Bitcoiner and Socialist \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

7184 sats \ 88 comments \ @Conega 27 Jan bitcoin freebie

Bitcoiner and Socialist

I believe Bitcoin is a fair form of ownership. It can’t and should not be stolen by anyone including government. It provides sovereignty. It separates money from state. It’s a uncontrolled medium of exchange.

I believe in socialism. I have a strong belief that society will work the best when everyone has able to at least have access to basic need such as food, a home, education and healthcare. The alternative is to spend even more on fighting crime, imprisonment and all kinds of disturbance. This not only gives a high burden on spending, but also on the general happiness of people.

Tax is not theft. It is doing your part in helping society as a whole. It’s the only way to make sure people will get access to basic needs. The more you make, the more you pay because it has less of an impact. I don’t believe it’s fair for anyone to hoard value and not give anything in return to society. I am wealthy and I have no problem to pay taxes.

Bitcoin is a tool to help people save. Since all fiat currency’s will suffer from inflation, and fueled by consumerism there is a natural reaction of people to spend fiat money. Once they get to know Bitcoin it can help them understand value, make better choices and in return won’t be as depended on others to provide for their needs.

Bitcoin has no vote. It has what anyone makes of it. In contrary to many other opinions, to me Bitcoin and socialism are a great match. Socialism is not communism. Most yanks don’t seem to understand there is a difference. There is no endgame in where we all should be equal. There is a standard of living that anyone should have, and plenty of opportunity to make for a better way of living.

view all related items

1096 sats \ 26 replies \ @harrr 27 Jan

I have a strong belief that society will work the best when everyone has able to at least have access to basic need such as food, a home, education and healthcare

Yeah, everybody can agree on that. Socialists think that the state is better at providing this than a free market.

The alternative is to spend even more on fighting crime, imprisonment and all kinds of disturbance.

See, that's the socialist in you, and an expression of how close all western countries are to socialism. You and the states can only think of spending more to solve those problems, that's why there's a need for a state to redistribute.

Meanwhile, rational people think that the government should shrink, spend less, and that a free market would be the best to provide the goods the market wants.

223 sats \ 25 replies \ @Lost_dogz 27 Jan

The problem with fully deregulated markets is the incentive to externalize costs (e.g. dumping toxic waste in a river to get rid of it while slowly killing people and fisheries downstream). You need a pretty powerful powerstructure if you want to counterbalance that.

619 sats \ 14 replies \ @davidw 27 Jan

That practice should cripple a company’s reputation. But it doesn’t because of state subsidies and cover-ups.

There can and should still be legal repercussions for causing intentional harm to humanity.

182 sats \ 9 replies \ @SpaceHodler 27 Jan

And legal doesn't necessarily mean coming from a public legal system. Laws and courts can be private.

5 sats \ 8 replies \ @Coyote_Cosmico 27 Jan freebie

I've never heard anyone advocate for that before. Are there any robust arguments in favor of this you could link to?

I'm not trying to debate here, just curious because I've yet to encounter the idea.

I could imagine a few issues with such a system which may be tricky.

"I don't care for your laws, taking my business elsewhere, to the court across town..."

241 sats \ 2 replies \ @davidw 27 Jan

It happens today in business contracts. When signing a contract with another business, both agree on a single court will uphold your agreement or be arbitrators.

Arbitration is also actually way more cost effective than court of law. Used all the time and in a private manner. Trying to reach settlement, with an independent 3rd party, before the case sees the light of public scrutiny.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Coyote_Cosmico 27 Jan

With the business contracts they agree on using a particular public court of law, or a private one?

I was more curious about the example above regarding externalities. Like a toxic chemical dump due to gross negligence or willful planning.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinosphere 28 Jan

About half of the legal systems in the world are called "Civil courts." They are wholly separate from the criminal courts run by the state's judicial branch.

Private law is just as common as state law in most countries. You may have used civil courts already without knowing you did so, such as if you bought real estate.

Cases with externalities like toxic dumping usually wind up in the criminal courts, but that really depends on if there was a pre-existing contract between the plaintiff & defendant.

reply on another page

102 sats \ 3 replies \ @SpaceHodler 27 Jan

It was first theorized by Rothbard, and elaborated on further by David Friedman.

