....
What I saw was a summary of what's been going on for a hundred years. I'm sure people were saying the same thing eighty years ago. They certainly were saying it fifty years ago. I was earnestly hoping for something with some substance. Nor did he even address the issue. I didn't ask for these cliched prognostications. I asked for his thoughts on what the potential problems are with the privatization of security, police and judicial decisions.
Why would 'potential problems' matter one bit? Such things arise spontaneously, as you noted they always will and always have. One classic example would be the Sicilian Mafia, which IIRC it's forebearers date to Roman times. Throughout history, at times the State becomes top heavy, and burdens the population with too many complex rule sets. The structure in which an individual lives becomes impossible to deal with. Those structures collapse of their own weight, of course causing a great deal of suffering in the process. |
|
|
|
I am an INTJ.
Oh praise you, you superior being. everyone should be on their knees infront of your unlimited knowledge and wisdom, just because you took some highly biased and limited test of you personality. I bow to your limitless intellect. (btw. people who says they are smarter then other people are often not, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
I didn't say I was intelligent. Only that my personality type is the kind that tends to overanalyze everything, or overplan for every contingency far into the future, instead of just going on gut instinct and winging it. Doesn't mean I come to the right conclusions. That I might seem intelligent is simply your opinion's reflection of me. I never claim that I am personally (or try not to). And yes, I'm quite aware of that effect. The rather amusing irony is that Dunning Kruger is used quite often by SA goons against bitcoiners, when they claim that Bitcoiners don't understand finance, economics, or math, because they, the SA goons, do, and thuse understand that bitcoiners wrong. That itself is actually a Dunning Kruger effect, in that the SA goons are SO convinced that Bitcoin doesn't make sense, and are so confident of their own superiority with regards to finance, that they can't even recognize the way more advanced understanding of econ and finance when presented by bitcoiners. It's effectively Dunning Kruger types suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect and accusing the actually smart ones of suffering from it. Please tell me what issues you thought through.
* Anti-gun laws become obsolete as people are able to print guns and other weapons in private from home. * Government security struggles to adjust, as tax revenue plummets due to increased cryptocurrency adoption and weakening of government fiat currencies, while at the same time having to contend with more heavily armed criminals. * Citizens continue to lose trust in government as their currency inflates, and the quality of provided services decreases. * Government responds to these issues with increased intensity of violence, such as swat team style raids and arrests for increasingly minor infractions, and by adding more things to the list of items it considers illegal (possible even use of cryptocurrency itself). * The end effect is more expensive use of police powers, combined with reduced tax revenues, resulting in police answering only a limited number of calls for help, and leaving many issues that government considers minor (such as robberies) unresolved. * As people realize the police is not as effective as they want them to be, they start to purchase or print their own guns for their own defense. * Initially the rash of shootings increases, as criminals figure out (are more frequently surprised) that they are up against armed citizens, and citizens figure out how to handle their new guns properly. The police is either dismissive of the issue, too busy focusing on their own raids, or is caught in the middle, with increased police casualties and resulting increase in police brutality. * As the situation comes to a head, and people believe they have had enough, they start to form their own street patrols, which quickly evolve into certain specific people taking charge, and forming their own private police force. Some of these will be neighborhood watches where everyone contributes, some of these will be gangs forming to protect their turf, and some will be started by enterpreneureal types who want to start a private security business. Regardless, they all focus on keeping the neighborhood secure by taking care of only their own small parts of town, where they actually know the people and the areas, instead of a single huge organization trying to take care of the entire city. * As these groups build more and more reputation, they will be trusted more than the government provided police, who, as more people protest their brutality, will either form into a group protecting a sort of police dictatorship status, or will dissolve if they realize that they are simply not needed any more. * In the end, for most areas guns will be as necessary, or unnecessary, as they are now, with protection being provided by private local groups, and possibly even competing groups, as well as advances in technology and security systems. In some areas guns will be a necessity due to rampant gang violence (same as in inner cities now), and in some areas guns will be a necessity simply because people will decide that it's cheaper to carry guns and provide their own protection instead of paying someone else, with the private security only providing investigative services. Well I'm impressed, because someone else sees the near term future pretty much as I do. What you are saying is the very argument pro-and-con-guns-and-gun-ownership are obselete and a waste of time, that we've already moved past that, although it may not be realized by 99.999% of people. And for your information I have studied and read extensively about the social effects of medium to severe inflation caused by currency printing, in the 20th century and prior. That includes the breakdown of trusted structures as you have described. |
|
|
|
And this hints at intelligent design how?
