You don’t agree with Objectivism because Objectivism denies collectivism and inherently collectivist concepts. To regard national security as an end in itself that can terminate a logical chain of justification is wrong. What exists is individuals and their rights, and the government can have no other rights which do not originally exist among the citizens. No citizen may initiate force and neither may the government.
Computers, guns, cars, clothes, and money are all used by criminals but it would be stupid to outlaw those things for that reason. It is stupid because there is no relation between one man’s use of his property and another man’s use of his different property. The law is a means to defend individual rights, and only persons can possess or exercise or violate rights. The proper subject and object of the law is persons, not things.
Prohibition laws falsely attribute to objects the power to violate rights. As politics is based on ethics then that false attribution can be identified as being premised upon ethical intrinsicism. Ethical intrinsicism is the idea that something can be known to be good or bad regardless of context, that a value assignment can be discovered apart from any and all valuers.
No. And at ObjectivismOnline.net it is not safe to assume that a disagreement must be caused by the other person’s failure to understand Objectivism.
I put it to you that you are a libertarian. You use the non-initiation of force principle (NIOF) without regard for context. In the context of certain military operations the government can pre-emptively strike (ie initiate force before the other side does). In the context of nuclear weapons in the hands of a normal citizen, the government can legitimately prohibit this. Each of the previous sentences was started with “In the context of”, so this is not ethical intrinsicism. Libertarians hate premptive military strikes (look at Cato.org), and prohibition just as you seem to hate it. So I hope you see why you are coming across as a libertarian to me.
I put it to you that most of the big users of Bitcoin (in its current form) will be criminals. In this context, how can you justify not either 1)banning it 2)regulating it (eg require Bitcoin exchanges to validate and log postal addresses of users)?
I put it to you that you are a libertarian. You use the non-initiation of force principle (NIOF) without regard for context.
In the context of certain military operations the government can pre-emptively strike (ie initiate force before the other side does).
What makes a pre-emptive strike valid is that it is not an initiation of force. Force is not entirely identical to physical force, but also threats of force. Responding to threats of force with actual force is not initiating force but retaliating with force.
You can’t think straight about rights and the law if you don’t understand what ‘force’ refers to.
In the context of nuclear weapons in the hands of a normal citizen, the government can legitimately prohibit this.
You don’t give any justification for this, nor do you specify enough context to decide anything. To the extent such a prohibition can be justified, it is only justified by the rights of other people not to have their lives and property exist under the threat of annihilation or radioactive contamination. That would be an initiation of force by the owner of the nuclear weapon. If no persons or property were in danger then there would be no basis for the government to act, but the only way that hypothetical could come about was through an isolated lab or facility of kind creating an explosion deep underground with an nonportable and immobile weapon. Why anybody would do such a thing besides the government itself in the course of weapon research is a mystery, so the whole point is moot. There may as well be a law against people flapping their arms and flying.
Each of the previous sentences was started with “In the context of”, so this is not ethical intrinsicism. Libertarians hate premptive military strikes (look at Cato.org), and prohibition just as you seem to hate it. So I hope you see why you are coming across as a libertarian to me.
I am in favor of preemptive military strikes where justified. That libertarians are against prohibition is not an argument relevant (for or against) to the validity of prohibition. You are resorting to name-calling and ad hominem to paper-over the deficiencies in your own understanding of Objectivism.
I put it to you that most of the big users of Bitcoin (in its current form) will be criminals.
When VCRs and the internet first became available, the most of the big users were pornographers. Therefore, what?
What makes a pre-emptive strike valid is that it is not an initiation of force. Force is not entirely identical to physical force, but also threats of force. Responding to threats of force with actual force is not initiating force but retaliating with force.
You can’t think straight about rights and the law if you don’t understand what ‘force’ refers to.
You don’t give any justification for this, nor do you specify enough context to decide anything. To the extent such a prohibition can be justified, it is only justified by the rights of other people not to have their lives and property exist under the threat of annihilation or radioactive contamination. That would be an initiation of force by the owner of the nuclear weapon. If no persons or property were in danger then there would be no basis for the government to act, but the only way that hypothetical could come about was through an isolated lab or facility of kind creating an explosion deep underground with an nonportable and immobile weapon. Why anybody would do such a thing besides the government itself in the course of weapon research is a mystery, so the whole point is moot. There may as well be a law against people flapping their arms and flying.