Check out e.g. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

43 sats \ 1 reply \ @Louferlou 27 Jan

It's not even theorized it exists in the real world even in an awful socialist country like France. Les Tribunaux de Commerce ( Commercial Courts) which arbitrate disputes between companies and contracts, are already private.

You can very well imagine a world based on contracts rather than thousands of useless laws, arbitrated by private courts specified at the beginning, when the contract is signed. Except for criminal cases maybe everything can be private. And even for criminal affairs I'm sure the free market would find a way to deal with it of better quality compared to public courts.

125 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 27 Jan freebie

Thanks. When I said "it was theorized" I was referring more to criminal law, as that's what people usually think is the hardest to privatize.

There are also historical examples, like medieval Iceland.

reply on another page

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coyote_Cosmico 27 Jan

Awesome, thank you!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 28 Jan

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Everyday-Anarchy-Freedom-Stefan-Molyneux-ebook/dp/B004Z821GE/259-9655255-5732037

347 sats \ 0 replies \ @ealvar26 27 Jan

I've thought about this problem a lot and I think environmental damage is a uniquely good example of the need for regulation of the free market.

I realize the idea isn't perfect. But there is environmental damage that our technology doesn't have the means to fix. Therefore even if we punish wrongdoers we still end up with environmental damage.

Therefore I think there is a case for proactive measures, such as regulation, inspection and enforcement versus reactive measures like suing or jailing wrongdoers after the fact.

236 sats \ 2 replies \ @Lost_dogz 27 Jan

It may cripple the reputation in a location that could be 1000 miles away, 30 years from now and for a group that are not customers.

As one example, because of corporates like 3M, BASF and DuPont PFAS levels in rainwater everywhere, even in Antarctica(!), are now above levels considered safe for humans to drink. The people responsible, who knowingly took the decision to dump toxic waste, have retired as millionaires if not billionaires.

Free market incentives don't always work perfectly, and it's only realistic to acknowledge that externalization of costs to other places, times and groups is a problem

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @mf 28 Jan

Csn you give one such example that wasn't subsidized or backed up by the legal system?

As mentioned by someone else, reputation/honor of an individual or a business can be the key to it's success or rapid downfall. Specially today with information travelling at the speed of light, there is 0 chances anyone can do such sizable damage, even in the middle of nowhere, without someone recording the fact and spreading it around the planrt in 5 minutes.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lost_dogz 28 Jan

This has nothing to do with subsidies or a public legal system. Externalization of costs is a fundamental issue and is as old as time. Anyone who thinks honor outcompetes greed in humans has never lived in the real world.

Society had to suffer tens of thousands of early deaths and spend hundreds of millions on environmental, medical and epidemiological research to establish the links between PFAS, parkinson's disease and certain cancers, after a few decades. Multiple Big Chem CEO's knew this all along from their own research, yet choose to keep it quiet. Yet, even today when this is public information, the reputation of these companies doesn't suffer the slightest. And even if it would, a simple M&A or rebrand will fix it (e.g. Monsanto)

51 sats \ 1 reply \ @harrr 27 Jan

Sure, there are also more choices than "fully deregulated markets" and a planned economy.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lost_dogz 27 Jan

Couldn't agree more 👍

I also think there's a significant difference in what most of the world would call socialism vs what Americans (in particular libertarians) call socialism. At least in discussions I've had this has muddied the waters

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Louferlou 27 Jan

This is not possible in a world where private property is correctly unforced. If you pollute a river, you'll be sued by the farmers/fisherman/and all people downstream who will have suffer from your action. And you'll go to jail soon enough.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Lost_dogz 27 Jan

Ideally yes, but reality today is very very different

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Louferlou 27 Jan

Because we live in very socialist regimes. As long as you have a State spending more than 10% of the wealth produced, consider you live under a socialist regime.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies 27 Jan

Capitalism and free markets are very good at advancing positive externalities but that doesn't mean they can't solve negative externalities.

In the short term, yes, this can be remedied by central state power. But in the long term a central state is inefficient at solving it and in the long term it will be incentivized by individual economic actors to solve it better.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @398ja 28 Jan freebie

The moral philosopher and anarchist Stefan Molyneux writes about this specific problem in his book Everyday Anarchy. I've asked his AI engine to summarise his position, here's the output:

In a free society, the approach to dealing with environmental pollution would be rooted in the principles of property rights and voluntary exchange. Pollution can be seen as a violation of property rights, where one party's actions negatively impact another's property without consent. In such a society, there would be a strong legal framework that allows for the protection of property rights, including recourse for those harmed by pollution.