The basic train of thought is this: If properties of space-time take their origin from a pure mathematical object, then one can assume that space-time is a result of some intelligence as all mathematics apparently is. Wouldn't you agree?.... No and no, and this is demonstrably a false assertion leading to a false conclusion based on incorrect premises. Errors all 3 steps of the way. Don't take this too critically, it's not uncommon for people to see evidence of God in places like math, quantum physics, the structure of the Universe, etc... I am addressing your assertion of a logical proof and that neither have you provided, can it be done, or should it be done. I never mentioned God in this new thread, only intelligent design. So you don't agree that: 1) results of the experiments form a pattern that has a mathematical structure. 2) mathematics is a result of intelligence (consciousness) I don't know how you see the Universe, but it sure doesn't look like a chaotic mess to me  ...... Neither (1) or (2) holds water. But if they did we would not have to go there to get where you wished to be, we could simply talk about a circle, and perhaps a square, and the mathematical structures they form. Thence, you could again argue that circles and squares were the result of intelligence, etc. But that is nonsense. It is not that the circle is the result of intelligence, but that it requires intelligence, consciousness, etc to discuss it as an abstraction. Let us move to your assertion that the Universe is 'not a chaotic mess". The mathematics of chaos are fundamental aspects of the reality of the Universe. Therefore if yet again you wish to impute a higher being, you must give it the intent to create chaos, and consider that as equally important as what may at first glance seem to be ordered structure. To avoid the leap of faith which is implicit in your logic you must demonstrate a portion of nature that cannot exist without Turing machinery having prescribed essential aspects. |
|
|
|
And this hints at intelligent design how?
The basic train of thought is this: If properties of space-time take their origin from a pure mathematical object, then one can assume that space-time is a result of some intelligence as all mathematics apparently is. Wouldn't you agree?.... No and no, and this is demonstrably a false assertion leading to a false conclusion based on incorrect premises. Errors all 3 steps of the way. Don't take this too critically, it's not uncommon for people to see evidence of God in places like math, quantum physics, the structure of the Universe, etc... I am addressing your assertion of a logical proof and that neither have you provided, can it be done, or should it be done. |
|
|
|
And this hints at intelligent design how?
The basic train of thought is this: If properties of space-time take their origin from a pure mathematical object, then one can assume that space-time is a result of some intelligence as all mathematics apparently is. Wouldn't you agree?.... No and no, and this is demonstrably a false assertion based on incorrect premises. |
|
|
|
Actually, no, it will never work that way. The reason is that even though you, and many others, replace 'aggression at the center of society with non-aggression', there will always be the 1/2 percent of humanity who is mentally ill and violent, who is psychotic, or who is sociopathic and inclined to hurt others, and many other cases, which although rare as a percentage, in a city of 50,000 or 100,000 will together create the need for a police force to keep order. There is nothing wrong with this, and there is everything right with it, and this can't be talked away with statements like...
authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state.
The primary argument in this discussion is whether the greatest good would be for the state to be the sole force of control toward the elements of violence and lawlessness, or whether in some fraction this duty should be shared by the people, which implies their owning firearms. I am certain there is a happy medium.
