That's the point. The whole idea of property is that an authority says no-one can take it from you unlawfully. Fred has this idea that it can all be voluntary. That would mean that if one person disagrees with the idea that I own my house, its violence and slavery to deny her access to it. I've had that problem and having the ability to call the police was very useful.
I don't need, nor does anybody else need, an authority to tell them that a thing should, or should not, be expropriated unlawfully. If little kids can figure that one out on their own, so can I. I'm sure we can adjust without the state just fine. Producing definitions from the state doesn't make them lawful and unlawful per se, it just means they have the convenience of force majeure. If I want to defend myself against intruders, I can do so. If I want to hire an agent to assist me for that purpose, I can do that too. And last but not least, if I want to join a collective and spread the cost of protections amongst the members of said association, that can be done also. I don't need a state to legitimize this process. Everything that was voluntary before the birth of the state can be voluntary after that fact. There is nothing special about the function of a state. I might as well call myself a state or a sovereign nation of one. The logic is equally as valid. Numbers change nothing. The force is just multiplied in the collective. The application is equivalent. You have created nothing new here. Stop making it appear as if you have created anything original. You have merely organized a group of individuals and given them various titles of nobility. Why should I care, unless all you're interested in doing is attempting to induce fear, loathing and threats. If you're not doing that then I will just ignore you otherwise, I will oppose you. To wit, and to answer your question, yes; it can all be accomplished voluntarily. The only time it becomes involuntary is when you or your things have been aggressed or trespassed. At that point the aggressor gets a taste of his own medicine. |
|
|
|
The very idea of a state is that it is not voluntary. Concepts like property and cash are social creations. If you have someone saying "I don't voluntarily accept your idea of property" are the rest of society supposed to unlock their doors and let the guy take what he pleases ? Of course not - the state imposes property laws and punishes people who don't obey them.
Property derives from the word proprius, which means one's own. It cannot be simultaneously yours and mine and "theirs" if a person(s) is attempting to expropriate your property. Whether this be via direct theft, indirect "official proclamation", majority rule (vote), or some other such edict, matters little (it's semantics at this point). I'm not contending with your definition of State. It is accurate, but the fact that it is involuntary means you are forcing your views and the opinions of the majority (or elected elite) upon the minority. That's not freedom, it's slavery. Not the blacks vs. the whites kind of slavery, but insidious and effective nevertheless. The only definition that makes any sense, and simultaneously puts everybody on the same footing is one where your property and person is not trespassed or aggressed under any circumstances, and likewise the same must be done for everyone else. Any other variation would be a violation of the very definition of what is property. If your going to have a subjective standard (is vs. ought), at least try to make logical sense of it, otherwise you look foolish and ignorant. |
|
|
|
|
Roads don't build themselves.
Health care comes from medical professionals.
Law enforcement requires an intervener.
Schools require teachers.
Guns require weapons manufacturers.
None of the above requires a state to exist. All of them require the cooperation of a group of individuals. All of it could be voluntary. We had slavery. It didn't work and it never will. You will fail in that endeavor like those who came before you.
You aren't superordinate (God-like). Society isn't superordinate. Stop pretending to think you or your collective are any different than the rest of us. Just because you have superior collective manpower, does not mean that the ends will always justify the means.
Voluntary is nice, involuntary isn't. Have a little respect for human life. Stop the violence.
|
|
|
|
Not just waste their time, but also require them to spend money. It's an extraordinary case of favoring those who have an intense interest in that subject matter, favoring those who are wealthy, and favoring those who are healthy and strong. That is not freedom for the members of society as a whole. It's such a tiresome and fallacious argument that utterly fails to acknowledge that it is the antithesis of freedom in general.
Being forced to covet guns, train with guns and knives, to pay for weapons, to pay for excessive security is simply another form of coercion. It favors the rich, the gun nut, and the strong and healthy.
Worst of all, there is no guarantee that those who covet guns, train with guns, and have the money to buy weapons are not individuals who wish to prey upon others.
So, can we also agree that I'm not obligated to purchase guns, knives, weapons or other related security for you? It would appear that that type of coercion and covetousness is equally as inappropriate. I'm pretty sure no one was physically created equal to anybody else, but that's no excuse to plunder another's property so that they can be equal in any of their things (including security and weapons). Charities still work. Free association still works. It seems that you are making an equally tiresome and fallacious argument (society has the right to force people to coalesce, thus majority rules). The simple fact is freedom is the ability to act upon oneself and one's things sans coercion and violence, and allow the equal supremacy of others to do the same. That's the simple truth. Keep spinning your wheels, you'll get there eventually. |
|
|
|
I live in a country where the health system is near perfect so I agree with you. The reason its near perfect is that its free at the point of delivery and its supported by a democratic mandate. Talk of systems where having a sick relative costs you money and depending on charity doesn't begin to appeal.