For instance, if a factory pollutes a river and the pollution negatively affects the property or health of individuals downstream, those individuals would have the right to seek damages and restitution through a court system that respects and enforces property rights. This would create a financial disincentive for polluters, as they would be held accountable for the costs of their actions.

Moreover, a free society would likely encourage the development of private solutions to environmental challenges. Entrepreneurs and businesses would have the incentive to innovate and create products or services that reduce pollution, as there would be a market demand for cleaner alternatives. This could include technological advancements that minimize emissions or more efficient waste management systems.

In addition, voluntary associations and non-profit organizations could play a role in monitoring environmental conditions and advocating for responsible practices. These organizations could be supported by individuals who are concerned about the environment and wish to contribute to its preservation.

Overall, the key to addressing environmental pollution in a free society is to ensure that property rights are upheld and that the costs of pollution are internalized by those who cause it, rather than externalized onto society or the environment.

2811 sats \ 8 replies \ @TomK 27 Jan

Part of my family came from East Germany, a socialist country. No one in their right mind or who has had this experience would ever want to spend a single day in such perverse conditions of ignorance, of artificial stultification by an encroaching state. The free market is the most sophisticated vehicle that human civilization has yet invented and implemented to articulate individual will and promote free decision-making. So far, nothing better is in sight. And no: the values that Bitcoin implies are not congruent with those that socialism entails. It's the opposite.

814 sats \ 3 replies \ @tomlaies 27 Jan

Part of my family came from East Germany, a socialist country. No one in their right mind or who has had this experience would ever want to spend a single day in such perverse conditions of ignorance, of artificial stultification by an encroaching state.

As a German too: EXACTLY.

American Champagne-socialists should just make a long vacation through eastern Europe. Talking to people who actually went through this. Look at the scars it made through society and individual people. How central planning first slowly and then accelerating faster and faster encroached on every part of life everywhere. It leads unstoppable to authoritarian oppression.

209 sats \ 2 replies \ @TomK 27 Jan

The young generation really has no idea what they're talking about. But with a little luck they will make their experience with this mental virus.

31 sats \ 1 reply \ @bief57 27 Jan

Socialism cannot be explained, you have to suffer it to understand, if you survive, what it is about. It is not worth arguing with soulless people who live in free countries, eat three times a day and support the left from their iPhone. Being a bitcoiner is the complete opposite of socialism.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK 27 Jan

Thank You. Clear and straight words on the biggest stink bomb men threw on men so far

56 sats \ 3 replies \ @davidw 27 Jan

Well said. Would love to hear more of a write-up from you and your family’s perspective if you can muster the motivation to share that.

121 sats \ 2 replies \ @TomK 27 Jan

I have thousands of little histories, from terrible border control to spy action, alcoholism and brutality within destroyed families for us. But also a lot of funny and crazy stuff about these years. Maybe I'll do something on this.

31 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 27 Jan

I would love hear more on your perspectives and experiences of your family. I think we need more real stories. The socialist pitch sounds so good to young people. The reality is far different. I'm planning on sharing some of my thoughts that this post spurred next week but I'm would rather hear from people that have real experience under full socialism.

The reality is that there are few truly socialist societies. Most are a mix of free market and social welfare. There are zero truly free societies. So we get into dumb arguments missing the broader point. Socialism is immoral. Free markets are amoral. Systematized theft will never lead to human flourishing.

378 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK 27 Jan

Nice of You that You ask for this. I will try to put some real memories of the 80s together, maybe a first blink into this epoch of our life tomorrow. In a way it was wild as we were living right beside a big buildibg where british soldiers of the occupation army were living under the constant threat of IRA attacks....

