Buddy no one cares figure it out or buy your way out

You are right I am telling you why you're wrong and you are free to figure why.

If you want me to hand hold you my fees are 0.05 bitcoin per hour.

lol that you think it’s an argument is why you’re wrong

Lol sure buddy. Keep learning

Sure short term price action. Long term it's physics and economics

Because your statement claims trump is setting bitcoins price.

Yeah bitcoin didn't exist before trumps 2nd term

No Ben the year is 2025. You couldn't supply any current data on the amount of mining in China today so you showcased a small subset of data from 22-23 and purported that the data was empirical on a nation where it is impossible do so. You are the height of intellectual dishonesty aka a fucking moron.

No Ben only a moron would try to imply a country can ban #bitcoin.

You are willing to bet your life that zero mining took place in China 2022-2023? I will take the other side of that bet. Seems highly illogical. No one has real data on China and you know this. Unless you are a moron?

No no Ben this is your story of truth. In collaboration with the CCP renowned for their willingness to share accurate data with the western world. Do tell us more Ben.

If you control the biggest network of influence and blackmail in the world, giving you leverage over the most powerful people, there is no scenario where you would allow that network to be compromised.

Satoshi: I’ve created #bitcoin so you don’t have to trust anyone with your money

People: hey BlackRock take my money, buy bitcoin and hold it for me

Satoshi:

Stop trolling me 😂😂😂

In all seriousness, I like my friends, family, culture, circumstances and a lot of other things pertaining to where I live. I don't plan on moving anywhere.

I don't know why you're so miserable and angry 😂😂😂

Chill out a little bit will you?

The side of governments is not a very good side to be on man. I don't know what's gotten into you or what propaganda you've consumed.

I live in a country that used statistics to plan and heavily intervene into the economy for 44 years from 1947-1991. Then the government liberalised in 1991 imperfectly based on ideas from economic schools that rely on statistics and models like you do.

You cannot begin to comprehend what govt intervention does to society because the laws that you have in your country is built based on the ideas, ethics and morals I am repeating like a broken record.

Read all my replies to your posts. I have asked you questions you have not responded to. Maybe your client isn't showing those notifications so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

But I'll refute your claims anyway:

The argument that governments are necessary for peace, order, and justice is deeply flawed.

History shows that states are responsible for the greatest violations of human rights, including war, genocide, taxation, and mass surveillance. Furthermore, voluntary societies and private law systems have existed and functioned without a centralized state.

1. The claim that weak governments cause violence ignores the fact that governments have been the most violent entities in history:

20th Century Wars & Genocides (Government-led):

World War I: ~15 million deaths

World War II: ~70–85 million deaths

Mao’s Great Leap Forward: ~30–45 million deaths

Stalin’s Purges and Famines: ~20 million deaths

Pol Pot’s Cambodia: ~2 million deaths

Rwandan Genocide: ~800,000 deaths

Korean and Vietnam Wars: Hundreds of thousands of deaths

21st century war and genocides:

Second Congo War (1998–2003): 5.4 million deaths

Iraq War (2003–2011): 100,000+ civilian deaths

Syrian Civil War (2011–present): 500,000+ deaths

War in Afghanistan (2001–2021): 176,000+ deaths

Ukraine Conflict (2022–present): 1.7 million+ deaths

Darfur Genocide (2003–present): 300,000 deaths

Rohingya Crisis (2016–present): Thousands killed, 700,000+ displaced

Uyghur Persecution (2014–present): 1 million+ detained

Gaza Conflict (2023–2025): 24,100+ deaths

Even excluding war, governments have directly caused tens of millions of deaths through state-led famines, repression, and democide (mass murder by the state). Heard of socialism? Compare this to societies where localized conflicts never reach such devastating scales.

2. The False Comparison: Weak States vs. Strong States

The argument assumes that without government, society would resemble places like Mexico (cartel violence) or African war zones. But these are not examples of voluntary law societies—they are power vacuums left by failed states. They are government-caused break downs of law and order.

A better comparison would be:

Medieval Iceland - A private law society that operated peacefully for centuries.

Pre-colonial Ireland of Brehons - A decentralized system of law and restitution without a central state.

Somali Xeer Law - A voluntary arbitration system that persisted for centuries.

When private institutions enforce law, order emerges voluntarily and spontaneously, not through coercion.

2. 'Most People Would Choose the State'

The claim that most people “choose” the state is false because:

People do not actually choose governments—they are born into them and have no opt-out option.

Coercion does not equal consent. People comply with the state because it violently suppresses alternatives.

Appeal to popularity is a fallacy—historically, most people who lived under monarchy, serfdom, and state religion did not choose them.

