The more I learn about history, the more I have come to realize that trying to explain why using violence and coercion to redistribute property always leads to worse economic outcomes is a futile exercise that I should not waste more time on. People do not want to recognize the fact that the State is a violent looting system because they see themselves as being beneficiaries of the looting.
If people think they are getting more back from the looting than they have taken from them, they have a natural incentive to ignore the violence as being justifiable. Some even go so far as to claim it is good and proper that the State uses coercive force to take property from the innocent.
Consider the perspectives of the following two people:
1. The welfare collecting bum who sits around all day playing video games and smoking weed.
2. The welfare collecting bum who is the CEO of a major defense corporation.
In the first case, the man obviously feels he is getting more from the State than he is paying in taxes. He enjoys his sedentary lifestyle and doesn’t really feel any need to have more in life. As long as he has a roof over his head, food in his belly, and a game to keep him occupied, he’s perfectly content to do nothing productive with his life. His loyalty to the statist system is deep and profound. He religously votes democrat to ensure the greatest amount of handouts keep flowing his way. He has no concern for the economic health of the nation as a whole.
In the second case, this man too obviously feels he is getting more from the State than he is paying in taxes. He would gladly fork over another 10% of his income in taxes if it meant that he could keep the defense contracts flowing his way. His loyalty to the statist system is also deep and profound. He religiously votes republican to ensure the greatest amount of handouts keep flowing his way. He has no concern for the economic health or security of the nation as a whole.
In both cases, each man perceives benefits to keeping the statist system in place. Neither the wealthy defense contractor nor the bum would ever consider eliminating the system that provides them with stolen booty. People like those examples I just provided make up the bulk of our society today. Each individual perceives some benefit that they feel the State is providing them from the booty. Thus, since everyone has an incentive to ignore the violence, they do.
It follows that if the majority of people feel they have an economic incentive to keep the system of looting in place, removing the cancer of the State by trying to convince enough people to change it is an impossible and futile task. The State provides profits without risk, safety from the evil horrors of competition, and security from other mafia syndicates who might try to take their stolen tax booty for their own cronies.
The State will eventually destroy itself. I am fairly confident that the American empire will collapse in the same way the Soviet Union collapsed. The State always grows like a cancer until it destroys its host. The great question that had remained unanswered to me was how to prevent it from coming back. I have obviously spent a great deal of time writing articles, arguing on internet forums, writing politicians, making propaganda videos, etc.. etc.. etc.. and I see little to no effect on anything. People will act to loot each other as long as they think they will economically benefit from the looting, even if the destruction of the monetary unit results from their actions.
Then I found Bitcoin.
The realization that the end of the State would come about through technological markets has just struck me recently. Here we have a currency system that can not be manipulated and can not be stopped. As the State ultimately and inevitably destroys its own currency, the masses will seek a sound currency to replace it with. Many will clamor for metals, but metals standards always lead to the same system of enslavement we have today. It is as ridiculous to think the State can be restrained by a metals standard as it is to think the State can be restrained by a constitution. As soon as digital numbers are used to represent gold in transactions, they instantly become suseptiable to fractional reserve banking and arbitrary inflation.
The only way to eliminate the State is to create a currency system that has no possible way for a State to assume control over it. - and that currency is Bitcoin.
Nothing more needs to be done other than promoting the Bitcoin currency. The currency sells itself. Anyone who wants to protect their wealth can immediately see the benefits of Bitcoin. Anyone who wants to transact without a money trail (all black markets) can immediately see the benefits of Bitcoin. Anyone who wants to conduct international settlements without banking fees or State regulations can immediately see the benefits of Bitcoin. There are simply too many people who stand to benefit from using the currency to stop it. When this fact is coupled with the fact that States always destroy their currencies, Bitcoin (or another currency like it) will insidiously push the other junk currencies out of existence. When Thiers’ Law takes root, the violent looting will come to an end.
The ease of transactions, scarcity, fungibility, divisibility, and recognizably of Bitcoins is superior to gold or silver. They are more easily hidden, harder to coercively take, and easier to transport. The markets will chose Bitcoins over metals. There is no question that Bitcoins are superior to metals as a monetary unit. The markets will chose them.
When a State loses the ability to tax and inflate, it will collapse. The only transactions that can take place with Bitcoins are voluntary ones. The cryptographic security of the coins is so strong that no one can loot them. The networked nature of the coins makes it so that no one can stop them from being traded. The international nature of the network prevents any one nation from regulating and controlling them.
Any attempt by a State to ban them or regulate them will simply further legitimize them as a real currency that poses a real threat to the statist quo. Stopping Bitcoins in a first world nation would require shutting down the web; an impossible task that not even a totalitarian State could accomplish. The futility of trying to stop them will become apparent to all once the State does try to stop them (which it will).
The end of the State has arrived, its name is Bitcoin.