52 sats \ 2 replies \ @zarko 27 Jan

crime and violence is a sub-product of a fiat system and central banking

communities are dysfunctional because of bad education and bad incentives , society is dysfunctional BECAUSE of the state and its fiat systems

bitcoin is the Austrian economics in practice, which is the opposite of socialism

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @chairman_pretense 27 Jan

Not really. There was plenty of crime and violence when we had a gold standard and before central banks.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies 27 Jan

crime and violence is a sub-product of a fiat system and central banking

Not directly. Crime is a function of poverty. And poverty is the natural state of the human condition if humanity doesn't advance. With more capitalism and less central planning (includes central banking) we would have advanced beyond this point a long time ago before 2024.

53 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 27 Jan

The problem is that central planning has proven to be a catastrophic failure again and again. So if your plan depends on central planning it wont work, and it will cause massive human misery.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 27 Jan freebie

This is a point most miss. Many political figures avoid this topic. Even those that claim to value freedom. I think it is because they know that mentioning it erodes their power.

During the cold war Republicans build a massively centralize system while claiming to be anti communist. The truth is, some of the thought leaders of their movement were "former" communists. Actually they never fully rejected the idea of central planning. They just didn't take it as far as the USSR.

If they actually were intellectual convinced of the flaws in communism they would have realized that the USSR would fail under the weight of its own folly.

222 sats \ 1 reply \ @ealvar26 27 Jan

Wow thoughtful post and great title.

I also agree that tax is not theft. Everyone enjoys the benefit of public works, the military and civil service. If it were optional to pay for this we'd have tons of freeloaders and we would all suffer.

It's all about balance though. If there is too much taxation or redistribution then the whole economy breaks down and that's shit for everyone.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @_stacktoshi 27 Jan

“Balance” is the arbitrary root of all the evil we’ve let government get away with. You don’t think we have tons a freeloaders in the current system? If freeloading is your big concern, then what’s wrong with having competing private organizations sending a bill to those they serve? Regional border defense would just be handled by or contributed from your local security provider. It’s in their long term economic interest to defend against other security providers unjustly taking their property and patronage. They would pass that cost onto those they served, and most would use that service because who really wants to fend off home invaders or have their shit stolen? Fire departments could be paid by insurance companies. Do you think you’d be able to freeload on your neighbors insurance? Maybe to some extent you’d be able to get by for a period of time, but your neighborhood would eventually burn down and many hard lessons would be learned after a while.

145 sats \ 1 reply \ @beorange 27 Jan

No problem, you are entitled your opinion and free to think the way you think, it is a valid point.

However, no matter how good your intentions are, it doesn't means the system will work. There are plenty of examples of how it fails (both historically and nowadays).

The intentions are good... the results not always.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ealvar26 27 Jan

Definitely true but I'm not sure that absolves us of designing and maintaining effective systems when there is a need for them. I believe this example of environmental regulation fits this case and there is a lot of historical and contemporary evidence to support this.

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK 27 Jan

https://m.stacker.news/13920

37 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko 27 Jan

Why do you hate the global poor?

125 sats \ 6 replies \ @justanumber 27 Jan

Tax is not theft. It is doing your part in helping society as a whole. It’s the only way to make sure people will get access to basic needs. The more you make, the more you pay because it has less of an impact. I don’t believe it’s fair for anyone to hoard value and not give anything in return to society. I am wealthy and I have no problem to pay taxes.

Oh boy, where to start? Tell that to people who live in countries that are working hard to feed their family and pay minimum 50% tax plus all the double/triple dipping, goods and services tax, property tax, car tax, fines for not paying said tax, inflation the biggest tax of all. It goes on and on, click here for a comprehensive US list

The problem is when the state takes our taxes, plus all their counterfeit money that they printed, and give it to themselves, to the arms companies et al to fund endless war and corruption, big pharma, big ag, big corps, meanwhile there is rampant poverty, failing education sector, run down health services, underfunded public services societal collapse and the rest...

Socialism is an ideology that may seem virtuous and sensible, when sold in a certain way, but fails to work because the the very ones professing to implement it have no intention of being fair and equitable. It's fairy tale land.

It could be worth some more research on your part.

41 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln 27 Jan

You never seem to have lived in a functioning socialist country. I have. Plenty of wealthy people in those +50% countries have no problem paying such tax. Its a hard thing to comprehend for the American mind.

Sorry if i incorrectly assume you to be American.