I am in favor of preemptive military strikes where justified. That libertarians are against prohibition is not an argument relevant (for or against) to the validity of prohibition. You are resorting to name-calling and ad hominem to paper-over the deficiencies in your own understanding of Objectivism.
When VCRs and the internet first became available, the most of the big users were pornographers. Therefore, what?
In reply to your very last point, pornography is not illegal so therefore nothing. But one of the big uses of the internet is to distribute terrorist recruitment videos. If it got to the point where 99% of the activity on the internet was for illegal purposes such as this then yes I would ban the internet. 99% of the activity on Bitcoin is to purchase contraband. Therefore it should be banned, or regulated such that the illegal activity disappears.
If you goto the poster page of The Silk Road - http://silkroadmarket.org/ - (you need Tor and another URL to access the actual site) you will see they are even linking to the Bitcoin forum and having open discussions there.
This is my last post on this topic. I have noticed that a lot of Objectivists are libertarians/anarchists/gun nuts/. I’ve just had a discussion in the chat where I’ve been defending Peikoffs anti-immigration viewpoint. It seems that people here cannot accept that it is RIGHT to promote government intervention in certain contexts.
In reply to your very last point, pornography is not illegal so therefore nothing.
You know nothing and want to learn nothing. In the 1970’s and 1980’s it was illegal to send pornographic material over the mail or over wires. Technically it still is, so where is your “respect for the rule of law”? You should be advocating the shut down of the internet because of the porn.
Pornography was then and is still against the law. See the law. Jury trials and the made up ‘Miller’ test limit the damage this statute does, but the fact remains that any and all providers and viewers of porn can be arrested and put on trial according to this law. The only thing that protects people from prudish and aggressive attorney generals is the likelihood of failure, not any principle of rights.
But one of the big uses of the internet is to distribute terrorist recruitment videos.
What a foolish thing to say.
If you goto the poster page of The Silk Road - http://silkroadmarket.org/ - (you need Tor and another URL to access the actual site) you will see they are even linking to the Bitcoin forum and having open discussions there.
So? Why not outlaw forum software and web browsers while you are at it?
It seems that people here cannot accept that it is RIGHT to promote government intervention in certain contexts.
The only kind of context that invites government intervention is the violation of rights.
I’ve just had a discussion in the chat where I’ve been defending Peikoffs anti-immigration viewpoint. It seems that people here cannot accept that it is RIGHT to promote government intervention in certain contexts.
If you are suggesting the Peikoff’s stand on immigration is based on the notion that governments ought to be controlling immigration (except where security is threatened) then you are misrepresenting him. Peikoff and many other Objectivists think that this is an area where one infringement of rights (the welfare state) has necessitated another. Though I disagree with this view, it is wrong to describe it as though their political theory calls for government intervention in this area.
Bitcoins seem to be a pyramid scheme, form the computer standpoint, they are using your processing power for something and it is very sketchy. I won’t waste my power and time computing something where I don’t know what its doing or where it came from/
I don’t see how it’s a pyramid scheme. They don’t offer a type of product that needs to be propogated to more buyers in order for you to profit. According to their method the GPU will use its power to solve complex math problems. The idea of which is to emulate a natural resource (like gold/silver). So the Bitcoins can be “mined” and brought into existence but only in a limited manner that takes a difficult process to acquire.
If you are suggesting the Peikoff’s stand on immigration is based on the notion that governments ought to be controlling immigration (except where security is threatened) then you are misrepresenting him. Peikoff and many other Objectivists think that this is an area where one infringement of rights (the welfare state) has necessitated another. Though I disagree with this view, it is wrong to describe it as though their political theory calls for government intervention in this area.
I am not suggesting that don’t worry.
On a side note, I have found precisely zero people on this forum who agree with Peikoff on this issue. I find this strange to say the least.
The fact that criminals CAN use BitCoins to do immoral/illegal things ( many of those illegal things are not things which have a good reason to be illegal, though I think this has been pointed out already) is not a reason to violate all the rights of all those innocent people that wish to use it for all sorts of valid (valid, not necceasirly advisable reasons, though many possibly reasonable uses for BitCoins have been provided) reasons. Almost anything CAN be used in a way which violates rights, but that does not justify violating the rights of everyone else just because some people wish to break the law / violate rights.
“On a side note, I have found precisely zero people on this forum who agree with Peikoff on this issue. I find this strange to say the least.”
