Who's really more radical, a statist or an anarchist? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Who's really more radical, a statist or an anarchist?

675 sats \ 12 comments \ @javier 21 Oct bitcoin

Recently, Saylor said that crypto anarchists are paranoid, and defends the state and regulations.

But my question is: who is more radical - someone fighting for freedom and responsibility for everyone or the one who sneakily takes a chunk of your hard-earned cash through taxes and tightly tries to control every aspect of your private life?

Let's break it down. The first person believes in giving power back to individuals, letting them decide what's best for their lives without interference from a central gang of phycos. How can this be radical? Doesn't it makes sense? Isn't it fully moral and (should be) normal?

On the other hand, we have someone who relies on force and coercion and extreme violence (even war) through robbery (taxation) and regulation to gain and maintain control. And they do so meticulously that it can be considered pure paranoia. They might not be seen as "radicals", but that's a pretty extreme stance if you ask me!

Have we not been brainwashed to believe in something that is actually extremely immoral and senseless? Isn't the government the real radical paranoid thing here?

view all related items

42 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 21 Oct

Saylor met his own definition because he self-custodies.

Keep in mind the numbers his media does are from boomers. He's cast as the credible billionaire to let these boomers know its ok to be "risk averse" and have price exposure through institutions tools.

Anarchists with their eyes open recognize that the state is a product of anarchy, and just because you may not like it any more than a leftist likes guns, they will always exist and other people will use them against you, so you must defend yourself.

Institutions are the guns boomers know and that's how they defend themselves, in numbers.

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @javier OP 21 Oct

Saylor met his own definition because he self-custodies.

I don't know what do you mean by that, but in literal terms he doesn't self-custody, he has his BTC on an exchange.

Anarchists with their eyes open recognize that the state is a product of anarchy, and just because you may not like it any more than a leftist likes guns, they will always exist and other people will use them against you, so you must defend yourself.

The proper product of anarchy is natural justice, or natural law, which is very simple: you must respect the private properties of others (including their bodies) otherwise you pay for the damages. There is really nothing more to say. No governement or additional rules are needed, except perhaps derived ones from that one, always respecting the spirit.

I sincerely think than anything more than that is agression, and in the case of govs it is extreme aggression, which is not tolerable.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 21 Oct

he has his BTC on an exchange

Sauce on that? When he first came on the scene he appeared with NYDIG re: bespoke custody, not that I'd be surprised if he keeps his eggs in multiple baskets, which is still self-directed and not cucked to the state anymore than not having custody of your own nuclear submarine.

proper product of anarchy is natural justice

Only a statist could state what product is "proper", you're simply confused as to what anarchism is and projecting your virtue of the non-aggression principle. My ideal is the NAP too, but that's not what natural law is. Natural law is an apex force, that apex force may subscribe to the NAP, but in pretty much every case it doesn't and that's why states evolved, to homogenize force. The state is the end result of natural law, just like a gun, whether you like it or not.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @javier OP 21 Oct

Sauce on that? When he first came on the scene he appeared with NYDIG re: bespoke custody, not that I'd be surprised if he keeps his eggs in multiple baskets, which is still self-directed and not cucked to the state anymore than not having custody of your own nuclear submarine.

He said it several times in his first videos back in 2020-2021. The main (and probably only) provider is Coinbase. Haven't you see the trend of today?

Only a statist could state what product is "proper", you're simply confused as to what anarchism is and projecting your virtue of the non-aggression principle. My ideal is the NAP too, but that's not what natural law is. Natural law is an apex force, that apex force may subscribe to the NAP, but in pretty much every case it doesn't and that's why states evolved, to homogenize force. The state is the end result of natural law, just like a gun, whether you like it or not.

The confused is yourself. Anarchy just means no government. It doesn't mean there is no justice, which can be of course private. Police can be private too. The NAP is the only properly moral system which is compatible with anarchy. NAP is the natural moral law, there are other natural laws too like the law of phisics. Here is a definition I wrote several years ago (excuse the translation from Spanish):

You are responsible and liable to fairly compensate for objective damages caused to the property of others except when there is a voluntary mutual agreement in full knowledge of the conditions and risks.

Another more passive form:

You have the right to free use of your property and agreement with other beings, as long as it is voluntary and in full knowledge of the conditions and risks, and if not, you would be fairly responsible and liable to compensate them.

The libertariam form:

You have the right to private property, to compensation for damage, and to fair, informed and voluntary contracting with other owners, as well as the obligation to use it without violating the property of others.

Even an spiritual form:

Love and let love with knowledge and wisdom, take responsibility for your mistakes and demand responsibility from others with complete justice.

So you choose the form you like. They all mean the same.

And yes it is natural, because the totality of humans understand it, even retarded. And we have the instinct to it. We can violate it because we have an ego with an intellect that can decide to violate it, but it is always inside us. It is what make us able to distinguish between good and bad, and it is the same in all cultures and all times.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 21 Oct

main (and probably only) provider is Coinbase

I don't recall nor have I seen any documentation saying he primarily uses coinbases, spook odell isn't a source.

Anarchy just means no government.

Is there one-world government? or is the world one giant anarchic system?

Police can be private too

Police are already private, you can stop paying them at any time, but you stop getting their protection. You can also start your own security org, give that a try and let me know how that works out.

If you'll put down the virtue signals for a moment, you'll realize that anarchy is just infinite governments. If you want to be a government of 1, good luck with that.

Having rights doesn't mean you can enforce them. The NAP is an ideal to be strived for, but is not of this earth at least so far, so self-congratulating anarchists are just virtue-signaling and equally ridiculous and impractical as gun-grabbing communists.

22 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 21 Oct

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 Oct

armchair critic

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @jddska 21 Oct

Taxes are theft, the govt does not follow its own rules, they have special priviledges to rob, fraud and murder while everyone else can't. They are radical, those jacobines.