Seems like this old fella has some decent advisors on bitcoin. Good for him. Too bad the rest of his platform is basically "big gubmint is bad, mmkay".
To any libertarians around, have you stopped to consider that if Bitcoin significantly challenges the economic power of governments by providing an alternative to fiat currencies, then taxation would become an even more crucial method of government financing?
While you ponder that question, a bit of advice:
US politics are just a part of the global stage, especially when discussing something as universally impactful as Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is aiming to be a true world currency, transcending national boundaries, **then it's crucial for Americans to broaden their political perspectives**.
edit: I get that my words may bruise some egos, I know it's a hard pill to swallow that there is a world beyond your borders with relevant political ideas, but do try to make a humble effort to entertain the idea that yes, your world view might have gotten a couple of things wrong. Or you know, downvote me in silence like a coward.
How did anything you just said conflict with the message of "big government bad?" What political perspectives need to be broadened? Are suggesting becoming open to a singular world government with all your transcending national boundaries talk?
Because government size is a stupid metric to try and set any goals towards.
Where do you draw the line for appropriate size? Full on anarchy? Roads and infrastructure? Public safety? Industry regulation? Healthcare?
Sure a government should be fiscally responsible. But that is very different than minimizing government spending at all cost.
> Are suggesting becoming open to a singular world government with all your transcending national boundaries talk?
Not at all. Are you suggesting Satoshi Nakamoto is actually George Soros? I think your tin foil hat is malfunctioning.
You draw a line by forcing the government into having a balanced budget. As long as they can print money they can spend money on whatever they want. When all government income has to be taxed they will be forced to only spend on things that are worthwhile. We don't need to demarcate every single specific thing that should or should not be managed by the government. If the budget is limited the control is limited and the government is forced to prioritize spending.
You're the one making vague references to transcending national boundaries. Asking clarifying questions on that is fitting.
And I'm a proud card carrying member of the "they can all go fuck themselves" party. My answer to your dumb question about what size government is appropriate will always be the same. Less.
I'm not making any vague references. It might come as a shock to you but the internet and bitcoin already transcend national boundaries. I'm just asking Americans like you to get up to speed with their thinking.
Lol, you're still not getting it. Clarify that comment then. If I'm dumb for asking if what you mean is Americans moving into accepting a singular world government, then what thought processes exactly do Americans need to get up to speed on?
Well, let me provide some bullet points:
* DRAMATICALLY expand your Overton window
* Abolish the two party election system
* Demand a direct voting system
* Demand some real fucking change
* Quit acting as world police while you wreak havok around the world to protect your own interests.
* Realize you're as bad as Russia or China, except your performative elections are a little more elaborate.
It can fit. The thing is, a lot else can too. I'm merely asking to CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS that lie outside the fucking dogmas you live by.
You know, things like universal healthcare, free education and industry regulation, I'm URGING you not to be so quick in discarding that in your quest for a streamlined budget sheet.
I just want a very minimal government that Calvin Coolidge envisioned, and that's DRASTICALLY different from the spending of government today.
āI would not want to be misunderstood. I am not advocating parsimony. I want to be liberal. Public service is entitled to a suitable reward. But there is a distinct limit to the amount of public service we can profitably employ. We require national defense, but it must be limited. We need public improvements, but they must be gradual. We have to make capital investments, but they must be certain to give fair returns. Every dollar expended must be made in the light of all our national resources and all our national needs.ā -- Calvin Coolidge
Source: āMeeting Of The Business Organization Of The Government,ā on June 30, 1924. As found in The Mind of the President.
> have you stopped to consider that if Bitcoin significantly challenges the economic power of governments by providing an alternative to fiat currencies, then taxation would become an even more crucial method of government financing?
Taxation is still better than the printing press so why would considering this cause libertarians to change any of our positions? Further libertarians, including Ron Paul, point out that government spending is the best measure of the government's size and what we aim ultimately to reduce, and that fighting one source of funding or another is a matter of tactics to that end.
> Taxation is still better than the printing press so why would considering this cause libertarians to change any of our positions?
