/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.5377099]

AnCaps were the early adopters. Deal with it

[Anonymous No.5377561]

>>5377099
Statists get off my coins REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.5377751]

>>5377099
True but how many of us are still ancaps? I left that for nationalism once I realized libertarianism and multiculturalism cannot coexist.

[Anonymous No.5377849]

>>5377751
Sigh, brainlet detected.


In libertarian society you are free to choose to live in gated communities with 'your own kind'.

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5379015]

>>5377099

Consequentialist ancap here, but not sure how that fits into /biz/. This is more /pol/ stuff.

Early adopters in crypto don't matter anymore, really. And trading doesn't care about ideology behind a coin - just volatility.

Monero is still kinda "fuck-you, gov!", but maybe ancaps should be pioneers of smart contracts, etc.

If you want to use crypto for politics, move on to the next big thing: smartcontracts for insurance.

[Anonymous No.5379077]

>ancap early adopters
>using the internet, a resource designed by tax dollars and public universities

[Anonymous No.5379132]

>>5379077
>without gubment money internet wouldnt exist

the absolute state of libcucks

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5379367]

>>5379077

From wikipedia:

> The Internet is a global network that comprises many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body.

All money is government money if you go back far enough. It's illegal to use any other kind of money.

Therefore, it's illegal to build an Internet without government money. How exactly is that fostering progress?

[Anonymous No.5379413]

>>5379015
>Early adopters in crypto don't matter anymore, really.
You can still be early adopter of a promising coin and profit with that. There are lots of opportunities everyday in the altcoin market.

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5379514]

>>5379413

Sure. What I meant is making the most of being an ancap.

Normie democrats can also be early adopters, so being an ancap doesn't make anyone special anymore.

It *does* help to invest in a decentralized crypto project, because centralization (and control/force) is what statism is all about.


Crypto has already disrupted central banking everywhere.

Smart contracts for insurance is where it will hurt the gov the most next. (They won't know what hit them).

[Anonymous No.5379521]

Who else here /racistancap/?

[Anonymous No.5379631]

>>5379514

why is that more significant in the near term, relative to private wealth storage and tax evasion?

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5379695]

>>5379631

I'd tell you, but I wouldn't want ((THEM)) to know.

Seriously. It's checkmate without a check.

[Anonymous No.5379705]

>>5377099
Ancap is the only high IQ political ideology.

>>5377751
All ancaps know that nationalism is necessary. The freedom exists within the country

[Anonymous No.5379755]

>>5377751
Me as well, I think it's something we all go through. Minarchism is more realistic.

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5379777]

>>5379521

Depends. I think most people confuse "racism" with "culturalism".

Most black people grow up in a poorfag culture. Culture impacts life decisions more than skin color.

[Anonymous No.5379791]

>>5379132
>government funded R&D is not relevant

[Anonymous No.5379802]

>>5377099
Yes, they literally were. I remember seeing a f*gbook ancap page, years and years ago. And the admin was taking bitcoin donations. I remember saying, "Wow! I should become a page admin, then I could get bitcoin donations too!" He said, "Trust me, you won't make any money with bitcoin, you'd have better luck just getting a real job."

[Anonymous No.5379833]

>used to post on a small ancap forum
>wanted to buy bitcoins from one of the guys there
>"nah kid, you should save your money for school"

t-thanks

[Anonymous No.5379949]

true, libertarian types were the original bitcoiners lmao this is literally our wet dream

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5380077]

>>5379791

Funded by government because they took everyone's money - and made it illegal for anyone else to gather such funds.

Then, the government paid that money to PRIVATE SUBCONTRACTORS.

Ever seen a government actually build or research something? ANYTHING? Nope, the gov steals/prints all the money (so no one else can ever accumulate anything significant) and outbids every private major research project with whatever project they decide needs to be done.

The only things governments design are regulations and taxation. Regulations don't send people to the moon or build internets.

PRIVATE subcontractors build stuff, anon. Often for more than necessary and under incompetent gov supervision.

The only thing gov provides is money they stole in the first place.

[Anonymous No.5380167]

If you're a true ancap who doesn't believe in absolute property and the NAP, then great. You're redpilled and based.

If you're a NAP cuck you're probably an autist and dumb and also not really an anarchist.

[Anonymous No.5380211]

>>5380167
What's wrong with the NAP, and what do you mean by "doesn't believe in absolute property"?