I agree though on the hidden tax that is inflation. Its one of the reasons i support Bitcoin. Without being libertarian. I applaud OP for coming up for his beliefs. Bitcoin is apolitical.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justanumber 28 Jan

https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/the-religion-of-statism

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justanumber 27 Jan

What about the corruption and bankers wars? If they can print trillions and trillions out of thin air backed by nothing to fund endless war, then why the heck to we need to pay tax?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justanumber 27 Jan

I'm not American. I just put that link in there as it was the first list with shed load of tax examples that came up so I didn't have to sit there thinking of a gazillion examples of how governments screw over the little guy all day & every day of their lives. How does that saying go? Only one thing certain in life: death and taxes.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Conega OP 27 Jan

It does not matter what names you bring on taxes. Most people that have a decent job would be able to pay all those taxes. Taxes in the US used to be alot higher in the '70, and so was the standard of living. You could afford a home on a single paycheck.

Look at the scandinavian countries. They have the most happy people living there, and also very left policies.

it's cheaper to get everyone basic needs than to have this huge law and order burden that isn't actually helping anyone

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 27 Jan

So if you have a surplus of cash but I need some cash it is not theft for me to take it from you?

I can accept someone saying taxes are a necessary evil for a modern society but if you don't recognize that they are collected by coercion and have no reasoning you can express in defense. We are at an impasse.

60 sats \ 2 replies \ @TheBTCManual 27 Jan

In your view, how would a socialist state work under a Bitcoin standard? If there is no debt issuance, you have consumption tax on goods and services like VAT, income tax, capital gains which isn't likely going to be enough given the way governments operate, living within constraints is a foreign concept to governments who have enjoyed fiat for so long.

While anything can be tried, I think a socialist policy won't get very far under a hard money standard

Bitcoin is for everyone of course, and If you feel and others with your opinion think your government is the best place for your capital to be put to work, by all means, pay taxes, fund them by buying bonds, and let the market go to work.

Others who feel governments aren't good capital allocators can turn to the private sector for goods and services and those that wish to wait and decide what to do with their capital should be able to do that too

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ealvar26 27 Jan

This is an interesting question. Probably a state that is restricted enough to be considered socialist will never "work" in the long run imo.

But I can't see why it wouldn't be theoretically possible? Right I mean they just couldn't print money but that isn't a core definition of socialism.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 27 Jan

Yes in theory and for a short period of time it is possible, before the money dries up, the government would also need to compete with private options, which isn't going to be easy either, so they would need to pick their battles and maybe that makes for a smaller healthier entity that focuses on things private markets in that country have yet to figure out

But I think you'd really need the buy-in from the citizens which I don't think is possible

166 sats \ 1 reply \ @FallingD02 27 Jan

Bitcoin is power and freedom for the common people and communism is the destruction of power and the condemnation of the poor of the common people... But it is something that you do not understand until you live it, if you have never lived in communism, but have lived in Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela, for me you don't even have a small idea of what communism is... Beyond the cheap propaganda that the communists talk about and the supposed equality of opportunities for all. Which never exists, there is only equal difficulties for everyone, the only beneficiaries in a socialist model are those in power, senior officials and government officials... Furthermore, it is a lack of respect that you want to connect or associate with bitcoin, which is the greatest tool of freedom that has ever existed for humanity with socialism, which is one of the greatest plagues that creates misfortune and poverty in the world. If you are a defender of socialist ideas you do not deserve to use bitcoin

131 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 27 Jan

Socialism != Communism

I live in South Korea. A capitalist country with several socialist policies in place. We are very different from our communist neighbors in the north.

Nuance is key, in any discussion.

The beauty is that you do not get to decide who deserves to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not care about your political views.

216 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 27 Jan

I believe in socialism Tax is not theft

If stupidity would hurt we would hear a lot of people on the street screaming of pain

181 sats \ 2 replies \ @ealvar26 27 Jan

This is a poor argument in my opinion against the case.

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @FallingD02 27 Jan

The worst thing is that he claims to sympathize with Socialism, but he does it from a country where things work... If you like Socialism, go to Cuba and live there day to day with your family, or go to Venezuela and not the capitals. , you go to another city far from the capital and feel the true socialist feeling... Don't come to me and shout praises to socialism when you live somewhere in the world where what you know about socialism you have seen on TV (silly box) or on the Internet or in a book. Come to a truly socialist country and live it. We will talk in 10 years to see if you still think the same, and now really having a solid basis to be able to build your defensive argument against one of the greatest Plagues of humanity "Socialism". And I know that if you live it and are a thinking and awake being you will never believe in Socialism in your life...

