thisosound

But the fees are a lot lower and it doesn't mean that those protections can't be added back on on a different layer. You can also do a lot more with Bitcoin than with CCs.

It's not a literal statement. Customers lose and taxi companies benefit. 99%/1%.

It's only a market failure, because it's publicly owned. Oceans and air is tricky, but rivers and lakes can certainly be privately owned.

But, regulation is also a public good and therefore also a market failure... so you end up with regulations that harm 99% of the people, like in the case of Uber in France.

The same that is happening in the States; they'll make it illegal.

Regulation is a public good, therefore it is itself a market failure. Voters don't do hours of research to determine what constitutes rational regulation.

So, if there's a new law that will cost 990 people $1 each and the other 10 people gain 99 each... it will pass, because for 99% of the people it's not even worth an hour of their time to rally against it. However, the 1% that benefit from it can afford to organize entire campaigns to convince the 99% that this new law is for their own good.

to clean up its waste responsibly

Why won't the unregulated company get sued if they dump their waste onto someone else's property (in/directly)?

The total cost of lead in the environment by far outweighs the economic benefits

Evidence?

Not donating $10 to your local homeless shelter meaning that 2 people won't get food is worse than a government policy affecting millions?

e.g. war on drugs, wars, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Regulations made by the state? Why wouldn't corporations pay lobbyists to make regulations shield them from competition and hurt consumers?

I don't think they are intentionally trying to mislead people to favour Bitcoin.

Banking is the most heavily regulated industry there is. Regulators have offices inside banks, yet it didn't prevent 2008, HSBC and every other billion-dollar scandal.

Nobody is exempt from the need to consume resources to survive. This is how life is.

But which way of obtaining resources is the best?

1. Trade (a voluntary interaction from which both parties expect to benefit from)

2. Charity (a voluntary interaction from which one party expects to other to benefit from)

3. Extortion (an involuntary interaction achieved through force or threats)

In essence:

The current welfare programs are already funding those people, so let's replace it with one that covers everyone instead of those who enrolled.

Also, how can you give without first taking?

Then why not raise it to $30/h? I'm serious.

Will those who previously made e.g. $20/h get a $10 raise or will their employer outsource/automate?

You underestimate how lazy humans get if they don't have discipline and/or pressure.

Why do you think it's either/or?

Can't voluntarily funded charities replace all of those functions?

If they are that strongly vested, why do they need to be forced?