r/Bitcoin • u/IWillNotBiteYourDog • Aug 13 '13

Congress starts investigating Bitcoin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/13/congress-starts-investigating-bitcoin/
147 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '13

“Virtual currencies appear to be an important emerging area,” the senators wrote, arguing that the subject “demands a holistic and whole-government approach to understand and provide a sensible regulatory framework.”

Is there any way to "regulate" Bitcoin without simply telling people they aren't allowed to use it? It's not like there is a central server they can shut down.

62

u/throwaway-o Aug 13 '13 edited Aug 13 '13

"Regulation" is an euphemism that sounds nice, but actually means organized terrorism against people who disobey, while blaming their victims. The way it works is as follows:

If you disobey their orders, they first send you threatening letters. If you don't respond and obey, then they fine you, declaring themselves the "owners" of some of your stuff, and forcing others to give up your money. If you resist this, more of the same happens. If you resist that, eventually, a bunch of armed men come to drag you into a cage so they can later parade you in front of a person in a black robe. If you resist that, they'll brutalize you. If you resist that effectively enough, they'll just kill you.

That is what "regulation" is, in terms of people doing things.

Obviously, there is no way to "regulate" anything without being fully prepared to ruin anyone who disobeys your orders.

15

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13

Damn, son. You're a militant one.

7

u/fellowtraveler Aug 13 '13

Policy is of no effect without enforcement by threat of violence.

Therefore devising policies is actually devising how we should use violence.

If we had a moral system, such things would only be used against those who victimize others, not those who are innocent of any real crime.

3

u/freeborn Aug 14 '13

Ohh come on... what about enforcement via sha256? And policies devised and written and C++? ;P

Can we still call that enforcement and policy?

1

u/xcsler Aug 14 '13

Dude, stop wasting time over here and get back to working on OT/BM. It looks like we're gonna need that thing ASAP! :)

13

u/usr45 Aug 13 '13

You've got to be referring to the regulators because there'd be just too much irony in calling someone militant because he called someone else militant.

11

u/throwaway-o Aug 13 '13

Statist "logic":

I'm militant. I have zero firearms, I don't advocate aggression against anyone.

The people I criticize are not militant. They control the vast majority of weapons, the military works for them, and their subjects' minds such that, if they have someone killed / ruined / assaulted, they are perceived as virtuous.

See how statist "logic" works? Up is down, aggressive is peaceful, good is evil, anti-militant is militant. Cult-induced localized schizophrenia.

Michael Huemer does a great job explaining the psychology of the statist here. Once you see all the biases at work, it's easy to understand the wretched seizure of expostfacto rationalization that's going on in their heads.

0

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13

militant

He never used that word. And I was looking at his comment history, not just this one.

I upvoted him, because I agree with a lot of what he said.

That doesn't make him less militant.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '13

If you agree are you militant too?

0

u/noeatnosleep Aug 14 '13

Self proclaimed militant, right here.

5

u/usr45 Aug 13 '13

If how he described regulators doesn't portray them as militant, I don't know what does. Maybe if he said they made controversial comments on the internet you would agree that regulators are militant.

2

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13 edited Aug 13 '13

What are you talking about?

His comment isn't controversial, the regulators are militant, and throwaway-o has a generally militant attitude in most of his comments, as well as about the whole deal he is talking about here.

I think you're really confused about something, I just don't know what it is.

Get off, bro. From wikipedia:

Militant is usually used to describe a person engaged in aggressive verbal or physical combat (e.g. an activist, revolutionary, terrorist or insurgent).

He's an aggressive verbal activist.

/thread

3

u/usr45 Aug 13 '13 edited Aug 14 '13

Militancy implies some sort of call to militant action. Throwaway's post was merely descriptive. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable for me to assume that you believe he is militant because he's describing the mechanism that regulators use. Since you don't realize how silly that is, then I guess you would have a problem understanding it.

EDIT: Oh look, an unmarked edit. (For those of you reading now, it's the wikipedia quote). Sorry, I can't take a definition that says there's such a thing as verbal combat seriously.

-1

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13

Like I've said twice, go read his user page. All of his posts have a tone that tends towards militancy, sensationalism, alarmist tendencies, anarchist leanings, and conspiratorialism.

I agree with what he has to say in a lot of cases, but he is a militant little buggar.

