Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

This is a pretty bad headline. First off, there should be a article in there, like "A Bitcoin service". Secondly, the service appears to have been shutdown to protect the owners/operators of the site from further legal action. They are not being forced to close. The state thinks they need a license and they think they don't. Instead of risking jail time on the possibility they don't need a license, they are taking the cautious route and shutting down until the legal issues are resolved.

View on HN

"They are not being forced to close."

"Instead of risking jail time (...)"

I see some contradiction in here. If you feel a threat of violence upon you, isn't it very definition of "being forced"?

The operators of the site believe that they are in the right. If they were 100% confident of this they could continue to operate. They are not 100% confident so they are shutting down to make sure what they are doing isn't illegal. They are not being threatened with violence by the state anymore than any other law abiding citizen. They have simply been informed that what they are doing may be illegal and are adjusting accordingly.

The fact that all citizens are afraid of state violence does not mean we can redefine word "voluntarism". You abide the law non-voluntarily. You abide terms of service in McDonalds voluntarily because you can always choose from millions of alternatives + you can have a peaceful dialog in case of a dispute. Neither McDonalds manager, nor you are willing to fight each other on fists or in court. It's in your mutual interests to figure out problems through discussion.

You don't discuss with the state. You can have your input, but you are totally dependent on existing powers that allow you some freedom and some voice. That's why you have no problem arguing with private companies and having them listen to you, but everyone avoids state courts as much as possible (in majority of cases courts are used as a threat, not as a real dispute resolution mechanism).

> They are not being forced to close.

They were told they "must" close by the state. I'm not sure how anyone can construe that as voluntary.

They were told they must stop if they are not exempt. The companies position is that they are exempt. They have chosen not to gamble that the commonwealth will rule in their favor during the appeal; however, that is their choice and they could have continued to operate.

A smaller entity being threatened by a larger entity is a form of force.

Do you think you pay taxes "voluntarily" also?

Yes, because you can always relinquish your citizenship and leave the country if you don't want to pay taxes. It should be noted that all "voluntary" market transactions occur pursuant to the implicit threat of force. When I buy something, I reserve the right to invoke the state's use of force if the product is say defective, while the seller reserves the right to invoke the state's use of force if my payment is say counterfeit currency. Per your definition, there are no voluntary transactions in any country with even the most basic government. Which is certainly a self-consistent definition, though it's arguably not that useful unless you believe that full-fledged anarchy is feasible.

Not to be harsh, but your argument is all over the place.

Well in fairness, that's the exact way the argument is usually seen deployed by those opposing state regulation of anything who eventually end up hyperventilating about jackbooted thugs forcing you to register your car at the DMV.

> who eventually end up hyperventilating about jackbooted thugs forcing you to register your car at the DMV.

It's a poor argument that can be derailed by what you think another might say.

"Yes, because you can always relinquish your citizenship and leave the country if you don't want to pay taxes."

Thank you for this comment, I thought I was the only one on HN with that opinion.

> there should be a article in there, like "A Bitcoin service"

Newspaper headlines have evolved own special grammar rules, designed to save space. According to Wikipedia [1], "Articles are usually omitted."

Also, it's a little ironic that this comment, nitpicking the headline's choice of articles, itself uses articles incorrectly (it should say "there should be _an_ article in there.")

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlinese

Reply on news.ycombinator.com