You're interpreting my meaning wrong. I'm merely pointing out that having bitcoin replace fiat can happen with either a "small" or "big" government (whatever the fuck that even means). In other words, I'm urging you to carefully consider what roles should a proper functional government perform before mindlessly campaigning to minimize it's spending. Because as I said elsewhere, it's a shit metric for government quality.
> (whatever the fuck that even means).
If you don't know what it means maybe you're not the most qualified person to be providing analysis of it.
> In other words, I'm urging you to carefully consider what roles should a proper functional government perform before mindlessly campaigning to minimize it's spending.
You're saying this to a group of autists who've written volumes, literally millions of words analyzing and arguing about that exact thing.
> If you don't know what it means maybe you're not the most qualified person to be providing analysis of it.
Maybe you should read less stuff written by "autists". This expression if often used to signify that something is *poorly defined*, and not necessarily *poorly understood* as you seem to have interpreted it.
> You're saying this to a group of autists who've written volumes, literally millions of words analyzing and arguing about that exact thing.
And yet most of these words were written by Americans who share the same inherent bias. After all, as my downvotes show, most of you are quick to disregard political opinions of non-americans on these subjects, as if our lack of *American exceptionalism* prevents us from even understanding how your utopia works. And nevermind the hypocrisy of doing so while [also doing shit like this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change).
Might be a surprise to you, but the USA is not a libertarian state/government.
Libertarianism does not equal "Team 'Murica Fuck Yeah!"
Libertarianism has roots going back to Europe...not the former colony turned World Police.
I'm not blaming anything on anarcho-capitalism, just saying the american libertarian ideal is pretty much one step from it. Not that any of them were actually in place at any time.
What I think is delusional is thinking that minimizing goverment in what is pretty much an oligarchy at this point would do the average joe any good. Sure, let's get rid of the middleman an let corporations rule us directly!
I think you'd be the one to be surprised if you stopped to compare the differences between the classic European brand and the American one.
It's not just the corn syrup, the flavor is more... anacho-capitalisty.
> This expression if often used to signify that something is poorly defined
Even so in my view your assertion reflects on your familiarity with the material more than on any real lack in libertarian discourse.
Whether you're American or not has no bearing on my evaluation of your opinion. I also think it perfectly demonstrates your familiarity with libertarianism for you to link that article in connection with this discussion of libertarian discourse, even if you're not blaming libertarians in particular. It really just sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder about Americans.
Oh I absolutely have a chip on my shoulder about Americans.
I guarantee you, the justification for it being there is quite strong.
See, you're as bad as Russia or China. You just like pretending you're the "world police". Everyone thinks they're the good guys, right?
And every four goddamn years the same vitriol. Arguing about whatever bullshit predefined topics were chosen for you to distract yourself with while you continue to manufacture the bombs and the emergency aid for the bombed. And yeah... a night-watchman state with fuck-all regulations for sure will improve this bleak fucking world we live in, right?
Right. Then they would have to admit and legislate new taxation instead of stealing our money like they do now with inflation. Then they will have to actually raise taxes when they want to engage in a new forever war. That's a good thing.
I absolutely love this argument. It honestly makes me pissed we even still have to pay taxes considering the government will never stop printing money to fulfill its debts. I mean, I understand why taxes exist, and I appreciate this country, but it really feels like the government is taking our cake and eating it right in front of our faces.
Fix the money, fix the society. Itās no coincidence weāre surrounded by forever wars while under a fiat system.
Yes, that's the idea, regarding government financing at least.
Unfortunately, as it is common with most politicians, these ideas often come bundled with others. And those are the ones I'd like people to be a little bit more attentive towards. Sure some may sound good on paper, but trust me, a lot of them are outright against your interests or will cause more misery to others than you anticipate.
I'm sure he's all kinds of great. Nothing against him in particular. Just think American politics is *very* right-wing biased and most of you would benefit to educate more on what else is out there. Also, seeing any particular political ideology make claims on Bitcoin is kinda of a pet peeve of mine.
Not sure where your comment is coming from. Ron Paul in this video doesn't claim bitcoin. I agree with you that bitcoin doesn't serve any ideology but bitcoin does align in particular with Ron Paul because he's a sound money Austrian economics guy.
i appreciate your observational insight and as a fellow astroturf is everywhere skeptic i do the same thing. still not sure i see it here right now but i appreciate it nonetheless.
taxation Right Now is not a "crucial method of government financing" lol - we are 36 trillion dollars in debt and that number is rising every day. get a clue.