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 27 Jan

I agree, many failed countries are socialist.

Yet, if OP lives in a country that works which happens to have a majority of socialist policies, doesn't that give him the right to believe in socialist policies?

In such a scenario, the reason those countries are failed countries might not be solely because of socialism.

Cuba is communist. That's not socialism.

Many Latin American countries are socialist. The current status of those countries is mostly due to the American Military-Industrial Complex. They never stood a chance. Destroyed at every turn by the CIA.

Anyhow. Nuance is key in any discussion. We would probably have much in common in a different setting.

159 sats \ 5 replies \ @davidw 27 Jan freebie

I’m curious, do you not have 2 completely conflicting beliefs here?

The act of paying

I believe Bitcoin is a fair form of ownership. It can’t and should not be stolen by anyone including government.

I don’t believe it’s fair for anyone to hoard value and not give anything in return to society.

Question 1

So if the government can’t take your taxes, taxes become voluntary, or at least a far smaller expense… how do you enforce them being paid?
If the most productive people always want to minimise their expenses, they want to invest more of their tax savings into new technologies and innovations that push us forward, not subsidising stranger’s lives. How do you stop brain drain from leaving that jurisdiction? It’s happened every other place socialism has been tried.
How would you as king 039b see to it that everyone pays their “fair share” if bitcoin should never be extorted or stolen?
Or if it were more voluntary, could you not just create a company/charity and offer employment and those things to others yourself?

Attainable Standards of Living

I believe in socialism. I have a strong belief that society will work the best when everyone has able to at least have access to basic need such as food, a home, education and healthcare.

Tax is not theft. It is doing your part in helping society as a whole. The more you make, the more you pay because it has less of an impact.

Question 2

When you say access, do you also mean free? Or just that they are attainable?
Bitcoin will see to it that those things are cheaper and anyone of ability can earn bitcoin and obtain those standards. So why the need for handouts?

93 sats \ 4 replies \ @Conega OP 27 Jan

You simply have to pay tax by law.
Brain drain does not happen to great extent. Many companys will stay in a environment that helps thair business. This includes good infrastructure, educated people, good envorinment.
Tax evation is a problem. It already is, and mainy big companys have good ways of hiding tex obligations. It should just be a punnishable crime as it is today.
Tax is not voluntary. Just as stopping ad a red light. Nobody foced me to stop, but I will be caught eventually

Perhaps affordable is a better word. For the median income.
Because people will make mistakes, or simple will have bad luck that will get them in a situation they they need help. It's also far cheaper to help them then to punnish them endlessly

105 sats \ 2 replies \ @davidw 27 Jan

Thanks for replying. Helps me understand the vision & perspective of socialism.

Brain drain will always happen, if taxes are prohibitively expensive.

If they are 10% or less, the costs of evading or finding creative means of avoiding paying would not be favourable. It may just be cheaper to pay.

But I would find it hard to believe that you could achieve the standards of living you describe for all, with a 10% flat tax.

This is why in my opinion, socialism is unsustainable. When people get more and more of their life subsidised, they expect greater handouts over time, thus raising the need for higher taxes and incentivising companies and productive people to flee. Especially now those creative people can earn an incredible wage in any worldwide location.

Bitcoin achieves the same aims of socialism just by making everything else affordable again. Just like going into the 1940s and 1950s. People’s wages could easily cover a modest house.

https://m.stacker.news/13906

110 sats \ 1 reply \ @ealvar26 27 Jan

Interesting case! Wouldn't it be cool to know an "optimum taxation level" but I guess there's a billion variables and we may never.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @davidw 27 Jan

My view is we would get it if we had not just a few hundred countries but a few hundred thousand or even millions of ‘countries’ or territories.

Experiments like these would be commonplace, all with competing policies and rates of taxation. You could statistically measure the optimal rate.

Having as much choice for your country as you would when buying your car in the world. Governance can be better when it acts in private interests not public interests and acts more like a business, competing on the open market.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justanumber 27 Jan freebie

who says you have to pay tax by law? I guess it would depend on which country you are living in. I've seen a few people make good cases for different countries that it is actually not law and it is optional - just that everyone assumes it's law.

