/liberty/ - Liberty

Crypto currency is a joke

Tim Pool has talked about this too. TL;DR buy x dollars worth of crypto, give it to someone immedietely, and they convert it back to dollars as soon as they get it.

>>95378

>Daily Stormer

There already are alternatives to Patreon.

>>95378

Maybe I'm a brainlet but what's stopping patrons from directly donating to creators and they keep their own list for reward tiers, crypto or not?

>>95408

nothing in and of itself. But, when it has happened, paypal has for instance blocked them, which further complicates it as many donations come through paypal.

>>95498

You have a good taste in hentai women, but what the fuck is all that PIV-X shit?

>>95614

Well articulated anon, I've been thinking about this but you addressed it perfectly

>>95614

No one can decide on behalf of others if they should discriminate or not.

>>95614

>instead of asking for the State to remove rules on banking and finance (something that will never happen not even in a million years), we need to ask for the State to force VISA, MasterCard, etc

That's not how you do it, faggot. You don't empower state to prevent the abuse if its power. Even if it's not going to happen "in a million years", it's pure cuckoldry to ask for more.

>asking for giving big business more freedom in a world where big business have State-mandated privilege

Spotted the economically illiterate falseflag. By supporting the expansion of control over them you're making the situation worse, just like any anti-monopolistic state measuresoutside of self-destruction would at beast lead to shutting down 1 big company and opening 2 more with the same owner, all while having given even more control over it to the feds.

>>95402

Hes saying that even if there are alternative websites to patreon, any site like that still has to go through the middle man of the banks and visa, and that its only a matter of time before they decide that they will refuse service to certain people. And hes probably right.

>>95624

you can make laws that prohibits the State or big companies to do certain practices that erode freedom or property rights.

This works and it's undeniable. It's actually doable unlinke going around sperging "abolish the State" which never worked, ever.

> By supporting the expansion of control over them you're making the situation worse

I'm not making the situation worse at all. I'm addressing a very specific concern, which is the only way to act in a State society. As of now we have a shitload of banking/finance regulations and very few companies factually able to provide certain services.

What we want is people being free to trade and express their opinions without intereferences from third parties.

As of now if you sell something that these payment providers don't like, because it's not politically correct, you get banned from using these service and you realistically can't sell them anymore.

So, we remove the right of these paymenty providers to discriminate and force them to offer their service to everyone who can pay.

So, no more bans because you said that there are only two genders.

This is something actionable and that ensure one more degree of freedom to people, who are now able to build what they want. This also limits the ability for State actors themselves to put pressure on these companies, since the law force them to not discriminate and therefore they can't be subject to political pressure to discriminate (I hope you can understand this last point without further explanations).

Of course these companies lose their right to discriminate, but it's not like they deserved it anyway since the laws in place have been partly created by them and also favor them, and are the main reason for their current position of power and quasi-monopoly.

If anything, after you force them to not discriminate, you can start removing all other banking/finance laws, up until the point where there is a true free market and you don't need anti-discrimination laws anymore.

You should really learn the difference between theory and the real world. You didn't even answer to my point, you basically copy-pasted what can be read in any libertarian book. You can't apply the libertarian framework blindly because it doesn't work and it's a surefire way to give the State/big companies even more power. Libertarianism is about freedom in a free world, but since we don't live in a free world we need to impose freedom by law. Which means that some assholes who like the State will lose their undeserved powers and innocent individuals will gain more freedom.

>>95656

>Show me at least 1 law that would explicitly prohibit the state from doing something in the last 50 years. It was done with the constitution and it was only an obstacle to slow erosion of rights

So, you already know that there are laws that limit the power of the State, or of big companies in cahoot with national governments.

We know that the US constitution helped in some regards to limit the power of the State. Think about the first amendment and the second amendment. Of course, freedom of speech and guns are always under attack, but at least there are legal tools of recourse in order to push back against the State, and they worked time and time again.

The State would have existed, with or without the first or the second amendment.

We all know that the ideal world is without the State and yadda yadda yadda. We know, we are on /liberty/, we read the books, we listened to the mises.org seminaries. The theory it's already there. We know how it works and why.

Do you think you're smart by repeating basic libertarian talking points?

Because you're not.

You're not saying anything new, you're just saying something that can't be applied in our society, at the current moment and regarding the point we're discussing.

We're discussing a specific problem, happening in the REAL WORLD. Want to join? Then, I'll help you again, by restating problem and proposed solutions.

Problem:

Payment providers ban people for arbitrary reasons, like not being politically correct or trading unpopular stuff

Due to shitload of regulations it's impossible, outside of theory, to create alternatives to the already existing payment providers.

