Myrkul owns his body. Give him that. He still owes taxes though if he's going to take up residence in some country and use their infrastructure.
I agree as well. He does own his body. |
|
|
|
This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system. Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos...
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature...and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State. Where you don't get to choice what is your responsibility or not.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope...and the funny part that you want a State in order to solve the possible eventual problem of getting a State I personally think we can easier determine between reasonable people what these basic responsibilities are, and come up with rules/laws to enforce them. AnCap thinks these are a choice, but in fact they are not if you want a functioning and thriving society. You need a basic environment/foundation for people to build and evolve on.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawmanAt least most AnCaps agree there are rules, they are just determined by an infinite set of voluntary market transactions and the social ostracism of "bad actors" (or people who choose systems opposing to yours), rather than the arbitrary decrees of a handful of politicians of whom were never agreed upon by everyone affected. (Obama was elected by about 1/6th of the USA, as only 1/3rd of Americans even voted. Congressional and local elections have even lower turnouts on average). Funny thing is that your 1st response to link a website. 1. Stating the fact of human nature is not a logical fallacy. It is the way things are, I operate in the present and read about the past. 2. That is not what I said at all. I said that as people skirt the laws, the voluntary society will fall into a state of lawlessness and the longer that persists the more likely a State will form to deal with it with enforced rules. 3. I never said AnCaps didnt agree there are rules. I am saying humans tend to cut corners at others expenses and when you have a weak state (AnCap) that will be more rampant. You need to actually read what people say and respond with your own thoughts. Your all over the board on a very direct statement. |
|
|
|
When reality contradicts your premise, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the premise. 'Cause, you know, arrows do hit their targets, faster runners do overtake slower ones, and people do make decisions in response to others' actions.
Given a free-will POV, people can choose to reply to others' actions and call it a response in the casual sense. However, it is not a "forced reaction" in the sense that a ball bounces back after hitting an obstacle. If a reaction is somehow forced, this implies that there was no choice in the matter. It seems that you want to have it both ways: enjoying the freedom of having free will, while avoiding the necessary responsibility that goes with it! This has been one of my major areas of contention. If I had to name a single habit of society that keeps gnawing at us and hurting our character, it is the continual habit of people trying to dodge responsibility and the inability for them to take responsibility for their actions. This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system. Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State. Where you don't get to choice what is your responsibility or not. I personally think we can easier determine between reasonable people what these basic responsibilities are, and come up with rules/laws to enforce them. AnCap thinks these are a choice, but in fact they are not if you want a functioning and thriving society. You need a basic environment/foundation for people to build and evolve on. |
|
|
|
|
I have dealt with Johnniewalker and it was a pleasant experience and it went smooth with no hiccups and the communication was stellar.
Techshare - I think you are out of line making a thread like this for someone who is a metals seller just like you. This does benefit you and by reading your OP, it looks like you wanted to deal with him but didn't trust him enough to send first. That is no reason to post on here, tarnishing his reputation.
Sure he has made some mistakes but he is learning and didn't try and scam then cut and run. I think you should delete your OP and lock this thread and chance the subject. We should act like gentlemen on here and care about others reputations like you would hope we would care about yours.
Dalkore
|
|
|
|
I am happy to answer any questions or refute false claims. We need to all do our homework so we know exactly how our system works. If you do not know that then your spreading mis-information and that only gives more cover to the real exploitative actions happening in our economy. I need to do more research in that case thanks for that Dalkore, I'd like to know the sources for where you got that from though. I wish it was that easy, it has been years of research to get to a point where I understand atleast the public workings in our financial system and I am still learning about new players and pieces each day. Here are a couple books:
The Federal Reserve System - Written in 1937, its a sort of official manual Modern Money Mechanics - Published by one of the reserve banks Science of Money - Alexander Del Mar & The Lost Science of Money which is a derivative of this work among others Lombard Street - This is an important work that is considered by some as the bible of central banking Tragedy & Hope - Carroll Quigley (1st edition or reprint of 1st edition) - At a normal pace, this will take you 2-3 months, don't rush it. |
|
|
|
I haven't seen any offer you are describing here on bitcointalk. Can you post link to some examples?
There are good reasons to think that torac is selling hacked accounts. Selling hacked accounts is not banned by any current forum policy. Selling the accounts is not illegal as far as I know (maybe the act of hacking the accounts is illegal). I'm always reluctant to go against the forum's policy of free speech, and in this case I'm not even sure that the trades are immoral. On one hand: - The victims probably never notice. - If the victims do notice, they can probably get their accounts back without too much hassle. - There is no violence or deception involved. - torac is only selling information. Some part of me thinks that selling information can never be wrong. On the other hand, there are victims... Also, I can never know with absolute certainty whether someone is selling hacked accounts or just reselling accounts that have been given to them willingly. (Reselling willingly-given accounts is OK. The forum clearly has no obligation to enforce the terms of service for other sites. Otherwise common trades such as Steam trades or PayPal transfers would be disallowed.) This makes a ban on trading hacked accounts potentially messy to enforce. Should I ban trades that are only probably trades of hacked accounts? torac is donating a portion of proceeds from each sale back to the site, which creates a conflict of interest in acting against torac
The forum is non-profit. I don't get anything whether he donates or not. What boggles my mind is you would think after the cosbycoin hack of bitcointalk.org in 2011 that Theymos would not be receptive to this type of activity taking place on his own forum. I don't think Theymos would want someone selling his login credentials on another forum.