[Anonymous No.5380300]

>>5380077
The discusssion is about resource allocation, not whether something is done by private subcontractors or government officials in person.

There's a reason why virtually every economist on the planet agrees some amount of public funding is necessary, including basic research.

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5380354]

>>5379802
>>5379833

Thanks anons cools stories - and relevant (crypto).

[Anonymous No.5380400]

>>5380300
>virtually every economist

This level of appeal to authority cuckoldry melts my face

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5380419]

>>5380300

> virtually every economist on the planet agrees some amount of public funding is necessary,

David Friedman (economist) used to argue with his dad, Milton Friedman (economist) about the actual responsibilities of a government.

tl;dr - the government should only provide: military, police and courts. And even that's debatable. Mind opening stuff how much shit the gov wants credit for these days.

[Anonymous No.5380476]

>>5380300
> There's a reason why virtually every economist on the planet agrees some amount of public funding is necessary, including basic research.
Does it have anything to do with the reason why virtually every priest on the planet agrees some amount of church funding is necessary, including basic amenities for the faithful?

[Anonymous No.5380519]

>>5380419
>And even that's debatable.

I have never seen an ancap showing how national defense could be provided without a state more efficiently than our current system

[Anonymous No.5380547]

>>5377099
fuck off ancapistan

[Anonymous No.5380598]

>>5379015
>early adopters dont matter anymore
until the whole btc/bch shitshow blows over its only gonna be early adopters throwing their millions of bitcoins at each other

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5380605]

>>5380476

There's a thing called "charity" and "donations".

Except if you fuck society out of their money with taxes, inflation, tarifs, (long list here), then it's no wonder people don't have much fiat left for sizable donations for research, etc.

It's like burning down a guys uninsured house and then saying it's his fault for being a bum - and then making yourself the hero buy giving him a welfare check every month.

If the house wasn't burned down, the guy wouldn't even be a homeless bum in the first place.

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5380821]

>>5380519

It makes sense if you think about it:

Who builds missile defense system? E.g. Raytheon. Are they government? No.

So how exactly is the government providing defense without Raytheon?

The point is: the government really isn't doing anything, except creating a monopoly on national safety.

Would there even be incentives for wars if there were no governments? And no way to pool huge amounts of public money into hands of corrupt politicians?

Sure, corps like Raytheon build weapons, but who is the paying client? Governments.

Raytheon vs "large private security corporation" - what's really the difference? There is none.

[Anonymous No.5380835]

>>5380519
national defense is a meme. today armies are used for national ((offense)) aka a waste of fucking money

you know what's scarier than an army? a shotgun / assault rifle in every civilian's home. how the literal fuck are you gonna plan on conquering that

want to know the reason Japan never invaded the USA during WWII?

pic related.

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5380885]

>>5380835

Good points.

Now replace guns with "Monero" and glades of grass with "smartphones".

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5380996]

>>5380598

I hope BCH just dies, e.g. killed by LTC. Then when, transactions feeds get too high, LTC gets replaces with the next best thing (XRP? XRB?).

Aaaaand so on...

There will always be a low-cost low-cap altcoin to migrate to for quick transfers that enough exchanges will support.

[Anonymous No.5381130]

>>5380821
>Who builds missile defense system? E.g. Raytheon. Are they government? No.

Irrelevant. We already went through this. It's not market demand that is allocating resources for national defense, but the public sector.

[Anonymous No.5381204]

>>5381130
Doesn't this effectively boil down to "Yes, the thugs with guns cracking whips and forcing people to do stuff don't actually do anything themselves, but having guns, cracking whips and forcing other people to do stuff is clearly the optimal method for resource allocation in defense."
Why is it? And if it is, why shouldn't it be used in all other resource allocation cases? In fact, the very fact that it's widely accepted as an absolutely terrible way to allocate resources generally speaking, to the extent that when some entity which employs it comes up another which does not, the one which employs it is more likely to simply collapse in a heap rather than pose a threat to the one that does not, why should we expect defense to be any different?

[Anonymous No.5381452]

>>5381204
You keep ignoring that allocating resources to national defense, a type of public good, is something that the market wouldn't do efficiently, assuming it can do it at all. This fact alone justifies the existence of the state. Whether you think allocating resources isn't "actually doing anything" is of no consequence, someone or something has to do it, unless you somehow think national defense isn't necessary, which is hysterical.