298 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies 27 Jan

I can't make sense of how these things fit together.

Is your only ideology being vengeful against those that are currently successful?

That's not a coherent ideology, that's emotions. Or to me, a libertarian/neoliberal capitalist, it doesn't sound coherent.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @TwoLargePizzas 28 Jan

The problem with socialism has never been the theoretical ideology. Nobody is arguing that people shouldn't have food, education or healthcare.

The problem with socialism is implementation. When the ideology is faced against economic reality it simply doesn't work. It's impossible to give value and resources to someone without taking them from someone else. You can't create food or housing out of thin air. It will always require some amount of time and energy from someone else.

In theory, if some people in society are willing to give up some of their time, energy and resources to provide for others then you might have a form of socialism that works. People like this do exist, mostly at the family level but it gets much more difficult at the society level.

The only way humans have found to implement socialism at the society level is through the threat of violence and theft. Mechanically taxation is no different from theft because you don't have a choice regardless of how you feel about it. Your value is taken from you weather you like it or not. It's no different now than it was when the kings mean rode up to you on a horse pointing a sword in your face.

But here's the worst part. I would say most people are okay with the idea of paying some amount to provide for others. That's what they think their taxes are doing. Unfortunately, that's not really how it works. Most of your taxes are not going to the people who need it most. Corruption, incompetence, bureaucracy and inflation have made it so that more than half of the time and energy you spend goes to people who don't deserve it.

In short, it does not matter if you believe in socialism if there's no way to actually implement it fairly.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Louferlou 27 Jan

This is seriously unbelievable to still believe that socialism brings all what you cheer for. Seriously think again harder, and think again, and again.

Tax is theft by definition, and you can't build a prosperous and peaceful society based on violence and parasitism... You socialist are a true 1984 meme, war is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength, and theft is a gift...

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @mf 28 Jan

Mechanisms and support programs for those unable to earn their living can be achived by voluntary contribution, as we can see in more free contries. The more people keep to themselves, the more they have to help others. This socialist mumbo jumbo about helping everyone is just a big fat lie to excuse the extration of wealth from everyone. There is nothing that justifies taking from someone coercively, NOTHING. You are literaly legitimizing theft, regardless of your own "good" reasons. I may have parents that are dirt poor and that would be far better with a house that has no mice running around eating the food and spreading sickness. But that DOES NOT justify me going out and start stealing everyone, possible depriving those from eating, just so I can give my parents a better living. What your logic seems to fail to recognize, is that all these issues that socialism propaganda aims to solve, are the very problems the itself perpetuates. More theft, more poverty. More poverty, more violence. More subsidies, more lowering of the standards. More lowering of the standards, less productiveness. Less productiveness, less wealth. Less wealth, more poverty. More poverty, more problems to solve. More problems to solve, more socialism "is needed". Rinse and repeat. Look at north korea, look at africa, look at ALL countries that embraced socialism. It ALWAYS ends up in a big wealth honey pot waiting for somone with the power of the pen to take over it and do whatever it feels right. No central governance is god-like to understand or know the needs of every single individual, specially on a large scale.

5 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 27 Jan

I am wealthy and I have no problem to pay taxes.

Good for you. Have you ever looked long and hard at how your tax money is being used? Would you donate that money to a cause you were at moral odds with? Would you donate that money to an organization that misused funds, killed people, and performed actions you find morally reprehensible? If you have looked at how the state uses your tax dollars and have no issues with it, can you see why others from different backgrounds, religious beliefs or even priorities would have issues with how their tax dollars are used?

If the state is so good at distributing wealth why shouldn't we have them make our food, entertainment, and services? Think about this really. I'm not trying to dunk on you.

2 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 27 Jan

There is a very insidious problem in wealthy nations regarding how their tax dollars are used. I have always got the sense that the wealthy believe they are "paying their fair share" by paying their taxes. Its like, I've done my part for those with disabilities, victims of abuse, and the poor. The state takes care of them or they just need more money to do so. Many ignore that fact that just like everything else the state does, it SUCKs at helping those that need it most. From where I sit, the state has made things worse, not better for those in need.

