HngyHngyHppo

Bitcoin is FIAT by definition, it is more FIAT than paper currency which has a use case of wiping my ass with. It's only value is voluntary exchange between actors. (while there is a hard cap of whole coins there is an infinite number of decimals.) My proposal reduces the current theft of the involuntary system of State FIAT and central bank inflationary redistribution. And automates a baseline rate of inflation, which would constantly pull back purchasing power from asset consolidators to the populace. FIAT does not require a state to function, however I will yield that the state's monopoly of violence creates a minimum value of that FIAT. I do not approve of that value case but yes people only trade in sovereign FIAT because they have to pay taxes in order to defend their assets from the violence of the state. Wouldn't subsidizing current asset taxation through UBI be an overall reduction in the threat of force applied? I believe that in order to defeat Coercive non-voluntary Hierarchy the agency of individuals must be increased. (I refer the 2a as a not just a right but a measurable distance) Anarchy is the end state of all actors having equal agency. I believe that Free Market system beat Centrally planned ones. That's the capitalism, Also my hatred for the Central banks current practices from QE, Reverse Repo, and Government Deficit acceptance being actions of as Centrally planned as an effective as Soviet Bolts. The average publicly educated functionally illiterate citizen only knows that their paycheck doesn't buy the same prosperity of their parents and if things become dire enough they will resort to higher forms of violence than factory fires or CEO deletions. UBI provides the best solution to ease most of the problems caused by inflationary value theft form the last hundred years of monetary policy, without giving any political capital to communists who despite continuing to make things worse keep gaining political force because they sell "Hope and Change"

"You're arguing from a point of ideals" Yes, I'm arguing in support of anarcho-capitalist ideals because those ideals are grounded in voluntary exchange and private property, is that really surprising? Calling bitcoin "as much a FIAT as USD" is simply false and a rhetorical sleight of hand. Bitcoin has a hard-capped supply enforced by math, no central issuer, and value determined purely by voluntary adoption. Your proposal, on the other hand, is basically institutionalized theft via inflation and central planning, even if "mutually agreed" to on paper, it still violates the core principles of voluntary exchange and property rights. The fantasy that FIAT can stay "mutually agreed" to without a central issuer or enforcement mechanism is exactly why it always requires a state (or something that functions like one). So what you're really advocating for is a new monetary authority to manage this 2.5% UBI money printer. You can't reasonably call yourself an AnCap if this is what you believe in.

The blue button red button thing has made me realize how many leftists really do genuinely just don't understand things.

"True Communism Has Never Been Tried" You're arguing from a point of ideals. And on top of that you wrong Bitcoin is as much a FIAT as USD. Yes, moronic libertarians and ancaps argue for hard money But communists argue for no money. Neither market model has really been tried. FIAT has been tried and has lead to both the benefits of inflation and it's largest drawback is that inflations distribution model, again rewarding banks and governments with money to buy bullets for which they back their FIAT with. A UBI of inflationary FIAT gives all the benefits of an inflationary market. Venture capital, RnD, Investment to beat inflation, Rise in Asset Prices and reduces the downsides of Corrupt distribution. Individuals have a stipend giving them higher negotiating power in the market, Consumers are a permanent class rather than market catering to the top % of the market, Governments can and should return to selling bonds to public to fund deficits rather than borrowing from a central bank to pay interest back to. If Libs or AnComs carried about giving Individuals more power then they'd support freeing the markets from coercive labor trades by implementing a UBI and giving everyone greater negotiation power for themselves.

Hoppe would literally call this socialism btw. FIAT currencies are basically universally rejected by libertarians and ancaps because they don't adhere to a voluntary system of exchange and require a coercive centralized institution to implement and maintain relevance (i.e. the state). However, the 2.5% inflation rate of the currency you're proposing going towards a "UBI" could be considered a hidden tax, and while some people may agree to voluntarily use it knowing these facts, this system likely wouldn't last very long in a stateless society when competing against other sound currency options and traditional forms of charity.

UBI requires no such state. UBI could be entirely fulfilled through a fixed percentile inflation of a mutually agreed upon FIAT currency. I advocate for a 2.5% of the total monetary supply distributed across citizens equally and periodically. yes 99% of UBI advocates advocate through taxation but they are morally and as economicly as wrong as the federal reserve which steals wealth from all and diverts it to the banks and government.

Access to capital would be solved by voluntary labor, free banking, mutual credit societies, and unhampered markets, which is exactly what states destroy with inflation, regulation, and welfare. UBI requires a coercive state to tax individuals in order to be implemented however, and doesn't create capital; rather it consumes it, which is completely juxtaposed to AnCap philosophy and libertarianism.

Exile. As an anarchists I advocate strongly for Exile as a punishment from term exiles at the county level to permanent Exile at the federal level. If you can't play by the few rules of a Libertarian society you can play in the wild. Also you can pre-emptively ban bad actors. (like anyone who was friendly with Epstein)

What exactly is the libertarian response to crime and punishment in this case, exactly? Is it a lynch mob? Is it a private company who gets to decide? Help me out here.

@_Hazardous_Wolf @Brilliand__ @MentisWave go ahead explain how capitalism functions without access to capital...

@HppoTweeter @Brilliand__ @MentisWave You're a UBI advocate, you can't call yourself an AnCap if you support UBI.

"See you in Valhalla." -FBI director youtu.be/NS8vv8snK6A?si…

If you had 100% blue voters you wouldn't need government, Anarchy would be the result. Government exists to monopolize force of the sovereign against the individualistic counter social actors of society. Anarchy has no need for government becuase either all actors are cooperative or all actors are capable of use of force against bad actors. Mad Max isn't Anarchy it's Fuedalism, from Barter town to Bullet farm.