[Anonymous No.5381631]

>>5381452
The fact that you think a national defense is necessary at all is hysterical

[Anonymous No.5381664]

Whoever is not buying BZC right now is wasting money.

[Anonymous No.5381708]

>>5381631
Enjoy getting terrorized/conquered/destroyed by foreign actors

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5382022]

>>5381452

> allocating resources to defense is something the market wouldn't do efficiently

That's a flawed assumption. Guerrilla warfare, terrorist, freedom-fighers, rebels - they've all proved COUNTLESS times that you don't need a large budget to wreck havoc.

Meanwhile, you have government-managed disasters like: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/contractor-waste-iraq-kbr/#

If the government can do a shit job, maybe the private sector can do a good job?

[shadowfag !lCmiJBoR0E No.5382112]

>>5381708

There are VERY clever ways of destroying foreign actors without war. As long as you hire skilled people for the job. (Instead of producing lots of weapons and vehicles and putting them into the hands of soldiers with just a few months of training).

Or take Japan: small self defense force - and they haven't been invaded by China or North Korea. Why? Because government is responsible for resource allocation? How is that scaring them away?

[Anonymous No.5382946]

>>5381708
I live in the south. Literally every house here has a shotgun, rifle, and a glock 19

Who in the fucking hell is going to come knocking here? Only way foreigners care about invading is when your cucked government fucks with them. See: FDR cutting of Japanese oil. See: CIA overthrowing the the Shah of Iran

[Anonymous No.5383513]

>>5377849

>gated communities with your own kind
Seems more ancap than libertarian. Do you think borders are bad?

[Anonymous No.5384128]

>>5383513
Not at all, people should be free to build whatever borders they like as long as they are on their own land and not aggressive towards another.

[Anonymous No.5384165]

>>5377099
I know /pol/ are more facist than ancap but that's where this thread belongs
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.5384184]

>>5380547
Fuck off you amoral statist cuck

[Anonymous No.5384191]

Yeah, they were. And many "get rich quick" types a.k.a me. I used to do those referral things where you get people to sign up for free trials and when I was spamming on Omegle one day someone told me to check out Bitcoin. This was in early 2010~

Anyway, yeah, been obsessed ever since

>>5377561
>>5377849
No joke, some of the first posts ever made on Bitcointalk were threads about donating Bitcoin to Molymeme.

[Anonymous No.5384307]

>>5382946

On an individual level, retreat or surrender is almost always the preferable option. If someone isn't willing to pay their taxes for national interest it seems unlikely that they'd be willing to die for it.

[Anonymous No.5384558]

Unironically, the only way to get a free society is through agorist counter economics with bitcoin being a major part of it.

[Anonymous No.5384592]

No steppy snek

[Anonymous No.5384637]

>>5384558
My Agorist nigga
Glad to know I'm not alone

[Anonymous No.5384818]

>>5377099
im not banned anymore

[Anonymous No.5384887]

>>5379015
>move on to the next big thing: smartcontracts for insurance.
tell me more, all I can find are corporate blockchain solutions like everledger

[Anonymous No.5384945]

I'm an early adopting communist though

[Anonymous No.5384987]

>>5384945

I'm a nocoiner communist.

...Just saying.

[Anonymous No.5385733]

anw, is there any good ancap/cyberphunk community these days? I miss oldschool pol

[Anonymous No.5385777]

>>5384307
This is idiotic logic, if someone isn't willing to be robbed to pay for the local gang's beer fund, it's unlikely they're willing to protect themselves. Exactly the opposite.

[Anonymous No.5385860]

>>5381452
> You keep ignoring that allocating resources to national defense, a type of public good, is something that the market wouldn't do efficiently, assuming it can do it at all.
And you keep declaring this as if it were proven, rather than actually disproven. Either justify why economics for defence must ignore the demonstrated proven pattern of public inefficiency vs private efficiency, or accept that it is just like any other area of economy; the government sucks at it.

[Anonymous No.5385906]

>>5379077
>Hello ma'am, is your husband home? We heard he's developed something and the military is willing to do an offer. We will offer him his and other people's money that we took by force.
>Oh by the way, you can let him know he can forget about commercial use, we will keep it secret for decades

[Anonymous No.5385974]

>>5381452
Who would be more interested in finding your stolen TV, a policeman who will get your money anyway, or an insurance that will have to pay you if they don't find it?

Any kind of service is better provided by the market.