You're very confidently incorrect.
Total US Federal revenue last year was **over 4 trillion fucking dollars**. With just income taxes being over a trillion.
In comparison, your national debt grew a little more than 2 trillion in the same period.
Seems pretty fucking crucial to me.
okay double down on being completely wrong haha - we can never tax ourselves out of our current and growing debt, its mathematically impossible without taking everything from everyone.
Ron Paul did make a very insightful suggestion about Bitcoin back in the day that it shouldn't be subjected to too much regulation and taxation.
You mentioned that this was 10 years ago, and as time has passed, we can see that bitcoin and the cryptocurrency industry as a whole has really gone through a lot of ups and downs and regulatory changes.
Man, he should've been president. Aside from bc.. The man had (still has) dignity, intelligence and values. Couldn't be bought or bothered with left or right bullshit agendas.
Y'all should've voted for this guy.
"Shouldnt be taxed?" The most pandering thing ever. If you make money, you get taxed. Thats how it works. Theres a million subtle differences, but everyone should be taxed when they make real money.
What a piss poor qualification for money. You seem to have an elementary mindset on monetary principles. Better monies than the government controlled and manipulated one that you're used to, do exist. And they get spent everyday.
By holding BTC my goal is to maintain value or conserve that economic energy. If the value of the dollar goes down compared to bitcoin, why am I penalized via a tax. Yes, BTC is increasing in value do to adoption and innovation at the moment but ultimately it should find a balance. There should be some way to get out of the inflationary model but current tax system doesn't allow anyone to actually save money (fairly). Invest it and pay your taxes or become poor.
youre taxed when you sell. If you held gold youd be taxed too on your profits. You dont get a magical exemption, youre not special. Why should i pay taxes on my investments but you dont?
Settle down dude, just having some conversation. I'm using "me" as an example here. My point would be the same for gold. People are using gold to hold value against an inflating dollar that is losing value. My argument is that i'm not making money, the money is worth less (i.e. I can buy less goods) so i'm not any richer. So why should I (or we) be taxed if no value was gained?
"Settle down dude" not a good way to try and continue your conversation.
All things inflate, including my stocks, im paying taxes on that extra inflation. So ill stick with my point of everyone has to pay taxes because we live in a society.
I agree we have to pay taxes. I disagree with what we pay taxes on. Stocks, yes. When you invest in a company that creates or provides value to a consumer and in turn makes a profit there is real monetary value created. I'll happily pay taxes on that. Income, sure I agree taxes. But if I buy a brick of gold, and its worth double next year because the dollar lost half its value due to government printing, why should I pay taxes on that? Nothing about that brick changed.
Its still an investment whether or not its generating value. And youre not just paying taxes on the part of an investment thats generating income. You also pay taxes on the part that got inflated.
A stock could have no change in revenue but is up exactly matching inflation, thats taxed.
Ron Paul is a g.
Too bad about his son
Why?
His son is more into big-government than his dad. And more conservative than for Libertarianism.
Not only that but he's in bed with Putin. Scumbag.
Legend!
Only person I've ever been proud to vote for president. sad.
Ron Paul. The president we needed, but never had.
They wiped him clean of any news coverage during his presidential campaigns. š
Heavier the more you think about it š
Referencing Hayek before it was cool.
Selmas always been cool
'hot', I think you mean?
I loved going to his ralliesā¦ amazing and charismatic speaker with so much heart.
Look at us now.
Ron Paul did cure me from leftism when I was a stupid teenager. If nothing else, I will always be grateful for that.
Lol itās funny this gets downvoted , classic Reddit
Itās polluted with mouth breathing liberals here are you surprised lol
Downvotes, you know, for things that don't add to the conversation. rofl.
I downvoted you trying to be funnier
I down voted you trying to be a dbag.
The dollar is under attackā¦and not just by foreign actorsā¦
US had their chance to do the right thing. And as usual, they fucked it up.
Paul is MY president. He was robbed.
