BITCOIN

Zola.

It's stupid though - in a time where the world is removing all their mandates and pandemic controls, Trudeau is going the opposite way. It doesn't make any sense either given that truckers are vital to making the economy work, and they spend 22 hours of the day in isolation. He has gone way overboard and will end up paying the price for it.. All he has done is stoke tensions and bring more people onto the streets. 

He also didn't deny that if you as a Canadian citizen donate money to a political cause they don't like they can freeze your assets without any powers to sue them if you are proved innocent of whatever they suspect you to be.. This sort of power always leads to an abuse of power and is totally disproportionate. 

bugbyte_2

Zola. said:

It's stupid though - in a time where the world is removing all their mandates and pandemic controls, Trudeau is going the opposite way. It doesn't make any sense either given that truckers are vital to making the economy work, and they spend 22 hours of the day in isolation. He has gone way overboard and will end up paying the price for it.. All he has done is stoke tensions and bring more people onto the streets. 

He also didn't deny that if you as a Canadian citizen donate money to a political cause they don't like they can freeze your assets without any powers to sue them if you are proved innocent of whatever they suspect you to be.. This sort of power always leads to an abuse of power and is totally disproportionate. 

But don't you think bringing a city to a standstill for nearly a month is an abuse of power? They could only do it because they own large trucks. If you think it is OK for them to do this then you need to empower every difference of opinion to do the same. Would you, for example, be happy if your city ground to a halt for a month because FOREST were given a load of trucks and parked them on your main roads because they want to smoke in restaurants? Because by rights they should be able to annoy the life out of anybody and everybody for any amount of time if Truckers (and tube drivers) can do it.

Or is there a line somewhere? and does that line include a clause where if you continue being a nause beyond what is acceptable you will have your assets taken off you?

If 'Thank you for drawing this to our attention, we have considered it but to be frank, you are a fruit case, now **** off' doesn't work what would you do? The checks and balances are the election of our representatives.

Zola.

It's only lasted this long because it was first a very bad idea, poorly implemented and it's been exacerbated so much with JT's subsequent terrible strategic moves... He has backed himself into the corner now.. 

Theres footage of police horses trampling on protestors as they are lying on the ground which isn't going to do much to remedy the situation..

User232002

Thrugelmir said:

Then they should emigrate to China...............

Interesting that China is synonymous in the west with 'no freedoms,' yet it hasn't imposed vaccine mandates.

Hexane said:

darren232002 said:

Ah, I see. So when you said that confiscation of money and seizure of assets wasn't a problem in a first world country, 

I don't remember saying that.

You liked a Malthusian post that made this point. But yes, you like so many anti-Bitcoin posts just because they are anti-Bitcoin posts its probably hard to keep track.

Hexane said:

darren232002 said:

By utilising legislation designed for war and threats to national security. 

I consider it perfectly reasonable to view an economic blockade as a threat to national security.

As usual, your view is incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion as there is a quite extensive body of case law on this matter. Articles 6 & 9 ECHR are not subject to qualification on grounds of national security, they are absolute rights. Sure, Canada isn't subject to EU law but (1) its a commonwealth country, so its probably pretty close and (2) our law should determine the grounds by which we judge others, particularly a nation like Canada. Fully expect Trudeau's actions will be declared illegal by a court in 2 or 3 years and the state ordered to pay damages to most of the peoples accounts they froze.

Lastly, 'national security' is defined as 'in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.' As in, the nation state itself may very well cease to exist. Being inconvenienced on your commute to work or having the price of biscuits go up a bit doesn't cut it no matter how 'perfectly reasonable' you think this is.

bugbyte_2 said:

But don't you think bringing a city to a standstill for nearly a month is an abuse of power? They could only do it because they own large trucks.

Extinction rebellion did it without large trucks.

bugbyte_2 said:

Because by rights they should be able to annoy the life out of anybody and everybody for any amount of time if Truckers (and tube drivers) can do it.

As annoying as they were, I'll defend the tube drivers right to strike and protest if they genuinely thought sitting on their !!!!!! all day for £60k/yr+ was a bad deal. The problem was the continual capitulation of TfL. 

bugbyte_2 said:

If you think it is OK for them to do this then you need to empower every difference of opinion to do the same.

No, definitely not. Democracy says power flows from the people; it is not simply about voting, it is also about listening to and representing the wishes of those who are not in the majority. There's an idea known as 'dictatorship by majority' where (again, game theory) you simply do enough to get 51% of the vote and then legislate in your own interests. 

The key here is that "I'm vaccinated. I believe that the vaccine is safe and effective. I do not believe in forcing others to take it." is patently a fair and just opinion, demonstrably held by a significant percentage of the electorate.

bugbyte_2 said:

Or is there a line somewhere? and does that line include a clause where if you continue being a nause beyond what is acceptable you will have your assets taken off you?