Rather besides the point as implied. What does it matter per se if people do or do not agree with him on this issue? The users here worth their salt do not care what Peikoff has to say on any matter, unless they able to rationally convince themselves that Peikoff has a point.
If you are not suggesting what it has been suggested that you are suggesting, what ARE you suggesting then? I am not sure that it is clear…
That is not. You don’t need further justification for not acting than that you don’t understand it.
I would say that if from your understanding of something it seems to be a pyramid scheme or a trap that would be a rational reason to stay away from it would it not?
I don’t see how it’s a pyramid scheme. They don’t offer a type of product that needs to be propogated to more buyers in order for you to profit. According to their method the GPU will use its power to solve complex math problems. The idea of which is to emulate a natural resource (like gold/silver). So the Bitcoins can be “mined” and brought into existence but only in a limited manner that takes a difficult process to acquire.
It rewards people who come earlier in the game, the algorithms they use gradually become harder to solve, by their own admission, and once they reach a certain number of bit coins the supply will no longer grow. I would bet that the founders of bit coin mined many of them early on to keep till the supply stopped, or just programmed themselves more “money” to start with. That is another reason I don’t like the idea, it has no real value and is totally fiat, and a savvy hacker could destroy the entire system. This is different from say online banks where they are usually backed by cash reserves and have a very vested interest in keeping their data safe, with thousands of security workers monitoring the system, i doubt these levels of protection exist for bit coin.
While I don’t like the idea, I still think it should be legal as I don’t see what harm it can do to you unless you choose to participate.
I would say that if from your understanding of something it seems to be a pyramid scheme or a trap that would be a rational reason to stay away from it would it not?
Yes, but your understanding of bitcoin is defective. Classifying bitcoin as a “pyramid scheme or trap” is not an objective evaluation based on actual features of the bitcoin system, because it has no features of a pyramid scheme.
It rewards people who come earlier in the game,
Early investors always profit the most, that is not a essential distinguishing feature of a pyramid scheme. An actual pyramid scheme involves sending actual money to someone else. Bitcoin mining does not involve sending money to other people. Bitcoin exchanging does, but if you get in and out quickly there is minimal risk of losing value during your transaction and a minimal possibility of gaining.
Whether or not the early adopters and advocates make any return on their investment of time and money has nothing to do with you. Bitcoin mining is already only rewarding for specialists and is not what most people are going to find useful about it. Your objections have to do with bitcoin as an investment. Fine, don’t invest in it. It is very speculative as investment, and is mysterious as a long term store of value. The only use and value is as a tool of exchange. If you don’t need it, then you don’t need it.
the algorithms they use gradually become harder to solve, by their own admission, and once they reach a certain number of bit coins the supply will no longer grow. I would bet that the founders of bit coin mined many of them early on to keep till the supply stopped, or just programmed themselves more “money” to start with.
Whoever came up with such a good idea ought to benefit from it, that is simple justice. There is no other way to profit from the innovation of the block chain algorithm that makes bitcoin possible.
I don’t think much about the Silk Road because I don’t do drugs. I am against the stupid and useless “War on Drugs”.
I am also against the “War on Drugs”. I also don’t do drugs. But it is clear to me that the ONLY and STATED purpose of the Silk Road is to buy contraband. It should be shut down.
I ask you about this because you avoided the Silk Road issue in the above discussion which to me is the main issue here. That is what gives Bitcoins value. So I invite you to think about the Silk Road… do you think it should be shutdown?
This is my last post on this topic. I have noticed that a lot of Objectivists are libertarians/anarchists/gun nuts/. I’ve just had a discussion in the chat where I’ve been defending Peikoffs anti-immigration viewpoint. It seems that people here cannot accept that it is RIGHT to promote government intervention in certain contexts.
Erm, as you can see I am enquiring specifically about the Silk Road now. Before it was Bitcoin in isolation. Nice contentful post you made there though, well done.
The Silk Road is not the only thing to give bitcoins value. They can also be used for gambling and buying alpaca wool socks.
OK, but what is your opinion on the Silk Road? You say you don’t think about it, but I invite you to think about it. Do you think it should be banned? Or regulated? Or is it fine and should be left alone?
I am also against the “War on Drugs”. I also don’t do drugs. But it is clear to me that the ONLY and STATED purpose of the Silk Road is to buy contraband. It should be shut down.