I bet he is a whole coiner
Would be sad if he never owned any bitcoin
Seems like this old fella has some decent advisors on bitcoin. Good for him. Too bad the rest of his platform is basically "big gubmint is bad, mmkay". To any libertarians around, have you stopped to consider that if Bitcoin significantly challenges the economic power of governments by providing an alternative to fiat currencies, then taxation would become an even more crucial method of government financing? While you ponder that question, a bit of advice: US politics are just a part of the global stage, especially when discussing something as universally impactful as Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is aiming to be a true world currency, transcending national boundaries, **then it's crucial for Americans to broaden their political perspectives**. edit: I get that my words may bruise some egos, I know it's a hard pill to swallow that there is a world beyond your borders with relevant political ideas, but do try to make a humble effort to entertain the idea that yes, your world view might have gotten a couple of things wrong. Or you know, downvote me in silence like a coward.
How did anything you just said conflict with the message of "big government bad?" What political perspectives need to be broadened? Are suggesting becoming open to a singular world government with all your transcending national boundaries talk?
Because government size is a stupid metric to try and set any goals towards. Where do you draw the line for appropriate size? Full on anarchy? Roads and infrastructure? Public safety? Industry regulation? Healthcare? Sure a government should be fiscally responsible. But that is very different than minimizing government spending at all cost. > Are suggesting becoming open to a singular world government with all your transcending national boundaries talk? Not at all. Are you suggesting Satoshi Nakamoto is actually George Soros? I think your tin foil hat is malfunctioning.
You draw a line by forcing the government into having a balanced budget. As long as they can print money they can spend money on whatever they want. When all government income has to be taxed they will be forced to only spend on things that are worthwhile. We don't need to demarcate every single specific thing that should or should not be managed by the government. If the budget is limited the control is limited and the government is forced to prioritize spending.
Yep, I'm all for all you're saying. The thing is american libertarianism is more than just responsible government spending.
You're the one making vague references to transcending national boundaries. Asking clarifying questions on that is fitting. And I'm a proud card carrying member of the "they can all go fuck themselves" party. My answer to your dumb question about what size government is appropriate will always be the same. Less.
I'm not making any vague references. It might come as a shock to you but the internet and bitcoin already transcend national boundaries. I'm just asking Americans like you to get up to speed with their thinking.
Lol, you're still not getting it. Clarify that comment then. If I'm dumb for asking if what you mean is Americans moving into accepting a singular world government, then what thought processes exactly do Americans need to get up to speed on?
Well, let me provide some bullet points: * DRAMATICALLY expand your Overton window * Abolish the two party election system * Demand a direct voting system * Demand some real fucking change * Quit acting as world police while you wreak havok around the world to protect your own interests. * Realize you're as bad as Russia or China, except your performative elections are a little more elaborate.
How does smaller government not fit into accomplishing those things? You don't make any sense.
It can fit. The thing is, a lot else can too. I'm merely asking to CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS that lie outside the fucking dogmas you live by. You know, things like universal healthcare, free education and industry regulation, I'm URGING you not to be so quick in discarding that in your quest for a streamlined budget sheet.
That shit isn't our government's job either.
I just want a very minimal government that Calvin Coolidge envisioned, and that's DRASTICALLY different from the spending of government today. āI would not want to be misunderstood. I am not advocating parsimony. I want to be liberal. Public service is entitled to a suitable reward. But there is a distinct limit to the amount of public service we can profitably employ. We require national defense, but it must be limited. We need public improvements, but they must be gradual. We have to make capital investments, but they must be certain to give fair returns. Every dollar expended must be made in the light of all our national resources and all our national needs.ā -- Calvin Coolidge Source: āMeeting Of The Business Organization Of The Government,ā on June 30, 1924. As found in The Mind of the President.
> have you stopped to consider that if Bitcoin significantly challenges the economic power of governments by providing an alternative to fiat currencies, then taxation would become an even more crucial method of government financing? Taxation is still better than the printing press so why would considering this cause libertarians to change any of our positions? Further libertarians, including Ron Paul, point out that government spending is the best measure of the government's size and what we aim ultimately to reduce, and that fighting one source of funding or another is a matter of tactics to that end.