There is no such thing as free health care anywhere if you're taking resources from one person and give them to another. There's nothing remotely perfect about that. It's just hidden slavery, coercion and theft thru legal fiat. You're just okay with the status quo because you aren't threatening anybody -since you're not law enforcement or the taxing "authority"- to get what you want (free health care in this case). You effectively wash your hands of the dirty deed and look the other way. Sounds like collusion and accessory to a criminal act. I can steal my neighbors car and gift it to my friends completely free (no effort nor compensation), but it wasn't free for the person I stole it from. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
I won't argue with you about history - your country seems to have had a better deal than mine  I will disagree about the wisdom of welfare and of medical care being free at the point of delivery. Almost everyone goes through periods of unemployment. Having everyone pay tax and thus get a buffer against the times they will be out of work makes perfect sense. Poor people can't save - its why they are poor. Taxation, supported by democratic vote, takes the pressure off them. No-one believes that leaving someone to die is a good idea either. Particularly when the person would have no problem paying for the health care if it was charged in the form of taxation over time instead of all being charged in 1 lump when they get sick. I guess what I am saying is that the taxpayer is both the creator and consumer of welfare and health care. Provided he has had a chance to vote on it, its perfectly reasonable. Me stealing from my neighbor takes the pressure off me from having to work for a living too. Considering how unsecure and accessible most property is, it's almost always easier to steal for a living than work for it. Of course it's not a good idea to "leave" somebody to die. That's why most people tend to act charitably when we see our fellow man in need. For the most part, we tend to be sympathetic to the plight of other people's lives. If that is not the case, then we're all lost and there's no point in forcing people to be slaves by pretending to be otherwise. So why force it ever? I think everybody should have the opportunity to pursue the acqusition of health care. Just do it with negotiation and mutual agreement, not at the proverbial "point of a gun" vote. The world is not a perfect place, let's take care not to worsen the situation unnecesarily. |
|
|
|
When there is law (and oh boy there is law) men are not free to act to solve their problems. Freedom is no guarantee, but in the current situation would be free actors are stopped at every turn.
Your would-be-actors are still free to act. They are just oppressed at every turn when they have to consider the consequences of their every act, due to all of the "lawful" minutiae. Maybe we should differentiate between capable and free. I know what capable is. That's just science and physical fact. The real question is, what does it mean to be and act freely? |
|
|
|
|
While I agree with Bind for the most part, from what I've read there are a few distinctions that have to be made.
1.) If you are at the workplace and many are smoking (and in close proximity), and you feel this smoke may be harmful to your health, and there was no specific contractual arrangement permitting and warning employees that the second hand smoke on the employer's premises may be harmful to their health, then they may be working under peril of inury without the proper disclosures. Given the above, the employee may have cause (lawsuit, criminal charges, etc).
1a.) Why is this so? Firstly, the same could be said if an employee worked on the job, and the employer came up to him and put a bullet in his head. The employer could just say, "You run the risk of dying of lead poisoning when you work for me, and if you didn't like that risk, you could have left. Did you not read your employee liability risk waiver?" This is obviously ridiculous. The employer is still liable for causing harm. Just because you are on somebody else's property doesn't automatically excuse you of your actions.
2.) I don't think an employer could summarily excuse and absolve himself of any and all accountability to the employee even in contract form and walk away scot free via a carte blanche liability waiver. Nevertheless, I suppose it still boils down to the contract you signed. But despite even that fact, the employer is still responsible for the welfare of his employees until they are considered terminated. And even at the time of termination, having given notice, the employer must still give the employee sufficient time and ability to vacate the premises sans harm before being considered trespassing. I don't know how long a time that would be, but seemingly you couldn't just label your former employee a trespasser or intruder and then in a blink of an eye, assume you are now defending yourself against imminent danger, and shoot to kill.
3) Polluting, whether gas, liquid or solid is still trespassing and vandalizing. Which is to say, if you were smoking near your neigbors fence line, and the smoke was sufficiently dense enough to be detectable, and that smoke was determined to be sufficiently harmful or a nuisance, the neighbor may have cause, and could, of logic and reason, expect some restitution or injunctive relief. All emissions can be considered unwarranted trespassing, littering or polluting. Take care not to be a noxious emitter.