Tell me--how many officers do you know spend their entire day by your side, from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep, to ensure, if someone happens to shoot you, you will be protected. None, of course; so when you say, "The primary argument in this discussion is whether the greatest good would be for the state to be the sole force of control toward the elements of violence and lawlessness, or whether in some fraction this duty should be shared by the people, which implies their owning firearms", what I hear is, "I really don't know where I'm getting at as I yet to understand this argument, but I'll just throw something together anyway since I don't like what that guy said". " or whether in some fraction this duty should be shared by the people, which implies their owning firearms." As we answered the question above--no agent of the state will ever be able to protect everyone from harm at all times--it must always be a duty owned by the individual to protect himself, in the very least until he can be helped by a professional peacekeeper, which doesn't actually necessitate a state, which throws the argument that any state given supreme authority, even over just a citizen's ability to protect himself (which would lead to a plethora of other crimes against him), completely out the window. So now we must address the "happy medium". To make an analogy, lets say you have the choice for cancer. Now, you have these options: No cancer, or cancer. But!--there is a happy medium here, a wonderful center, in which we can both compromise on; you can have just a little bit of cancer. See, a happy medium; except, the medium here isn't preferable, and we all unequivocally say, "No, I don't want a medium, I don't want any cancer whatsoever." To say, slavery is okay if it's done in moderation isn't better than "No slavery" or "Everyone be slaves", as we would rather there be no slavery. The happy medium of rape: we can either have no rape, everyone get raped, or find our happy medium and have just a little bit of rape here and there. No, we don't want any rape. The happy medium of marriage: we can have freedom to marry who we choose, no freedom to marry who we choose, or a happy middle where government tells you whether you can marry same gender or not. No, we would rather have the freedom to marry who we choose. So the happy medium here is, we can protect ourselves, we cannot protect ourselves, or we can somewhat, occasionally, protect ourselves (of course, against people who do not have this handicap, because TDGAF about law anyway.) But what I would really like to understand about you, is why you believe changing what a law-abiding citizen can do to defend himself against crime, would change the rate of crime (i.e. the greater good.) Would the criminal say, "Egads, there's a law against gun ownership! My evil plots, foiled again!" Violence as a solution to violence, at its finest; keeps people distracted, anyway. But as an aside, what criminals actually do, is notice that people are less armed than they used to be, and so it's just that much easier to rob a person. The happy medium, here, is no happy medium; it's a painful medium, a completely unnecessary medium. What we should be concerned with is why crime occurs, not how to stop it after the criminal is fashioned; we already know how to stop crime, it's by disincentive, e.g., "I have a gun, and if you try to rob me, I will shoot you, and if I can't shoot you, my friend will." What we need to understand is why crime occurs, not in the .5% we idolize, but in normal people who commit crime out of necessity. Anyway, I'm still baffled as to your reasoning here: " ...there will always be the 1/2 percent of humanity who is mentally ill and violent, who is psychotic, or who is sociopathic and inclined to hurt others, and many other cases, which although rare as a percentage, in a city of 50,000 or 100,000 will together create the need for a police force to keep order." I agree, there will always be violent people. But I don't see why we should put these violent people on a pedestal and call them kings, for the sake of "peace and order." That sounds exactly like the opposite thing we should do. And you're right, simply saying this won't change a thing; what I'm trying to do is convince people, through rational thought, why seeking peace through violence cannot, will not, ever, never ever, never ever ever, not in the millennium, not in the next millennium, work. It's when people, lots of people, believe the same thing; that's when changes are made. What I am proposing isn't off-topic; to solve the problem of people having guns, you would need a society which has no need for them; forcing people not to have guns still leaves you with a violent, crime-ridden society, except the people now can't even protect themselves; it's a pre-mature utopia, to say the least, and at worst, it's a complete dystopia, where people still have guns (illegally, as law has nothing to do with the lawless.) I can't help the 1/2 percent, but I can help the people who commit crime out of necessity, which account for the majority of crimes today. To stop the crimes born from necessity, you create a society which has all it needs, especially so when it has far more than it needs, and it spills into want; with the blackhole that is authoritarian socialism, our happy medium between anarchy and fascism isn't working out very well--where our kids are expected to pay off a debt they had nothing to do with to pay for their parent's welfare, on welfare because the money that was taken in taxes was squandered on war, interest, and more welfare, and in debt from loans made, without permission, etc. etc. etc.