> Taxation is still better than the printing press so why would considering this cause libertarians to change any of our positions? You're interpreting my meaning wrong. I'm merely pointing out that having bitcoin replace fiat can happen with either a "small" or "big" government (whatever the fuck that even means). In other words, I'm urging you to carefully consider what roles should a proper functional government perform before mindlessly campaigning to minimize it's spending. Because as I said elsewhere, it's a shit metric for government quality.
> (whatever the fuck that even means). If you don't know what it means maybe you're not the most qualified person to be providing analysis of it. > In other words, I'm urging you to carefully consider what roles should a proper functional government perform before mindlessly campaigning to minimize it's spending. You're saying this to a group of autists who've written volumes, literally millions of words analyzing and arguing about that exact thing.
> If you don't know what it means maybe you're not the most qualified person to be providing analysis of it. Maybe you should read less stuff written by "autists". This expression if often used to signify that something is *poorly defined*, and not necessarily *poorly understood* as you seem to have interpreted it. > You're saying this to a group of autists who've written volumes, literally millions of words analyzing and arguing about that exact thing. And yet most of these words were written by Americans who share the same inherent bias. After all, as my downvotes show, most of you are quick to disregard political opinions of non-americans on these subjects, as if our lack of *American exceptionalism* prevents us from even understanding how your utopia works. And nevermind the hypocrisy of doing so while [also doing shit like this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change).
Might be a surprise to you, but the USA is not a libertarian state/government. Libertarianism does not equal "Team 'Murica Fuck Yeah!" Libertarianism has roots going back to Europe...not the former colony turned World Police.
Indeed. If this guy wants to blame anything about the way America is run on Anarcho-Capitalism he's delusional.
I'm not blaming anything on anarcho-capitalism, just saying the american libertarian ideal is pretty much one step from it. Not that any of them were actually in place at any time. What I think is delusional is thinking that minimizing goverment in what is pretty much an oligarchy at this point would do the average joe any good. Sure, let's get rid of the middleman an let corporations rule us directly!
I think you'd be the one to be surprised if you stopped to compare the differences between the classic European brand and the American one. It's not just the corn syrup, the flavor is more... anacho-capitalisty.
> This expression if often used to signify that something is poorly defined Even so in my view your assertion reflects on your familiarity with the material more than on any real lack in libertarian discourse. Whether you're American or not has no bearing on my evaluation of your opinion. I also think it perfectly demonstrates your familiarity with libertarianism for you to link that article in connection with this discussion of libertarian discourse, even if you're not blaming libertarians in particular. It really just sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder about Americans.
Oh I absolutely have a chip on my shoulder about Americans. I guarantee you, the justification for it being there is quite strong. See, you're as bad as Russia or China. You just like pretending you're the "world police". Everyone thinks they're the good guys, right? And every four goddamn years the same vitriol. Arguing about whatever bullshit predefined topics were chosen for you to distract yourself with while you continue to manufacture the bombs and the emergency aid for the bombed. And yeah... a night-watchman state with fuck-all regulations for sure will improve this bleak fucking world we live in, right?
Right. Then they would have to admit and legislate new taxation instead of stealing our money like they do now with inflation. Then they will have to actually raise taxes when they want to engage in a new forever war. That's a good thing.
I absolutely love this argument. It honestly makes me pissed we even still have to pay taxes considering the government will never stop printing money to fulfill its debts. I mean, I understand why taxes exist, and I appreciate this country, but it really feels like the government is taking our cake and eating it right in front of our faces. Fix the money, fix the society. Itās no coincidence weāre surrounded by forever wars while under a fiat system.
Yes, that's the idea, regarding government financing at least. Unfortunately, as it is common with most politicians, these ideas often come bundled with others. And those are the ones I'd like people to be a little bit more attentive towards. Sure some may sound good on paper, but trust me, a lot of them are outright against your interests or will cause more misery to others than you anticipate.
Ron Paul never needed advisors. He had great fundamentals and always drew on them for his opinionsĀ
I'm sure he's all kinds of great. Nothing against him in particular. Just think American politics is *very* right-wing biased and most of you would benefit to educate more on what else is out there. Also, seeing any particular political ideology make claims on Bitcoin is kinda of a pet peeve of mine.