All of this begs the question. If it isn't in the contract, then it must be assumed that the formerly welcomed visitor/employee/adjacent neighbor must have the benefit of the doubt of egress and peace given the pre-existing known circumstances; not threatened with life and limb or other injurious and hostile working/visiting environs. And last but not least, you, just like everybody else, should be held to the theory of marginal deterrence. To wit, don't be excessive in your response when addressing unwarranted aggressions.
|
|
|
|
To All, It's easier if you PM me first so I don't have to check the forum as frequently, or when I don't have my computer with me. I get notified of your PM's as emails to my phone. You prolly already knew that Thanks |
|
|
|
|
I think in addition to the above suggestions (property, gold, silver, stocks, bonds, cash) maybe somebody should start investing in ammunition.
You could have a digital currency hardbacked by commodity bullets. You vault them and then hand out the redeemable certificates (scrip).
A digital bitcoin-like currency backed by ammunition and/or weapons. You have to protect your investments (whatever is in your possession) somehow right?
|
|
|
|
|
Good for the next 48 hours:
Rig #1: $620
Rig #2: $675
Both rigs: $1250
Shipping costs: depends on zipcode.
OP lists Dwolla account #.
Will accept BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
I know "Bees Brothers" personally as he lives just a few miles away from me.
We've had business dealings in the past, and thus far, he has exhibited stellar personal service. I can also vouch for his character.
The caramels are the probably best I've had in awhile, despite not having much of a sweet-tooth.
Bumped.
|
|
|
|
Most (vast majority) of the people don't keep their money in MtGox. If MtGox were to run off with the funds, at most they would have a few $100k to play with. They have more of an incentive to hold as little as possible (reduces their liability), and to keep making money off trades, though even that isn't guaranteed to be a viable long term income.
In your system, who is checking the physical fiat reserves? Why should we trust that they are honest and not working with vault holders to skim off the top? And why would they care about reputation of they have the option to run of with ALL the Fiat, as opposed to just a fraction of it?
As I said, I seriously doubt a lot of people are holding their money in MtGox. Especially after all the losses and scandals last summer. High volume just means two people exchanged money using their system, and likely withdrew it as soon as possible. It doesn't mean MtGox sold BTC themselves and are keeping the money, as would be in your scenario. The point is not how much, or who, but how much control is there by free individuals, and how much of our well being depends on having to trust someone else.
You're just doing bailment by maintaining 1 BTC for every 1 FIAT dollar until you run out of BTC coin (21 billion BTC in my particular case). To spend the coin into the BTC economy requires the joint signatures (cryptographically signed) by multiple trusted servers (M of N server verifications, where M = N/2+1). Otherwise, the transaction fails and the fiat is either returned or never accepted. There is no individual central authority for this. A BTC block chain and equivalent exchange auditing system exists to verify this for continual public review. It would use something like the Open Transactions software developed by FellowTraveler, or the Stratum Network Protocol. It's a distributed trust network. |
|
|
|
As mentioned in the other topic, Mt Gox or PayPal or Dwolla are fundamentally different in that they are ONLY transaction facilitators between two other unrelated parties. They don't issue or keep the money, they only let two other people exchange it, holding USD/BTC briefly, and after the transaction is done, have no more obligations to those two people.
From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, your idea would result in an entity that itself creates the BTC, holds it until a buyer comes along, sells it directly to the buyer for USD, and then maintains a long term obligation to that buyer by promising to repurchase their BTC with the same USD they sold for. Am I correct? And can you see the difference? I have to trust Mt Gox, PayPal, and Dwolla for a day or two at most. I have to trust your issuer for as long as I hold your money.