I wouldn't like it, but I'm not sure that selling the credentials would be immoral. Theymos, is there really a question and do we need a "forum policy" to know right from wrong? Stealing is stealing. Why would you want this forum or Bitcoin associated with that? |
|
|
|
Thanks a lot to all my customers, fuck this people, they are gay, they wouldn't give a piece of bread if you were blind.
Contact me if any problems or if you want money refunded for any reason.
I hope you enjoy your self-delusions and all this attention you have gotten. I will give you some good advice. You should take time each day to meditate and think about what you really stand for and what you want in life. Try to be a good friend and person in your community. Turn-off the television and start reading non-fiction books. Eat healthy, limit your intake of sugar, drugs and alcohol. Be comfortable in your own skin and smile. Don't let your emotion rule you and keep your ego in check. |
|
|
|
Do I get a prized for Doxxing him Theymos?  |
|
|
|
Hello
I am not new to BTC. I know how it works.
I will not spam the forum with anything, I won't go around asking stupid questions or anything like that.
I am only interested in 1 section only : the marketplace... I will just use this one, I'm not interested about the rest.
I want to sell torrent tracker invites there, that's why I signed up.
Thank you!
Fuck you, I didn't spam only the marketplace. I didn't use other sections. 95% of my posts are in the goods section. SEE? The "Goods" section is a sub-section of the Marketplace. |
|
|
|
Welcome Gabriel Ioan Seletchi.
lol, you think that's his real identity? I actually do. Here is the PM I got after posting this: " You should delete my name. I don't know who you are. This is stupid, I didn't do anything bad do you, you shouldn't either, didn't anyone teach you this?" from torac at January 02, 2013, 11:58:28 PM After seeing this attitude, I don't think I am inclined to remove this. |
|
|
|
|
Welcome Gabriel Ioan Seletchi.
|
|
|
|
"An agreement" it surely cant be this, i have made no such agreement with every person on the planet, which is what would be required for the agreement to be universal.
"By not killing someone, you are acknowledging their right to life, and therefore, your right to life is respected as well." not at all. Imagine that i am with a person who i do not believe has a right to be alive, i may avoid killing him for many reasons, maybe i would go to jail if i killed him or maybe i believe that he could draw his gun faster than i could draw mine and that i do not wish to die. Maybe im a pacifist who would like for someone else to kill him but am unwilling to kill him myself for philosophical reasons.
So, you accept that there are people somewhere on the planet that have the right to take your life? Strange. Explain how you get to the point where you can be with a "person who you do not believe has a right to be alive", without that person having already forfeited his rights by ignoring the rights of someone else. What he may be eluding to, is that you only have a right as much as you can defend it with force. The law of nature has some of these elements in it. |
|
|
|
2) Drive the price of Bitcoin up
Why would a reduction in global network hash rate increase the exchange rate? The rule of supply and demand: if we restrict supply and growth in demand remains the same, then the price will go up. Price would actually stay the same when you restrict the supply at current levels and demand stays the same. |
|
|
|
Doing something "Harmful" is not the same as being "Aggressive" unless there is some special definition I am unaware of?
I'm not a fan of the "aggression" term, either. Just think of it as: Aggression - fucking with me or my property. Well I am talking about Harmful and I reserve the right to initiate aggression to any acting harmfully in a way that is or potentially will affect me or my property. The only way I would infringe on my right is if we form a government that we are both a part of and those laws will instead assert this right. In the end, this is exactly where I see the biggest flaw in NAP & AnCap as an extension. It all sounds nice on paper but in the end, human nature does not work in this way and with that is just sounds like a system to give cover for people who want to externalize their impact and not give just recourse against them. Its all about Person Responsibility and most people don't have much. Until you fix that, AnCap and any all voluntary systems fall flat because of the people who will abuse these rules and others expense. |
|
|
|
ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive?
Same question can be asked of you? Do you believe some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences, and if yes, why? Yes. If you are doing something harmful and all non-aggressive actions have been exhausted then I would reserve the right to take aggressive action to stop your harmful activities. That's not initiating aggression, that's responding to someone else's. Doing something " Harmful" is not the same as being " Aggressive" unless there is some special definition I am unaware of? |
|
|
|
|
This sounds fun, I will get a list together tonight.
|
|
|
|
my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to.
ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive? Same question can be asked of you? Do you believe some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences, and if yes, why? Yes. If you are doing something harmful and all non-aggressive actions have been exhausted then I would reserve the right to take aggressive action to stop your harmful activities. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