Not sure where your comment is coming from. Ron Paul in this video doesn't claim bitcoin. I agree with you that bitcoin doesn't serve any ideology but bitcoin does align in particular with Ron Paul because he's a sound money Austrian economics guy.
He's not claiming it. But the people posting his PR work in this sub sure are trying to at least associate him and his political platform with it.
I'm not sure I agree. Ron has been retired and out of the public eye for a long time now. Are you sure you aren't being a little paranoid
He may be retired, but his political platform isn't. And he may be a popular fella, but I'll be damned if this post doesn't smell like astroturf.
i appreciate your observational insight and as a fellow astroturf is everywhere skeptic i do the same thing. still not sure i see it here right now but i appreciate it nonetheless.
taxation Right Now is not a "crucial method of government financing" lol - we are 36 trillion dollars in debt and that number is rising every day. get a clue.
You're very confidently incorrect. Total US Federal revenue last year was **over 4 trillion fucking dollars**. With just income taxes being over a trillion. In comparison, your national debt grew a little more than 2 trillion in the same period. Seems pretty fucking crucial to me.
are you unaware that we now add 1 trillion in debt every 100 days? We are spending way more than we bring in.
I guess that makes taxes even more important then, right?
okay double down on being completely wrong haha - we can never tax ourselves out of our current and growing debt, its mathematically impossible without taking everything from everyone.
Ron Paul did make a very insightful suggestion about Bitcoin back in the day that it shouldn't be subjected to too much regulation and taxation. You mentioned that this was 10 years ago, and as time has passed, we can see that bitcoin and the cryptocurrency industry as a whole has really gone through a lot of ups and downs and regulatory changes.
Libertarians making so much sense
Man, he should've been president. Aside from bc.. The man had (still has) dignity, intelligence and values. Couldn't be bought or bothered with left or right bullshit agendas. Y'all should've voted for this guy.
We get taxed on everything and everything is so expensive nowā¦ bad!!!
Ron Paul is literally the only politician that I have ever thought was truly genuine
"Shouldnt be taxed?" The most pandering thing ever. If you make money, you get taxed. Thats how it works. Theres a million subtle differences, but everyone should be taxed when they make real money.
What is "real" money?
What do you use everyday to buy shit? That is real money.
What a piss poor qualification for money. You seem to have an elementary mindset on monetary principles. Better monies than the government controlled and manipulated one that you're used to, do exist. And they get spent everyday.
By holding BTC my goal is to maintain value or conserve that economic energy. If the value of the dollar goes down compared to bitcoin, why am I penalized via a tax. Yes, BTC is increasing in value do to adoption and innovation at the moment but ultimately it should find a balance. There should be some way to get out of the inflationary model but current tax system doesn't allow anyone to actually save money (fairly). Invest it and pay your taxes or become poor.
youre taxed when you sell. If you held gold youd be taxed too on your profits. You dont get a magical exemption, youre not special. Why should i pay taxes on my investments but you dont?
Settle down dude, just having some conversation. I'm using "me" as an example here. My point would be the same for gold. People are using gold to hold value against an inflating dollar that is losing value. My argument is that i'm not making money, the money is worth less (i.e. I can buy less goods) so i'm not any richer. So why should I (or we) be taxed if no value was gained?
"Settle down dude" not a good way to try and continue your conversation. All things inflate, including my stocks, im paying taxes on that extra inflation. So ill stick with my point of everyone has to pay taxes because we live in a society.
I agree we have to pay taxes. I disagree with what we pay taxes on. Stocks, yes. When you invest in a company that creates or provides value to a consumer and in turn makes a profit there is real monetary value created. I'll happily pay taxes on that. Income, sure I agree taxes. But if I buy a brick of gold, and its worth double next year because the dollar lost half its value due to government printing, why should I pay taxes on that? Nothing about that brick changed.
Its still an investment whether or not its generating value. And youre not just paying taxes on the part of an investment thats generating income. You also pay taxes on the part that got inflated. A stock could have no change in revenue but is up exactly matching inflation, thats taxed.
Ron Paul is a twat.
Based on what? I'd love to hear a few reasons you think that. He seems like one of the few honest politicians in the world.
Got anything to back that up, or nah?