> The problem with governments creating welfare states is that other citizens (and the government) become responsible for the financial implosion of individuals which incentivizes stupid behavior.

At the same time, allowing extreme wealth inequality incentivizes stupid behavior on the part of capital (like wasting capital on unproductive speculation, or driving the working class foundation of the population to poverty). Welfare states put sensible checks on capital, and honestly capital should welcome policies that keep the population from doing rash things like nationalizing all their assets out of desperation.

But you put a tax on gambling then you might have even more money if the guy would have spent his money on vacations around the world. So put a tax on crypto generating/transactions.

> healthcare of someone who used their health insurance money to speculate on cryptocurrency?

You've got it backwards. You are making health insurance profit-driven, when it should be a government service. So then there would be no "individual's health insurance money" to quibble about.

> Once the government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens, it has weird effects like banning cryptocurrency

Wow, that's one helluva strawperson argument. Governments have always been responsible for the well-being of its citizens.

This idea of blaming hypothetical "stupid people" is trotted out by libertarians who want to punish the poor for dumb behavior, but give the rich a pass for equally-or-more dumb behavior that has a 1,000x more negative impact on society, simply because rich=smart=superior in their minds.

You're setting up your own strawperson at the end there.

The kind of libertarian who's excited about Bitcoin is the kind that, with Satoshi in Bitcoin's genesis block, criticizes the bailout of banks and thinks they should have been allowed to fail, because that's what would keep them in check and prevent their walking all over regular people.

That's actually not a strawperson. I didn't set up an argument and knock it down. But go ahead and avoid my criticism of your point, it speaks volumes.

I think you thought the post you commented on (mine) made that response (I did not), but the only thing that it speaks volumes of is your eagerness to personally insult the opposing side by insinuating they can't engage in constructive debate. In my analogy, I tried to reflect an example of a typical decision available to a US citizen as that's the main audience here. The argument holds for any government service that people in financial ruin benefit from. In this case, the most applicable would be: should individuals who lose all their money speculating be able to file for bankruptcy? Bankruptcy is a social benefit that gives people a chance at a restart. Should we give that privilege to people who intentionally use it as a call option? Perhaps I should have used this example, but the other is a real monthly expense for many Americans and so I thought fit the narrative better.

And yes, your last comment is a strawman because any libertarian who believes in individual choice and consequence also believes the same for businesses and rich people. You're attacking a group of people who exist but that I wouldn't call libertarians.