings more problems that solutions. Citizen will never be able to resist a State violently. The hope it's on other institutions (justice, free journalism, etc). Moreover, I think a democratic State doesn't actually relay very often in violence to control its citizens, but it uses other means to do that (press, banks/money, etc). So I'm not sure that changing the State 'monopoly of violence' is a desired thing for the wellbeing of the people. I do agree with changing the monopoly of money printing, as I explained. Have a nice day!! 🫂
Good conversation! 🫂 Europeans definitely see the world differently than Americans (especially those from the south)! The future will be bright because #Bitcoin will allow each locality to operate as they please and give people the ability to exit and go where the situation suits them best! #Peace bro!
DZC's avatar
DZC 2 years ago
Indeed, nice conversation! It's great being able to have a peaceful chat from different points of view here in #nostr! Peace, mate! 🫂