As a libertarian I think the freedom of people to exchange money takes priority on the freedom of big companies in cahoot with the State to exclude people from using their essential services.

My proposed solution:

>force payment providers, all of them big business that already benefits from State law, to offer their services to everybody who can pay, discriminating only on technical grounds

Your proposed solution:

>no solution, just sperging about how the State is evil

Honestly, the behavior of libertarians like you disgust me. You're nothing more than fanaticals who cannot contexualize nor having an original thought of their own. You just blindly repeat some stale, unoriginal slogan, and then accuse everyone of being a leftist for proposing actionable solutions. You'd rather keep having big companies and the State becoming stronger and stronger than taking position on any issue.

>>95656

Then, just to not leave any stone unturned, so to speak:

>/leftypol/, is that you? They do it via state practices and do not, even the biggest ones, impede on these things themselves.

That has already been stated and is not a counter-argument.

>You don't understand the concept of "freedom", retard.

>You actually are leftist.

Not an argument

>Fucking retard.

Still, not an argument

>Except enforcing it would require a lot more paperwork and would allow state to sue anyone with a baseless claim.

No, it wouldn't. The few big companies that can provide those services will just have to not ban anyone, outside of technical reasons or lack of payment of service. The end.

>Fucking leftyshit, you don't give freedom by infringing on it.

Yes, you do under the State. You give billions of people the freedom to exchange money by removing the freedom of like ten companies that got their position due to being friends with the State to ban you from using their services.

>Top lel, who the fuck needs freedom of dissociation, amirite?

We all know about freedom of dissociation. But we're talking about a very specific situation, under the State and for companies (not even people) that are in that position thanks to the State.

>You should finish school before you start shitting on theory, you retarded scummy faggot.

Not an argument

>Good fucking joke. If you can do that, you can remove the state itself, you stupid fuck

The more I go on, the more I understand you probably didn't evne read my post but blinded by libertarian autismo rage you started to decontexualize and write insults and a shitty answer

><Hurr durr corporations are equally as bad lets give freedom to "people" by infringing on them instead

Not my argument.

>Which point?

So, you really didn't understand shit.

>Nice commiespeak, but no, libertarianism is about autonomy of an individual and non-initiation of force. Stay enslaved, nigger.

Nice decontexualization here. Or maybe I didn't explain myself well enough. My point was that libertarianism teach you about freedom and how it works and why it works in a free society, but it's not a panacea that you can just apply to single pieces of a society under the State to see improvements.

>multiline affirmation about I can't bother to copypaste

Point already addressed. It's not the perfect solution, but we can't have perfect.

>Is that clear enough for your leftist empty scull?

Not an argument

>You know that "assholes" are individuals too, right? By limiting freedom of individuals you don't expand freedom of individuals. Fucking retard.

You know big companies operates in a legal framework of limited liability that is guaranteed by the State, right? You know we're not talking about individuals anyway but companies, righyt? You know we're not talking about companies that fight for more freedom but just for what is politically correct, right? You know we're talking about companies that have their power due to the regulatory framework created by the State, right?

So yes, they're assholes but I guess they're still better and more reasonable entities than you after all.

>>95657

>you already know that there are laws that limit the power of the State

The constitution was created before the state was, actually. Your point is moot.

>The State would have existed, with or without the first or the second amendment.

Prove it, faggot.

>We all know

You're using these vague terms too much.

>We know, we are on /liberty/

You clearly are not

>Do you think you're smart by repeating basic libertarian talking points?

I think basic libertarian principles are the only thing i need to refute your bullshit leftism.

>you're just saying something that can't be applied in our society

Prove it, faggot.

>happening in the REAL WORLD

It's your implication that libertarian principles are inapplicable to the real world. Prove it first instead of spamming baseless assumptions.

>Problem: Payment providers ban people for arbitrary reasons, like not being politically correct or trading unpopular stuff

Not a problem

>As a libertarian I think the freedom of people to exchange money takes priority on the freedom of big companies

So you're not a libertarian and do not understand shit about it.

>essential services

UBI socialist camp is 3 boards down

>My proposed solution

<Expand power of the state expecting that to improve things

>no solution, just sperging about how the State is evil

t. Doesn't know about agorism and tax evasion

>behavior of libertarians like you disgust me

Probably because you aren't one, but just another pathetic leftist.

>You just blindly repeat

You just stupidly ignore the most basic explanation.

>You'd rather keep having big companies and the State

Again, fuck off.

>>95658

>Not an argument

Keep ignoring them

>The few big companies that can provide those services will just have to not ban anyone, outside of technical reasons or lack of payment of service. The end.

<I'll pass a law and everyone will immediately start following it.

Stupid fuck.

