Justus Ranvier said: That is by no means "all bitcoin does". Removing money from government control is not what I was talking about in the part of my post that you did not quote or address - which was the effect Bitcoin's existence has on government employees, not government subjects. Click to expand...

Not sure what is being argued then. The majority of the post quoted stated that Bitcoin's existence is not compatible with government and only one or the other can exist, and if Bitcoin succeeds then that results in the elimination of government.That is what I disagree with, government will be smaller by necessity under Bitcoin, but it will not be eliminated. Historical periods under a sound money system with fixed supply demonstrate this.Yes, the effect on government employees in the quote above all makes sense, no disagreement there.But it is important to remember that government employees only represent a fraction of what government is (which is scary considering the size of our bureaucracy). The vast majority of government is transfer payments (SS, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, etc), next is the perpetual war machine (military), then interest on debt payments.Coming up last at ~7% of total spending is what we consider to be "government", i.e. education, courts, police, roads, infrastructure, NASA, EPA, Labor boards, FTC, etc. This is where most of the "government employees" are, but they only represent ~7% of spending.All spending will get reduced under a Bitcoin standard, not just on government employees but transfer payments as well. Just because of the shear size of them transfer payments will be reduced more than anything else, and that will effect "government subjects" potentially even more than government employees.