The argument that is purported by those who constantly say government has no role is flawed.
Stating that a patent or any other property is a government granted monopoly is not an argument.
All property rights, including real property are at present a government granted monopoly. If you believe in property rights, in any way, you cannot use the argument about government granted monopolies. To do so is to support the argument that all property should be abolished. This is the attack that has moved from the typical Marxist open attack on property to the more insidious so-called anarcho capitalist one.
Saying, property rights are a government monopoly is not an argument about whether they are right or wrong. The issue is very simple, is property a right.
If you believe property is a right, then the fact that it is granted by government or not is irrelevant. That is an enforcement mechanism. It is not how property came about. It's like the last line of the bitcoin White Paper. Creation of rules and enforcement to separate things. Governments may enforce property rights but they are not the creator of them.
So please, when you see something saying it's a government granted monopoly, start with so what?
Honestly, the question is not one of where the rights came from but whether rights exist. So very simply, do not fall for the logical fallacy of a non sequitur. These people are putting you off supporting property rights by saying there's a government involved and all governments are bad. That is a separate argument. Leave the red herrings at home.
CSW
Oct 18, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1571395144446800?thread_ts=1571395144.446800&cid=C5131HKFX
Stating that a patent or any other property is a government granted monopoly is not an argument.
All property rights, including real property are at present a government granted monopoly. If you believe in property rights, in any way, you cannot use the argument about government granted monopolies. To do so is to support the argument that all property should be abolished. This is the attack that has moved from the typical Marxist open attack on property to the more insidious so-called anarcho capitalist one.
Saying, property rights are a government monopoly is not an argument about whether they are right or wrong. The issue is very simple, is property a right.
If you believe property is a right, then the fact that it is granted by government or not is irrelevant. That is an enforcement mechanism. It is not how property came about. It's like the last line of the bitcoin White Paper. Creation of rules and enforcement to separate things. Governments may enforce property rights but they are not the creator of them.
So please, when you see something saying it's a government granted monopoly, start with so what?
Honestly, the question is not one of where the rights came from but whether rights exist. So very simply, do not fall for the logical fallacy of a non sequitur. These people are putting you off supporting property rights by saying there's a government involved and all governments are bad. That is a separate argument. Leave the red herrings at home.
CSW
Oct 18, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1571395144446800?thread_ts=1571395144.446800&cid=C5131HKFX
Data-Mining-How-to.pdf
648.9 KB
Data-Mining-How-to.pdf
A fundamental disconnect has occurred with this idea that bitcoin replaces all middlemen and removes the need for trust. I'm slowly coming to understand that people do not understand the fundamentals of what I'm talking about because they don't have the training and understanding through a vocabulary based on the level of learning I've done.
A trusted third-party is not simply a middleman. Firstly, you cannot take the words trusted or third-party in isolation. The link I have just posted is one of many around the time but it is important. Trusted third party is a specified legal term. A bank acts as a trusted third-party in the modern environment but a bank is not a trusted third-party by default. In the move to dematerialisation which is the change from paper to electronic records, trusted third parties became an explicit requirement of the existing systems. The need for a monitoring system reduced privacy and added a level of fragility to the banking system and industry.
Trusted third parties are middleman that have a role in providing intermediary services to stop money laundering and fraud. They force have other roles in antiterrorism and know your customer procedures.
The first line of the bitcoin White Paper states:
_"Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments."_
This is an economic scenario. Digital signatures cannot be anonymous as digital is simply a means of making an electronic exchange of a signature. A signature is an agreement to be bound from an individual. A part of the requirement of a signature is identity. There are many instances of pseudony in digital signature legislation. A pseudonymous transaction is private under the European provisions. The individuals engaging in the transaction must know of each other without having the personally identifiable information associated with the exchange made public. The need to identify individuals by definition precludes having a digital signature algorithm act as a digital signature without some means of identifying the individuals involved.
When you start to investigate this further, you'll start to understand the concept I was referring to on the original bitcoin website:
"There are two ways to send money. If the recipient is online, you can enter their IP address and it will connect, get a new public key and send the transaction with comments. If the recipient is not online, it is possible to send to their Bitcoin address, which is a hash of their public key that they give you."
CSW
Feb 7, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1581090868001700?thread_ts=1581090868.001700&cid=C5131HKFX
A trusted third-party is not simply a middleman. Firstly, you cannot take the words trusted or third-party in isolation. The link I have just posted is one of many around the time but it is important. Trusted third party is a specified legal term. A bank acts as a trusted third-party in the modern environment but a bank is not a trusted third-party by default. In the move to dematerialisation which is the change from paper to electronic records, trusted third parties became an explicit requirement of the existing systems. The need for a monitoring system reduced privacy and added a level of fragility to the banking system and industry.
Trusted third parties are middleman that have a role in providing intermediary services to stop money laundering and fraud. They force have other roles in antiterrorism and know your customer procedures.
The first line of the bitcoin White Paper states:
_"Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments."_
This is an economic scenario. Digital signatures cannot be anonymous as digital is simply a means of making an electronic exchange of a signature. A signature is an agreement to be bound from an individual. A part of the requirement of a signature is identity. There are many instances of pseudony in digital signature legislation. A pseudonymous transaction is private under the European provisions. The individuals engaging in the transaction must know of each other without having the personally identifiable information associated with the exchange made public. The need to identify individuals by definition precludes having a digital signature algorithm act as a digital signature without some means of identifying the individuals involved.
When you start to investigate this further, you'll start to understand the concept I was referring to on the original bitcoin website:
"There are two ways to send money. If the recipient is online, you can enter their IP address and it will connect, get a new public key and send the transaction with comments. If the recipient is not online, it is possible to send to their Bitcoin address, which is a hash of their public key that they give you."
CSW
Feb 7, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1581090868001700?thread_ts=1581090868.001700&cid=C5131HKFX