You are under no obligation to permanently park the money in the vault, and are free to withdraw it at any time (i.e. to a bank), but then the vault would have little to no stored fiat value and gain no critical mass (it would probably still have a relatively high money velocity). This is why a shared trust system is critical, otherwise you may remain a bailment service indefinitely. Not really a big deal per se, but you'd rather unpeg sooner than later I'd think. In any case, you are either trusting me (the participating trusted federated exchange servers), the blockchain, another financial service provider, or your bank. You still have to choose. You have to trust somebody, somewhere, eventually. You want something akin to GoldMoney where they hold an unallocated amount of gold, in the aggregate, within a secured vault and then permit you to trade token quantities between GoldMoney approved accounts. The gold doesn't move much due to it's physical intrinsic nature (taking possession is logistically more difficult), so the trust level must be extremely high, in addition to the fact, they are very centralized. Nevertheless, you can withdraw physical gold specie if you want (for a substantial fee). I do understand the implications, but they really don't have to represent a long-term relationship or obligation. Also, your money doesn't necessarily make a one-way trip into the vault (although that is preferable, by avoiding intermediary logistics). For example, vault-to-paypal, vault-to-paxum, vault-to-dwolla, vault-to-cheque, vault-to-bankwire, etc. Notwithstanding, if you sold/traded the BCT back to the exchange pool (as opposed to somebody in the network), which effectively redeems your fiat, it would be removed from circulation by being put back in the primary account (the initial pre-mined origin block) to be recirculated at a future date, thus maintaining the 1:1 ratio as represented by total vaulted fiat reserve. The BCT coins would then be temporarily retired as it were. |
|
|
|
The reason people are saying it's not possible is not because of the 21million/billion/trillion figure, but because what you are proposing is exactly the same as gold-backed fiat. Except instead of backing fiat with gold, you are proposing backing fiat with another fiat. And instead of already owning the gold and issuing fiat notes against it, you want other people to give you their "gold" in exchange for as yet not established fiat. And to answer your earlier question, I can trust an open source, mathematically established system, and can more or less trust some guy who has a small amount of tokens from that system and who is willing to trade them for a bit of my money, but who otherwise has no control over what the system does. It's a bit harder to trust someone who has most, if not all, of the tokens in this system, and who has the power and incentive to manipulate the system to their advantage. With bitcoin I am trusting a distributed mathematical system no one can control. With your system, regardless of how much financial data is available, you are still exactly as trustworthy as a central fiat issuing entity, and there is still nothing to stop you from clearing out that vault and running away to another country.
Btw, question. Let's say this works, $21m worth gets issued to the public (sold for USD), and then the peg gets released. What happens to the $21m still sitting in the vaults? Is it profit for currency issuers that they are finally free to do with as they wish?
There is little to no incentive to manipulate the system, as doing so would be immediately verified and determined by the auditing system (blockchain of BCT being out of whack with the vaulted $FIAT reserves). It would be like saying Mt. Gox would just up and close shop and take all your fiat and bitcoin tomorrow. Not that they couldn't, but why? Why kill the golden goose (fee structure)? They would have the worst reputation on the planet and could potentially kill the bitcoin network overnight. 90% of the current miners would bail. That just doesn't compute. We are already in this situation with the top 4 $FIAT/BTC exchanges, otherwise you would just trade your bitcoins with another bitcoin address and never mess with the exchanges in the first place. If you want fiat we already have a very centralized "fiat-backed" system. The majority of players in the market are probably storing both their fiat and their bitcoin with Mt. Gox (80% volume leader). The $21B fiat just sits in the vault. It goes nowhere until someone converts BCT for fiat. If everybody bails, then the BTC/FIAT pair value will change, exactly as it does now. Think of it like shares in a company on the stock market. If you have more sellers than buyers the stock drops, conversely for more buyers than sellers it goes up. |
|
|
|
The difference is that gold is already worth something. A closer analogy would be you setting up a vault and filling it with worthless mud bricks, which you then try to sell off for a total of $21million, by promising to hold on to the money people give you, should they want it back, in exchange for those bricks. Considering you'll be the central mud brick issuing authority, it would be no different from trying to establish fiat currency. Even if you can prove that you are not inflating your mud brick supply, the issues remaining are how will you prevent counterfeiting (who will do the hash mining for you?), and who will buy the these worthless mud bricks from you in the first place, especially since you'll be the ultimate "early adopter." Personally, if someone created something for nothing, and tried to pawn it off on other people for $21m, my first instinct would be to call them a scammer.
Oh, another issue is that when bitcoin gets issued and exchanged for fiat, you have one person holding bitcoin, and one holding fiat, both free to spend their money however they want. In your case, the fiat backing your mud bricks is tied up in the vault, required to back the bricks should anyone want to exchange it back, and being used to support the brick's value. Should the fiat in your vault start to severely inflate, the drop in value will translate to the bricks as well.
