It's the government trying to enforce their opinion of who should own those Bitcoins, thereby taking power away from the owner that the network has decided on, which would be "whoever has the cryptographic keys".
We can, and should discuss subjects without "tainting" them with general, over-discussed points when we can, especially if we want to keep HN curious and not turn into a echo-chamber.
At some point we need to stop wasting oxygen on obvious garbage.
If this domain received 1/1000th as much attention and electricity I would be with you. But until then we could do with far less waste.
Definitely not a compelling reason.
On a side note, Islam requires a 2.5% Zakat from money hoarded in your account, to be donated to charity, so there's your solution against hoarding :) We don't need the government to fake print money to prevent people from hoarding. Better that money go into charity to truly have a more equitable society, as opposed to the fake and useless proposals we keep seeing and pitting parties against each other.
Since inflation is a centralized operation and Zakat is decentralized, I would wage enforcement of inflation is much easier than enforcement of Zakat.
Zakat is centralized by the government.
> that same mechanism of force could be used to inflate currency.
How so? Could you elaborate?
> but I don't see much functional difference from inflating the currency by 2.5% and then giving the newly created currency to the poor
It's very different because when the government inflates the currency, we all know whose pockets it ends up going into :)
I'm going to assume you're from one of the countries mentioned below? It's my understanding most countries with Muslim majority do not centrally enforce Zakat.
>Today, in most Muslim-majority countries, zakat contributions are voluntary, while in Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, zakat is mandated and collected by the state (as of 2015).[16][17]
[wikipedia ^]
>How so? Could you elaborate?
By compelling people to hold wealth denominated in currency, and then inflate that currency using central bank or treasury.
> It's very different because when the government inflates the currency, we all know whose pockets it ends up going into :)
No disagreement here. But government can also misappropriate Zakat. I am actually not in favor of most forms of planned inflation nor a compulsory Zakat precisely in part because I predict massive fraud on the minority of those holding the power to distribute it.
Today, many Muslim countries are not in a good shape unfortunately, and that's due to several reasons beyond the scope here. I'm referring to how things are required by Islam, and how things were done historically when Islam was actually implemented. Today Islam is not applied 100% unfortunately, which is a main cause of weakness for Muslim nations. They're either in property due to occupation, current or historic, or have to bow down to the West's whims, so that they are not overturned or invaded.
> By compelling people to hold wealth denominated in currency, and then inflate that currency using central bank or treasury.
I meant how would inflation happen in case of Zakat being enforced? They're orthogonal things unless I'm misunderstanding you.
> But government can also misappropriate Zakat
There is a set category of people whom are deserving of Zakat clearly outlined in the Quran. So, if Islam is properly applied, there would not be any meddling. It has been historically documented that in Iraq during Ummayad rule, there were no more poor people left to accept Zakat. Quite amazing.
>It has been historically documented that in Iraq during Ummayad rule, there were no more poor people left to accept Zakat.
Umayyad had a variety of religions of persons overseen by their caliphate. Was Zakat distributed to poor Christians in the Caliphate? Or did Zakat only go to Muslims? This is important to know, because supporting only minority of the poor who practice Islam could mean Zakat may have not solved poverty for the entire populace. I'd also be interested in seeing the citation that poverty didn't exist under this caliphate.
In America we have the problem that lots of administrators and bureaucrats siphon off much of the money in the welfare system into their salaries as well as issues with the money going into the hands it is intended to go to. Also since the money is taken by force, there's not a lot of control by those who contribute the money over making sure it is used appropriately.
I will note I find it both fascinating and worthy of respect that many cultures have come up with their own ways of helping the poor.
Personally I would be much more on board with a decentralized type of Zakat where individuals can pick what charity to go to, in order to protect from centralized failures of government.
>I meant how would inflation happen in case of Zakat being enforced? They're orthogonal things unless I'm misunderstanding you.
If I wanted to enforce Zakat via inflation, I would mandate people to hold their money in bank, as debt, or fiat denominated bonds, and then I would inflate the money supply by 2.5% by mailing out 2.5% of the current supply to the poor per year, or something approximating that. But that would also be an imperfect system.
I agree that humans can be greedy, etc. But that's why we have a judicial system. When you look at history, the Islamic scholars took their faith extremely seriously. Their accounts and biographies are not something you'd find in Western texts, but those exceptional people truly did exist. And because of them, we had things like the Islamic Golden Age.
The governments today have way more money on their hands don't they? Especially with the insane taxation rates we see. You allude to this point when you mention secular welfare systems. But history shows otherwise when Islam was applied.
> Umayyad had a variety of religions of persons overseen by their caliphate
Islam was the dominant religion, and the majority of the population were Muslims. The non-Muslims had to pay Jizya (limited to able men, i.e. not women, children, old men, or religious priests).
One of the categories of people who are eligible to receive Zakat, are those whose hearts are inclined toward Islam. Other than that, I don't think non-Muslims receive it. That being said, poor and needy non-Muslims are definitely eligible for charity (Sadaqah), and it is the responsibility of a functioning government to ensure that its population is well taken care of. Islam guarantees the rights of non-Muslims, and is very strict about it.
> I'd also be interested in seeing the citation that poverty didn't exist under this caliphate.
I didn't claim that no poverty existed in the entire Caliphate. As you know, the Caliphate spanned several regions and districts. I mentioned the Iraqi district, but I came across this question[1], which mentions that the mayors of the Libiyan and Tunisian regions wrote to Umar ibn AbdulAziz that they could not find a needy person to give them Zakat, so he responded to give it to the poor among the Jews and Christians. They replied that still no one took it, and they were no needy among them, so Umar replied to leave it in the market for anyone to take as they need. When still no one took it, Umar ordered to purchase slaves and free them.
I'll have to validate the authenticity of this specific account, but the notion that during Umar's rule, in certain districts there were no poor people left to accept Zakat is established.
> If I wanted to enforce Zakat via inflation, I would mandate people to hold their money in bank
Ah I see. It's prohibited in Islam to hold someone's money against their will, so there goes that :)
[1] https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/182393/%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D...
Yes and I think the level of money and trust the government holds is a source of massive failure. I think those practicing Islam should be free to distribute their Zakat directly to poor or their select organizations that aid poor, rather than being forced to give it to a central authority. Otherwise one central authority has a monopoly on distribution of Zakat, which can lead to many inefficiencies and failures.
>One of the categories of people who are eligible to receive Zakat, are those whose hearts are inclined toward Islam. Other than that, I don't think non-Muslims receive it. That being said, poor and needy non-Muslims are definitely eligible for charity (Sadaqah), and it is the responsibility of a functioning government to ensure that its population is well taken care of. Islam guarantees the rights of non-Muslims, and is very strict about it.
Again I think it's wonderful that people are offered this kind of charity. I'm a little skeptical that the system under the caliphate could have prevented all poverty or that the poverty that remained wasn't solved by collecting Jizya from non-muslims and then distributing Zakat only to those whose hearts are inclined toward Islam. I admit I do not understand much of the history of Muslim Caliphates or nations, so I'm unable to really ascertain where islamqa.info gets its source from, but I doubt we have very good record of income distributions under this caliphate. But hey, I don't have any proof that there were poor, so maybe it's true.
I do thank you for digging up your source in this matter, and it is interesting to note some points on records of history.
> Ah I see. It's prohibited in Islam to hold someone's money against their will, so there goes that :)
A reasonable prohibition, one I extend to involuntary taxes and forced centrally collected charity.
Thank you for your viewpoint here, as it's one I rarely see living in the west.