--and I really don't believe a dictatorship is the next logical step, despite our hurdling towards it now. When people, all people, have all they need to be successful in life, they will be successful. It is when we play this game of musical chairs, where somebody has to be the loser; that's where your violence, theft, rape, and threats come from; the gun just happens to make all those easier, much as the sword did in a prior time period, and removing the gun from the equation, or even controlling who has the guns, will never solve the underlying issue. You've written a lot of words and claimed to be baffled by what I said, but then you admit that you can't help the 1/2 percent. From there you launch out to what I would call 'solving the Les Miserables problem of crime." But ... you can't help the 1/2 percent... And thus we have some mix of private guns and self defense, and publicly funded guns and defense. Period. That's reality. Your conjecturing about better formed societies may or may not be correct, but it simply has nothing to do with these daily realities. My guess is that such conjecturing is fundamentally flawed, though. If you like, take the bolded sentence above with I concluded with and replace it with... "I am certain there is an unhappy but necessary medium and a very unhappy medium for those who wind up looking down the barrel of anyone or his agent intent on protecting their personal rights." |
|
|
|
I am so happy to know that Big Government Believers can try to suck the little people into their happy world not just with Wonders of FuckYou Healthcare, and not just with We'll Keep You Safe Our Way, but also with We'll Take Our Chosen Ones To The Stars (sort of).
I am not a big government believer, but I *am* a believer in the wise use of resources. As long as they keep stealing our money, I think investments in areas that have historically given us tech that improves our lives is appropriate. Ideally this is done with tariffs and corporate tax. There should be no way that one can use a phrase like "I am a believer in the wise use of resources" and "I am not a big government believer" in the same sentence. However, at this time (speaking about the US government here, but others are similar) about the only goal is to keep the lid on the boiling pot while they spend 1.5% times what they take in and print to make up the difference. Any idea that some good could come out of some of the programs offered to keep the little guy from complaining under those constraints is likely false. This is a big concept to grasp, the easiest way is to think of proponents of government space basically being proponents of the old 'government - space complex', which is and was a huge system. By comparison consider private space launches. Guys are doing a launch with a half dozen notebooks for launch control systems. We don't need the government space, what we need is for them to get out of the way and stop the bottlenecks and both outright and under the table restrictions to private space. Since the 1950s, the governments and their major contractors have engineered the bankrupcy of hundreds of small private space startups. |
|
|
|
Likely you will find much better explanations than I can offer, but from what positions you've carved out, it doesn't appear that this NAP philosophy is your foe, only that you don't adhere to it because it limits the means (using guns to remove guns) to your desired end (less guns). So even if your position is rational, it is also immoral.
I believe this is the #1 point; if one has any desire for violence as a moral and legitimate means to solve non-violent problems, NAP makes no sense whatsoever. The moment someone identifies the center of any society, politics, as a violent means to solve both violent and non-violent problems, the NAP becomes both plausible and preferable, and thus the libertarian standpoint is to replace the aggression at the center of society with non-aggression: I predict, once this occurs (and can only occur in the individual, never in politics), the violence we experience throughout the world, stemming from our current violent center of society, will change to peace experienced throughout the world, stemming from a peaceful center of society. This is why authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state. So, to seek peace, we must be peaceful, and many of us already are; to say it's okay for government to cheat, steal, kill, and threaten is to admit cheating, stealing, killing and threats as moral practices. Which we, I hope, generally agree to be false. Actually, no, it will never work that way. The reason is that even though you, and many others, replace 'aggression at the center of society with non-aggression', there will always be the 1/2 percent of humanity who is mentally ill and violent, who is psychotic, or who is sociopathic and inclined to hurt others, and many other cases, which although rare as a percentage, in a city of 50,000 or 100,000 will together create the need for a police force to keep order. There is nothing wrong with this, and there is everything right with it, and this can't be talked away with statements like... authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state.The primary argument in this discussion is whether the greatest good would be for the state to be the sole force of control toward the elements of violence and lawlessness, or whether in some fraction this duty should be shared by the people, which implies their owning firearms. I am certain there is a happy medium. |
|
|
|
assembled my pi
i have a rev b
4 usable dlink h7 hubs. currently have 18 usb miners spread across 3
a wifi dongle
and minepeon
cannot for the life of me get the miner to even probe
advice?