If governments were truly voluntary, taxation would be optional, and people could freely choose their legal and defense systems. The state refuses to allow this competition because it cannot survive without coercion.

3. 'Not Being Able to Opt Out Is a Strength'

The idea that the state’s monopoly on law and violence is a strength is an open endorsement of tyranny:

By this logic, slavery, forced military conscription, and totalitarian regimes would also be 'strong' because people cannot opt out.

Strength does not equal morality - the mafia and North Korea are 'strong' in their ability to suppress dissent, but that does not justify their existence.

A voluntary society allows individuals to choose their legal systems. If the state were truly necessary, people would voluntarily fund and support it rather than being forced to through taxation and conscription.

4. What Happens When People Opt Out of Private Law?

The argument assumes that opting out of a private law system leads to chaos. This is false because:

Private law functions through contractual agreements - if someone refuses to participate, they simply lose access to protection, legal recognition, and arbitration.

Today, private arbitration, security, and dispute resolution already exist, even under state monopolies. Removing the state would only strengthen them through market competition.

Example: Insurance companies, private courts, and security firms already enforce rules today. Just like refusing to pay for health insurance means losing coverage, refusing to engage in private law means losing protection and legal recognition.

A system based on voluntary agreements and incentives is far more stable than one based on coercion.

5. 'Competing Defense Agencies Would Be Gangs or Mafias'

A common myth is that in a voluntary society, private protection agencies would act like criminal gangs. But this ignores how competition and market incentives prevent this behavior:

The mafia thrives due to state prohibition and black markets, not because voluntary law creates crime.

In contrast, private companies today compete in arbitration, private security, and enforcement without degenerating into war.

Governments themselves are the biggest organized crime syndicates, engaging in:

Taxation (legalized theft)

Conscription (legalized kidnapping)

War (legalized mass murder)

If Apple and Microsoft settle disputes through courts rather than violence, why would competing private defense agencies act differently?

A private security firm that engaged in shakedowns would lose customers and be replaced—unlike the state, which has no competition and no accountability.

6. 'Wouldn’t the Rich Buy Justice?'

The idea that only the wealthy would get justice in a private system ignores that the rich already manipulate state-run justice systems:

Governments bail out banks while letting small businesses fail.

Politicians are immune to laws that apply to everyone else.

Corporate lobbying and crony capitalism ensure that justice is bought by the highest bidder.

Under private law, justice providers compete. If a private law firm became known for favoritism, customers would switch to a more impartial provide - something impossible under a state monopoly.

Today, many businesses prefer private arbitration over government courts because it is faster, cheaper, and fairer. Private law ensures justice through competition, not coercion.

7. Migration doesn’t prove bigger government is better

People migrate for economic opportunity, not for big government.

India has lower government spending than Australia, but GDP per capita is far lower - this explains migration, not the size of government.

If large government spending attracted migrants, people would move to Venezuela or Zimbabwe instead of places with free markets like Singapore and Hong Kong.

People move to more free countries with better property rights and freer markets, not just those with high state intervention.

1. Governments are the largest sources of war and violence, not private actors.

2. People do not 'choose' the state—it is imposed on them.

3. Coercion is not a strength—voluntary law systems function through incentives, not force.

4. Private law operates through contracts—opting out does not mean chaos.

5. Competing defense agencies would act like businesses, not gangs.

6. The rich already manipulate state justice—competition ensures fairness.

7. People migrate for economic opportunity, not bigger government.

Non-aggression, voluntary association, property rights, and self-ownership are best realized in a system where law and defense are provided through voluntary means, not through a coercive monopoly.

The state is not the solution - it is the greatest violator of these principles.

Another book recommendation in addition to For a New Liberty by Rothbard which recommended earlier:

Ethics of Liberty by the same person.

You're one of those the types of people I came to Nostr to avoid. The type who keeps belittling, insulting, cannot stop getting personal. I've been careful to avoid people like you, but alas.

Try keeping an open mind and reading the people I suggested and their books.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on like I suggested before.

And it is clear to me that you're just arguing based on whatever points suit your narrative and idea about how governments ought to be.

Well, that seems very wishful and 'theoretical' to me.

It's not the reality and never has been. Governments can only exist by stealing and coercing. Try not paying taxes to your government for not providing you adequate services and see what happens. And try offering the same service to people around you in a peaceful manner and see what happens.

That alone is an invalidation of your entire argument that governments are needed to realise the principles I care about. But you seem persistent and dodge this fundamental flaw. You have failed to convince me of the validity of your position.

Maybe you are living in a different reality than mine with your baseless fantasies about a moral government that is benevolent, ethical and beloved.

But that's not how governments work in practice.

They never have, never do and never will.

I do have examples which I won't give because of reasons I just laid out.