If we had a society where tax was voluntary the state would be forced to compete with charities that were led by people driven by the desire to help people. If you operate a charity in the US you have to raise funds. There are crooked charities but when they are exposed the fail or at least they feel the pain of losing funds. The state doesn't have this signal. When is the last time a government program was actually shut down 100%? I can't think of one. I mean they aren't even cut. At the most they cut the rate of increase in budget year over year. Instead of a 10% increase they get a 8% increase. And politicians call that a cut.

The truth is, the state uses force to monopolize certain function that the private sector would do a far better job with. I am not saying that the state doesn't help some people. I know people that have been helped by gov programs. What I am saying is that on the whole the state kills and destroys far more than it builds up. The people, (private citizens) would and have done a far better job helping people than the state.

2 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 28 Jan

How do you enforce taxation on a bitcoin standard, if no-one complies? You can't inflate the currency, you don't have access to their seed words.

36 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 27 Jan

How do you separate money from state and also have the state control the means of production?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @justanumber 28 Jan

Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion

3 sats \ 0 replies \ @TwoLargePizzas 28 Jan

Thanks. That was a great way to spend 12 minutes while I drank my coffee this morning.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @StoneCodlHodl 27 Jan

We all KNOW Bitcoin is superior to any Fiat or human devised economic scheme. As you point out it's also impossible to confiscate, if you take the time to learn to secure it in this way. There is no need to "Believe", because it is as true as math - absolutely provable. Any Bitcoiner who thinks they are socialist; have some real soul searching and thinking to do.

To "Believe" in Socialism means you believe in MAN. Man, particularly groups of men (and women), are easily manipulated through incentives (and blackmail) against the populace. You can only base belief in Socialism if your emotions are based on the hope for an impossible Utopia. And you suspend all knowledge that men are corruptible, greedy, lazy, and/or thirst for influence and power.

Tax is theft. You are taking that which is not yours to do possibly against the will of the owner an earner. There is no deep reasoning or logic puzzle as to why criminals are criminals; they simply choose what seems to them as the easy path, consistently - at risk of consequence. Any crime problem exists only because the punishment isn't terrifying enough.

I'll spend what ever treasure, and bitcoin, I can achieve in my life working for human freedom. I'll even fund and purchase tools to undermine, destroy, and even kill a non-freedom agenda. :^) Have a happy weekend!

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @_stacktoshi 27 Jan

Ever consider that there are other ways to achieve the same end of everyone having their basic needs met? Charitable giving in the United States is much higher than most of the world last time I checked, and that’s partly due to the fact that we’re less socialist, although headed your way day by day.

Let’s say the government and taxes disappeared everywhere overnight. Do you really think former taxpayers who were net contributors and who now had a surplus of savings wouldn’t feel any obligation to those around them to have fallen on hard times? Would there even be hard times with this unleashed capital and economic freedom? Let the difference of charitable giving between our countries be your guide.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 18 Mar

“I am wealthy and I have no problem to pay taxes.”

Tone deaf

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 28 Jan

https://m.stacker.news/13969

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @netstatic 28 Jan

I believe in socialism. I have a strong belief that society will work the best when everyone has able to at least have access to basic need such as food, a home, education and healthcare.

What defined basic needs? Is it stale bread, a shack, a pre-k education, and the ability to see a doctor once a year? I can guarantee there will always be conflict determining this.

Also is it right to enact socialism only amongst one country/society like the US? If the means of production will get forcefully seized by the state for the greater good, what's to stop this line of thinking from growing to encompass the world in an effort for benevolent colonization?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Entrep 28 Jan

I'm more a strong believer of Bitcoin over that of society because society is plague by a need that goes beyond greed such that hypothetically speaking an even society will never exist

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullama 28 Jan

Bitcoin has no vote

The Nakamoto Consensus does have voting involved, and it's a key component of Bitcoin.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 27 Jan

What if I share your vision for people having their needs met but disagree with how it is being done by the state?
What if the state is taking my money by force and wasting it on many things that make the problems worse?
What if we could have a world where state provided services had to compete with private charities for money/support?
What if taxes weren't theft but were voluntary? I wonder how that would affect prosperity, giving to the needy, and the size of the state?

None of these questions are new. They are logical questions that one would ask had they stopped assuming that the state is not a god.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SaToSHiWoMaN 4 Mar outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.