If 'Thank you for drawing this to our attention, we have considered it but to be frank, you are a fruit case, now **** off' doesn't work what would you do? 

What you're basically asking is, "What percentage of the electorate do we believe it is completely reasonable to completely ignore?" If you want to demand an investigation looking in to the lizard people then sod off, but when you've got a few million people supporting your cause its time to listen.

Assets should never be taken off you for raising a political point of view and protesting that in a legal way, and indeed there is no legal precedent for this (unless you're going to repurpose national security laws and deal with the fallout later). To accept otherwise is to put us on par with those African countries where the leader of the opposition goes missing in the run up to an election. 

bugbyte_2 said:

The checks and balances are the election of our representatives.

We have 4 year election cycles and despite politician approval/opinion ratings being at an all time low, re-election rates are at an all time high (especially for incumbents). The check and balance on the executive is the judiciary.

Zola.

On Bitcoin Mining within the Oil & Gas industry...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvq6fFSMpgM

Hexane

darren232002 said:

darren232002 said:

Ah, I see. So when you said that confiscation of money and seizure of assets wasn't a problem in a first world country, 

I don't remember saying that.

You liked a Malthusian post that made this point. 

A Malthusian post!

Goodness me!

Thank you for drawing this to my attention! Quite shocking!

Zola.

I love this thread

Malthusian

darren232002 said:

You liked a Malthusian post that made this point.

Burn him at the stake!

Do you now, or have you ever liked Malthusian posts? Because every time you click "Thanks" on a Malthusian post, God kills a dogepup and makes number go down by 1,000.

As usual, your view is incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion as there is a quite extensive body of case law on this matter. Articles 6 & 9 ECHR are not subject to qualification on grounds of national security, they are absolute rights. Sure, Canada isn't subject to EU law but (1) its a commonwealth country, so its probably pretty close and (2) our law should determine the grounds by which we judge others, particularly a nation like Canada. Fully expect Trudeau's actions will be declared illegal by a court in 2 or 3 years and the state ordered to pay damages to most of the peoples accounts they froze.

This legal analysis is slightly undermined by (apart from the whole "Canadian law, EU law, whevs" thing) the fact that on the other page you were saying that Canadian lorry drivers (and everyone else) need Bitcoin so they can be sovereign citizens, i.e. above the law, and have the "freedom to transact financially" i.e. circumvent asset freezes.

By any stretch of the imagination, Canadian citizens being able to ignore the government is a threat to Canadian national security.

Avoiding allegedly unjustified and illegal asset seizures (leaving aside whether they are or not) by holding assets which enable you to ignore them is the same as avoiding wrongful arrest by kneeing the coppers in the goolies and running for the hills. Unless you're prepared to uproot yourself permanently and flee all the way to a country without an extradition strategy, which is beyond most of us (especially the innocent), it's impractical and will just make things worse.

Zola.

https://www.weforum.org/organizations/lightning-labs

Probably irrelevant...

User232002

Malthusian said:

This legal analysis is slightly undermined by (apart from the whole "Canadian law, EU law, whevs" thing) the fact that on the other page you were saying that Canadian lorry drivers (and everyone else) need Bitcoin so they can be sovereign citizens, i.e. above the law, and have the "freedom to transact financially" i.e. circumvent asset freezes.

Sovereign citizen does not mean above the law. Freedom to transact does not mean circumvent asset freezes. 

The post you quoted explicitly pointed out that such rights can be suspended, provided the government goes to court, presents evidence and builds a case first.

You should absolutely be suspicious any time rights are suspended without due process.

Malthusian said:

By any stretch of the imagination, Canadian citizens being able to ignore the government is a threat to Canadian national security.

Except it can't. It's your opinion and it is provably false. It is not a matter of opinion or degree given that there is a clear definition of 'national security' that has been cited - national security is a threat to the existence of a nation itself. Unless you are trying to argue the case that a nation state can be terminated because it is ignored to death perhaps?

Malthusian said:

Avoiding allegedly unjustified and illegal asset seizures (leaving aside whether they are or not) by holding assets which enable you to ignore them is the same as avoiding wrongful arrest by kneeing the coppers in the goolies and running for the hills. Unless you're prepared to uproot yourself permanently and flee all the way to a country without an extradition strategy, which is beyond most of us (especially the innocent), it's impractical and will just make things worse.

No idea what you are blabbering on about with the silly analogy.

The west used to stand for ideals. The thing about morals is that they don't change based on the facts in front of you, even if they are inconvenient. If they do, you didn't believe in them enough in the first place. That means sometimes its difficult to make the bad guys pay or that the bad guys (or even well meaning good guys ie. extinction rebellion) will take advantage. Such is the price of freedom.

"My idea of freedom is that we should protect the rights of people to believe what their conscience dictates, but fight equally hard to protect people from having the beliefs of others imposed upon them."

Justin Trudeau, "Common Ground" 2014