And also because I am not interested in 'winning' this argument. There is no such thing.

I am using this exchange to articulate my ideas and make it better. You're providing a service to me with your time and energy free of cost. So thanks for that. Appreciate it.

Using Reason is how people evolve from being barbarians to civilized human beings.

If people relied on empirical analysis to assess whether slavery was good or bad, whether theft was good or bad, whether war was good or bad, whether invasions were good are bad, the world would be a more horrible, uncivilized place than it already is thanks to people who do that right now.

Empiricism is the death of ethics and morality.

This conversation at its heart is about what the ideal way of defending one's person and property is. It's an ethical argument about what is right and wrong in the realm of politics, which is essentially concerned with the ethics of violence.

We both agree that it is moral, righteous and just to defend, if need be with the use of violence, one's person and property against an aggressor.

To arrive at this, we do not use empirical evidence. We use 'theoretical' and 'logical' reasoning about what is right and wrong.

If a person or a group of people around us suddenly call themselves the government and steals from someone with the claim that he will be protected in the future, that is wrong. It would indeed be organised crime. Applying this same reasoning to the governments that already exist today is simply being consistent.

So governments of today are essentially organised criminals if you and I agree on the principle of self-ownership and private property.

Getting them out of humanity's social functioning, at whatever point in the future, gradually or preferably as fast as possible, is a pretty good ideal to have.

Regarding your theory about India: It's not just India. It's like that everywhere. Nobody can 'fix' anybody. Statists like you have this fantasy of thinking that people can somehow be shaped according to your preferences. Well, they can't be.

Besides, I don't want to 'fix' other people. I want to get the governments and other forms of organised aggression out of their lives, businesses, properties and families.

Well, that's a very poor response. You could've asked why I think so, the same way I did to your initial statement. I'm disappointed.

Ethics, economics, morals and politics cannot be discussed with empirical analysis. That is wrong and dangerous. That's not how one comes up with an argument about how the world ought to work. 'Reason' has to be employed for it.

But then, you are free to believe what you believe as long as you leave me and my property alone. Good day! 👋

Your argument doesn’t have the substance you think it does

I live in India and can give you dozens of examples regarding what the Indian government has done and is doing that is good and bad. I am aware of a lot of examples from both sides. And I have explored different schools of political thought and applied it to what is necessary and not necessary for the society and culture I live in.

I came to the conclusion I did after taking into account all of this. The ends do not justify the means for me. The means are as important as the ends.

I get where you're coming from overall, but I whole-heartedly disagree with you.

I hope we can amicably agree to disagree and move on.

There is nothing more to gain for either of us from this exchange.

Thanks for engaging.

Governments will only corrupt the rule of law and contract enforcement with their positivism.

Wherever there are governments, you will not have proper free markets. You will have one set of people living and leeching off the rest of the populace by stealing their wealth.

Governments are comprised of ordinary people.

Power will corrupt them. And absolute power will corrupt them absolutely.

They have every incentive to remove all the checks and balances placed on them over time.

To think that such a system is workable is quite utopian. I'm still not giving examples. This is just examining human nature and incentives.

I think literature from Rothbard and Hoppe might give you a different perspective about governments being involved in enforcing contracts and rule of law, if you'd like to explore further about this.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

I'm not sure why or what we are arguing here.

I see that you have recently reposted Mises and Hayek quotes.

What I said is not at all different from what they say about government intervention into the economy. I am arguing, like them, that the free market is a better solution rather than government planning or intervention.

Nope, you're misinterpreting my argument, which was general in nature. I did not specify examples.

It will hold true whether you apply it in the past, present or future in whatever region you want to.

One can keep trying to plan an economy or intervene in it. It will always fail, be sub-optimal or cause unintended consequences.

You can simply reflect on it to understand.

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that coercion and violence is wrong. Advocating for anarchy is a normative stance, for which descriptive analysis is not suitable.

One cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.

Just because things have been a certain way, doesn't mean they always have to be that way.

I'm not selectively ignoring the good. I'm broadening the timeframe and pointing out that nothing good will come out of interventionism over the long run.

It's precisely because humans are imperfect that I say that governments cannot fix things.

1. I was talking about economic policy, for which it does equate bad outcomes over the long run if there is state involvement of any kind.

2. I did not mention Bitcoin in the OP at all.

I see where you're coming from, but I'd build on what you said and say:

Politically, it boils down to how strong and well-defined the institutions of money, property rights and voluntary contracts are in a particular region. Doesn't mean these institutions necessarily need to be tied to a centralised state.

A state can provide these institutions but it will be prone to corruption, takeover and degradation. It will inevitably lead to worse outcomes no matter how much a society tries.