Tyranny vs democracy wasn't my point, my point was that instead of accepting the negatives in the system, you rationalise them away by saying it's okay when it's your team behaving this way. History has a way of making this habit look foolish in the long run.
If crypto currencies prevail, we will see if your fears or my hopes end up justified. I am just happy it's finally possible.
Again, I don't think these characteristics you list are unquestionably present or that they are unquestionably absolute negatives. From my perspective you use emotionally loaded language to try and paint a picture that fits in with your worldview.
It's not 'my team vs your team'. It's that I genuinely don't see cooperative government or managed currencies as evil (quite the opposite), and you do.
I don't this his language was emotional at all.
I don't want my money to be spent in certain ways.
I like voluntarism and of course I would try to improve the situation around my area instead of financing war, prisons and luxury for the corrupted.
violent, parasitic, corrupt, extortionate, coercion, organised crime ring... these aren't emotionally loaded terms to you?
Again, different people have different attitudes. I'm not saying his (or your) view of the world is invalid. I'm saying that acting like it is the only possible rational or objective view on the world, and using heavily loaded words and a lot of absolute pronouncements, is a shortcoming I've seen in many internet libertarians.
--edit-- along with an assumption that anyone disagreeing with them just doesn't understand the arguments (I do), or is being wilfully ignorant (I'm not)
You keep pretending that those words don't actually apply, even though when I nailed you down on the definitions, you acknowledged it, you just said it was OK because the behaviour is acceptable when it's your team that's doing it.
If that excuse works for you, that's fine, but it doesn't negate the fact that the labels still accurately apply, you've just tried to justify them.
Oh for god's sake. No I didn't. Read the thread back. I do not agree that tax and extortion are equivalent, neither do I agree that government is by nature parasitic, nor that its aims are necessarily expansionist. These are emotionally coloured labels and presume that your worldview is absolutely correct.
I do agree (and said as much) that we delegate the use of violence to our representatives, but I'd quite like to know how libertarians would enforce property rights without violence, and why that's just AOK but not allowed for any other right we grant ourselves. This is where you're just as guilty of allowing 'your team' to get away with something.
--edit-- anyway, I'm done here, I'm pretty sure we've demonstrated that you're intolerant of other worldviews
Playing games with labels whilst refusing to accept the essential characteristics of the underlying subject doesn't make you correct.
It's not taxation, it's extortion.
It's not quantitative easing, it's debasement.
It's not enhanced interrogation, it's fucking torture.
It's not pre-emptive targeted killing, it's assassination.
It's not lobbying, it's bribery.
Putting your thugs in uniforms does not make them other than thugs. It doesn't matter which of these labels you accept, the description does not modify the reality. The map is not the territory.
I am sick to death of statist word game bullshit and yes, I will not silently take it while being told once again that war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
If crypto currencies prevail, we will see if your fears or my hopes end up justified. I am just happy it's finally possible.