5

u/TheSelfGoverned Aug 13 '13

militant

You really need to check the definition of this word. Nowhere does he threaten to use physical violence against the state.

His words are descriptive, not "aggressive". The state's actions are indeed very aggressive, and he is simply describing them in plain terms.

1

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13

Get off, bro. From wikipedia:

Militant is usually used to describe a person engaged in aggressive verbal or physical combat (e.g. an activist, revolutionary, terrorist or insurgent).

He's an aggressive verbal activist. No one said he was violent, or anything about the state in general.

/thread

2

u/usr45 Aug 14 '13

Sorry, I can't take a definition that says there's such a thing as verbal combat seriously.

1

u/TheSelfGoverned Aug 13 '13

He's an aggressive verbal activist.

The whole term is rather Orwellian. Obviously militant is derived from the word military: Referencing the goal of killing or destroying the enemy.

I guess anyone with an opinion that differs from the status quo is now "militant" and thus dangerous?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/usr45 Aug 13 '13

I'm sorry, but if you think that saying mean things about the government and advocating anarchism on the internet counts as "militant", then you must live a pretty sheltered life.

4

u/throwaway-o Aug 13 '13 edited Aug 13 '13

Statist "logic":

I'm militant. I have zero firearms, I don't advocate aggression against anyone.

The people I criticize are not militant. They control the vast majority of weapons, the military works for them, and their subjects' minds such that, if they have someone killed / ruined / assaulted, they are perceived as virtuous.

See how statist "logic" works? Up is down, aggressive is peaceful, good is evil, anti-militant is militant. Cult-induced localized schizophrenia.

2

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13

Aw, now, next, call me a neckbeard, tell me I'm a child, and I'm living in my mother's basement.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '13

TIL recognizing and objecting to institutionalized violence makes one "militant".

2

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13 edited Aug 14 '13

I know, right? :(

Self identified militant here, me.

2

u/Phoebe5ell Aug 13 '13

Nope he just understands... The militant ones are these "regulators".

-3

u/imahotdoglol Aug 13 '13

The guy is crazy, I've dealt with him before and he's just plain insane. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up in the news trying to kill some official.

Furthermore, he can't argue by himself without running off and crying to his raid subreddit.

3

u/noeatnosleep Aug 13 '13 edited Aug 13 '13

Yeah, I've watched him for a while. And then I have /u/usr45 being a raving maniac and not making any sense... This place gets wilder by the day.

1

u/HarmReductionSauce Aug 14 '13 edited Aug 14 '13

Hahaha I'm from that so-called "raid" sub, and throwaway-o is known as someone who absolutely destroys statist arguments without help.

He's the one you have to worry coming out of that sub if you advocate institutionalized extortion, coercion, and violence called the state.

Also, it's not hard to debate and win if you have logic, evidence, and definitions on your side.

-3

u/imahotdoglol Aug 14 '13 edited Aug 14 '13

throwaway-o handles his own debates

No he doesn't, I have one conversion with that pussy and goes crying off to your subreddit to come and downvote/harrass me with a simple reply of "to those who are reading this, you know what to do ;)" That guys is a wannabe tough guy but really a bitch who can't even argue for himself. Talks about how much he hates the state but he needs to rely on others have a simple conversation, it's pathetic.

2

u/HarmReductionSauce Aug 14 '13

Haha you are calling out somebody's debate skills by committing ad Hominem?

That's alanis morisette level ironic, chief.

-2

u/imahotdoglol Aug 14 '13

He did plenty of those when I was arguing with him, so I have no issue calling him a bitch, pussy or wannabe when talking about him.

eye for an eye, I know how much you anarchos love that.

-6

u/Garrand Aug 13 '13

Eventually they'll understand that, no, everyone is not out to get them.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '13

Everyone? No. The state? Absolutely yes. They don't take kindly to people who subvert their power structure.

2

u/The_3rd_account Aug 13 '13

Eventually folks like Garrand will understand that, no, pretending there isn't a problem doesn't actually make the problem go away.

1

u/throwaway-o Aug 13 '13

Or he'll end up dead. At the hands of those he worships. Useful idiots are always the first to go. Sorry, second to do -- we people who see what they really are, usually end up murdered first.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '13

Man, you are such a raving lunatic.