We all created digital bitcoins out of thin air haven't we? What happens to bitcoin when all of the bitcoins are mined? What will secure the network then? I would assume that to be via the processing power dedicated to the transaction fees. Bailment services aren't worthless (the do require a certain amount of trust however). They've been done for 100's of years (without computers for the most part). I just want a hybrid open source federated trust fiat/bitcoin exchange system. Then everybody can verify where their money is (both reserve fiat and token BCT coins). There is a fixed pre-mined limited supply of BCT (deflationary). If the fiat (which is inflationary by government design) in reserve becomes greater than the BCT coins in circulation the BCT value actually goes up not down. They, are for the most part, inversely related, but then you knew that already. None of this is technically much different than Mt Gox. or PayPal or Dwolla per se. |
|
|
|
Firstly, it's 21 trillion coin, not 21 million (this market is too small if you're going to peg). Secondly it's pegged to the dollar, on purpose, to avoid volatility. The idea is that if it's pegged, it doesn't fluctuate. All of the exchangers agree to the peg (thru smart property cryptographic mathematical arrangements). The currency doesn't initially float. This is just not possible. It is so far from remotely possible that if you don't see it yourself there's probably no point in trying to explain why. The 21 trillion coin amount is just arbitrarily large (it might as well be 210 billion coins). It's merely acting like a large supply/demand shock absorber when the bailment service is abandoned for a foreign currency system. I bet you didn't think to invent bitcoin either, and had somebody mentioned it to you 5 years ago, you probably would have said it was impossible. Just because you say it's impossible doesn't make it so. No point in explaining it to someone who has already dismissed any and all plausibility. See the Smart Property concept explained here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smart_Propertyand the Open Transaction server methodology here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53329.0and here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44692.0 |
|
|
|
I believe so. I haven't done it myself, but in a video FellowTraveler shows how one creates digital cash. It's issued independently of the federated servers, so you shouldn't even need to keep it all running yourself - we just have to trust that you have the physical cash. The whole thing is based on smart contracts.
What I'm not clear about is how the floating phase works. Are the coins then backed by proof of work, a commodity/currency, or some combination?
The BCT coins are always backed by a proof of work just as they are in the bitcoin network. You need this to prohibit (or at least make very difficult) the >51% double spending situation of the coin between BCT account holders. It is still needed so that the security of the network is maintained. You want to trust several individuals to manage the same pool of BCT coin when executing a BCT issuance. An example would be that any 90 of 100 account comptrollers would release a BCT coin into circulation whilst simultaneously auditing/verifying the vault has the equivalent fiat in reserve. It's the fiat reserve that needs a similar paper trail blockchain functionality because they are the primary issuers of the pre-mined BCT coins, and you don't want them putting BCT into circulation without an equivalent fiat dollar stored in the vault. It's an issuance issue that would probably be handled by the Open Transactions server/client software. It's a hybrid smart property contract arrangement. To wit, all of the exchangers and BCT holders have a stake in both the issuance of the asset BCTs and the intra-account trading of the circulating BCT. I've seen the Open Transactions video and that's why I find this idea plausible in the first place. I truly believe we need a federated trust interfacing system (automated auditing) between exchangers and also BCT-to-BCT interactions. There needs to be more fiat/BCT integration with the outside world. You would just prefer a large pool of fiat to deposit and withdraw from when the float happens. The floating merely means that there are more fiat dollars in the vault than BCT coins to back them. You just convert to the foreign exchange format we use today and abandon the 1:1 redemption bailment methodology. Most of the fiat will likely remain in the vault. This is done completely in the open, and the event will be known and agreed upon by all of the participants. I truly believe that a deflationary currency is preferable because in real life all things are finite and in scarce supply. Physical reality should be emulated. It's merely more preferable to absorb the rise and fall of fiat reserves from a large pool than a small one. It's sheer size (critical mass analogy) merely acts as a supply/demand shock absorber. |
|
|
|
you are basically asking banks to give up on a major part of their income (transaction fees). If the will not lose any income it means that the transaction fee on the coin will be at least equal to the regular rate.
Another problem is that this coin is supposed to replace them in the future- what incentive to they have to do that?
So how is it possible that we have the Dwolla, PayPal, VISA, MasterCard and debit card companies of the world? Are they not all competing for the same banking transaction fees? And besides, how is bitcoin avoiding any of the supposed transaction-fee-hoarding the banks are monopolizing on right now? Creating and securing bitcoins still costs real money and resources. Any way you slice and dice it, bitcoin has a quantifiable carry cost, or transaction cost. And any conversion to fiat currency will induce a fee which inherently diminishes the real value of your bitcoins (at least for fiat conversion purposes). Otherwise you can never exchange to fiat. It's unavoidable at the moment. I fully expect the banks to fight us all the way. Nothing you can do about that. Just hope you don't wake them up to the realization their slowly being replaced. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