If you are in a complete anarchy, you vote red because there is no such thing as human species being in such a scenario— animals would all vote red.

If most people wouldn’t vote blue we would literally never have ascended to civilization but would have remained animals.

@Brilliand__ @_Hazardous_Wolf @MentisWave This is why I "hoppe"d straight over libertarian and moved to AnCap from conservative. No true Scotsman destroys Libertarian parties at the start.

@_Hazardous_Wolf @HppoTweeter @MentisWave Sure, let's go all-in on not being able to defend ourselves. 🤦

@Brilliand__ @MentisWave Libertarians are not able to defend land or public office. you are correct.

@MentisWave You're a red-presser, I take it? I interpreted blue as "unite with others to fight off a threat that you could not defeat alone". If you're not able to do that, then you're not able to hold land.

@le_polisson @MentisWave Libertarians genuinely cannot understand social cohesion. It's why they can never mantain a political base. Leftists may pretend not understand things because it would cause cognitive discomfort, but Libertarians genuinely cannot understand some things.

@MentisWave Blue button wins across the political spectrum.

@maximumpain333 "Do we have time for me to put on pants? or will I not need pants?"

Every decade you add another

@hacylhacyl @clockworksDream But have you watched this one enough

@clockworksDream Probably seen this meme a hundred million times by now but

"if everyone pressed the red button nobody would die" what if everyone pressed blue then. By that logic.

@VSClive @CousinUniversal @JThornbull @waitbutwhy If blue doesn't achieve >50%. Then civilization collapses because stock brokers and CEOs make terrible farmers. The male to female ratio becomes 5 to 1. The social order of high trust society relies on type of person who would pick "Blue", the social contract of Somalia is red

@CousinUniversal @HppoTweeter @JThornbull @waitbutwhy However, if you don't achieve that total success, every blue press is one more death and every red press is one less death. The margin is much lower yes but I still don't think you get anywhere near it in a real scenario.

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

@micheevs5 If it were only libertarians who pressed red the numbers wouldn't be so close on tim's poll.

Нажимая синюю кнопку, ты в худшем случае умрёшь. Нажимая красную, ты останешься жить в обществе либертарианцев.

More than 89 million chose none of the above and did not cast a ballot an additional 61 million were ineligible to vote. Combine that with the number of people who voted Harris 75 million and you have over 65% of this country that didn't vote for Trump. The button question requires 100% participation, if our elections required 100% participation None of the above would have won the majority vote.

@Whoknow11057418 half this country voted for trump i do not like those odds

this one is actually really interesting because it's not even the prisoner's dilemma as it has a guaranteed "safe" outcome. this whole thing hinges on the fact that like, babies can't understand what they are doing but they still have to vote and they could easily kill themselves

It's rather consistent with the motivation of self sacrifice. She wants her friends and family to press red and have guaranteed safety, she is not willing to pressure them into risking their own lives on her assumption that humanity with her cooperation will pick blue. If she is correct she gets to live. If she was wrong her friends and family don't die and have less guilt about pushing the red button. it shows that her confidence that more than 50% of the world would choose blue isn't high enough for her to endorse those she cares about risking their lives. Imagine a world where politicians spent your tax money as if it was from their own bank account and not from your pocket. That's her mindset, that's the mindset that can't navigate politics and get elected but it's the mindset you want in a politician.

@oliveegger Heya, Red button pusher: Not everyone. I understand why people would like to push blue, and that's a personal choice for them. But your own outlook is VERY confusing.

Why are the red pushers in my replies so mean and hostile lol

@wbic16 @CraftingVegeto Those that try are censored from history.

@CraftingVegeto if the scenario were real, the correct answer is to stop the criminal mastermind and dismantle his death machine.

Okay, so after thinking about this red blue button dilemma for hours, here is where I landed lol At first glance, the correct pragmatic answer is obviously red. You survive no matter what. That part is still 100 percent true. Red is the logical self preservation move. You do not die no matter what the others do. But once you think deeper, you realize that blue actually has a strong moral and collective argument. Blue only needs "just" over 50 percent to save literally everyone, while red basically needs 100 percent for no one to die. So blue is the gamble that gives humanity the best shot at universal survival with the lowest bar. At the same time, tons of people are emotional as hell, not logical or pragmatic, and sadly a lot are straight up virtue signaling kings. That means there is a real chance we end up in that dangerous 40 to 49 percent blue zone where billions die and society collapses anyway. Even the survivors probably would not survive long after that. Good job everyone. So yeah, red is the logical self preservation move, and blue is the more morally correct gamble to try and save everyone. Both sides have a solid point. Having that said... Everyone on Twitter furiously shitting on the other side is an idiot. Blues calling reds selfish monsters are idiots. Reds who cannot even see the collective blue argument are idiots too. But here is the most important part imho. All of this is bullshit. This is just a Twitter thought experiment where everything is easy and fake. If this was real life, an actual button in front of you, and pressing the wrong one means you actually die, everything changes. Heart rate at 180, adrenaline spiking, shitting your pants. I firmly believe there is near 0 percent chance blue gets over 50 percent in a real scenario, which I am not saying is a good thing. All the virtue signaling idiots on the internet would secretly press red in a heartbeat. Sure, some actual idealists who care about the collective more than pure survival would still press blue, and sadly they would die. In a real terrifying dystopian situation like that, red is the only solution, and it sucks.

becuase the only scenario where no one dies is that "everyone will just" pick red. Suicidal people might pick blue thinking that it'll be a painless death and affirm their view that the world is filled with a majority of self interested assholes. Knowing there is a non zero number of people who will pick blue for whatever reason. The only way to garuntee everyone survives is 50.000001% of people to risk their lives, on the assumption that humanity is majority community centered, and pick blue.

@waitbutwhy The choice is obviously red. Why are people choosing blue?