>by removing the freedom of like ten companies

Go fuck yourself, welfare queen. The only thing you're sperging about is gibs that you're refused.

>that got their position

<Hey, let's blame everyone but the cause of the problem and perpetuate it by chasing those who look bad!

>being friends with the State to ban you from using their services

I don't need a state to kick you out. That's my freedom and you're a statist by infringing on it.

>We all know about freedom of dissociation. But we're talking about a very specific situation

Freedoms are universal, you slimy lying scum.

>State and for companies (not even people

Lel, nice equivocation, but state and companies are composed of people.

>started to decontexualize

<REE MUH CONTEXT

You wouldn't achieve anything but state expansion even if you ever could push these laws in, period.

>It's not the perfect solution, but we can't have perfect.

<We won't win so lets at least get gibs.

No, faggot, be a leftist somewhere else.

>Not an argument

Nice ignore of an actual one. Clinging to your descriptions won't help you in ignoring arguments, scumbag.

>You know big companies operates in a legal framework of limited liability that is guaranteed by the State, right?

So you agree that the problem is with state granted liabilities and not the companies?

>You know we're not talking about individuals anyway but companies, righyt?

Lel, keep going. It's fun looking at someone so oblivious to the fact that companies are individual-leaded, individual-controlled individual-created and individual-owned entities.

>You know we're not talking about companies that fight for more freedom but just for what is politically correct, right?

You can't chase ones and leave others without creating even more ground for monopoly, that's like the most basic economics.

>>95659

>Prove it, faggot.

You know there are a shitload of States outside of the US, and they have various constitutions and legal frameworks that leave citizens different degrees of freedom, right?

I made the example with the US since you're clearly from it, and the first and second amendment have been able to leave people in the US the ability to say what they want and get guns. Not perfect, but better than other States where those freedoms are not present because the State has unlimited power.

You should really power up your skills about how the State and the law actually works

To be honest I was gonna write a response, but after

>t. Doesn't know about agorism and tax evasion

which doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion, and implying I ever said something to this effect

><We won't win so lets at least get gibs.

plus all the various insults I understand now that I'm dealing with either a schizo, a troll or a retarded person.

In any case, most of the valid points have already been addressed, so those who are able to discern some productive thoughts from this discussion will be satisfied anyway.

>>95660

>You know there are a shitload of States outside of the US, and they have various constitutions and legal frameworks that leave citizens different degrees of freedom, right?

They are trampled more times than they help protect these freedoms and proven to constantly fail to secure them over time. They just ignore them or redefine "freedoms" as "gibs".Just like you do

>Not perfect, but better than other States where those freedoms are not present because the State has unlimited power.

<Lip service determines things

>which doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion

<Hurr you're just whining about ebil state, just tell it to give me gibs, you stupid lolbergs!

Seems like it has everything to do with it.

>I understand now that I'm dealing

Nicely dodged an argument, faggot.

Now run away back to reddit and tell they how you've definitely not been eating shit.

What about gumroad and subscribestar?

>>100907

Hopefully subscribestar gains more potential.

Just out of curiosity have you guys heard of Operation Chokepoint. It may explain why all the media deplatforming by payment processors is happening. Basically it was ordered by some government agency that was related to that Consumer Protection Bureau created by Elizabeth Warren. It was an order that told the banks they had to crack down on payday lenders and such other services doing business with sex workers, gun sellers and etc. There's videos on it if you want me to post.

The real problem here isn't that you can't create a useful alternative to X because of (((banks))), but rather that you can't create an alternative bank because of the government.

What should I do if my content gets a large audience and I'd like to pursue crowdfunding?

Is patreon effectively a natural monopoly, and I should just put up with it?

>>100992

cryptocurrencies maybe?

>>95614

just use crypto and stop being a cuck

>hurr durr the gobernment is so corurpt so we need to gib them more power in order to fix it

>>101227

It worries me how libertarians are ignorant of how the State works. For all the hate we have for the State, I must say most of us are ignorant as fuck about how it works.

You faggots should really learn how the law and justice system works, then compare it to those of european countries, and then maybe you will stop shouting slogans like some deranged leftist and bring something useful to discussions and even your daily life.

>>95378

>cash-less currency, social credit system and universal income

That is the future of the western civilization after the debt usury racket nullifies the economy. And crypto is a test run, and will be outlawed once the official currency launches. This is why the west is getting violently destabilized, to prevent retaliation once the west realizes that the jews have stolen all their wealth and freedoms.

>>101237

Jesus.

>>95378

these ressources will be owned by someone. what central ownship will do is alignment. however there is nothing inherent about central ownership that causes the ressource to be used in a good way.

Make a cryptocurrency bank?