The idea with minepeon is that it is a 'load and go' mining solution, both linux, required packages and mining software all in one. But the author takes 20% for providing this. I don't think it's that complicated to use arch linux or debian and build the packages for cgminer or bfgminer. Of course, anyone could upload a working copy of such a thing it'd be less than 1gb. |
|
|
|
Wifi needs the occasional reboot of router, need handshake, encryption/decryption renewal of network certificates. You are not walking around with you miner at home. Getting blocks is a race so why make your chances worse by using wifi?
Some wifi dongles work with the inbuilt drivers in the kernel, others don't, but a lot, if not most dongles work out of the box.
Anytime one can use a hardwired connection less than 200 feet or so that's the way to go. Unless you have rodents chewing up wires, of course. |
|
|
|
6 is okay on mine, and fits with the power supply, 3A = 6 * 500 ma |
|
|
|
....The modern concept seems to be, at least in the USA, to keep people in a toddler like state, minus the curiousity, until they reach age 18. Then they are expected to know all the shit that neither their parents nor their "teachers" bothered to teach them....
Yeah, I imagine from some sociological perspective we could figgur out that that was all about keeping the younger crowd under state control. Is it 18 or 27 when they're adults these days? Be sure they are properly socialized, sir. As society gets more complicated, it takes more time to socialize the younger generation. That's to help them learn how to make it in society. Why, if it is 27 today, it may be 37 in a few years. In fact, as society gets more complicating in the course of a year, it would take another year to learn it. Thus complexity paces age for the subject, and the subjects, then cannot be expected to learn or understand the very basics of society. Clearly you can see that we, the elite, must shoulder a heavy burden in making all the decisions for them for our benefit. I could continue this diatribe, but you get the message loud and clear. Namely if you reverse everything above said, you will have it figured out nicely. |
|
|
|
...
Also, you'll find if you study American frontier history that for the most part PRIOR to major federal involvement, the natives and the whites got on fairly well. There were hotspots, but overall it wasn't until the USG started claiming land in spite of treaties that things got seriously ugly. ....
Just as segregation of the bus systems in US cities did not exist when they were private enterprises, only after the cities took them over. ...
children learning to use firearms at an early age went back WAY before that. The revolutionary war would not have happened if the kids couldn't shoot. ....
Sort of true and sort of false. The concept of "children" as we know it today simply did not exist in the 1900s and prior. |
|
|
|
.....
This, aside from all my romantic notions, is why I think that we, as a species, need to develop starships....
I'd more or less disagree, because it's somewhat likely we could colonize Mars. Zubrin has developed this concept, see "Mars Direct" for the concepts. Starships might come with advances in physics and energy production, but if we knew how to live in a can in space for a couple decades, there would be many options available here in this solar system. But we don't know how to live in a can... As for nuclear exchanges, the highest risk of those is terrorism and small countries, not the old concept of MADD. That may actually be impossible today. NOW TO THE IMPORTANT STUFF. What, exactly, is your problem with decisions about nuclear war being made by the highly skilled and trained leaders of our country? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mUCLHzWiJo |
|
|
|
I am so happy to know that Big Government Believers can try to suck the little people into their happy world not just with Wonders of FuckYou Healthcare, and not just with We'll Keep You Safe Our Way, but also with We'll Take Our Chosen Ones To The Stars (sort of). I feel much better now. It all does indeed make a boatload of sense. |
|
|
|
.....
oh, you mean when religouse extremist from europe(the forefathers of 'Murica) invaded other peoples land('Murica), and the original inhabitants(The indians) defended themselves and their property? Do you really want to go there? You NAP people REALLY want to go there?
you mean, you don't want to go into a subject that you know nothing about? No one will be bothered if you don't. You said some condescending, stupid things about "children" and you got caught on it. Now moving the goalposts doesn't work. with that, you go on ignore. |
|
|
|
....As I've said countless times here, uniform application of gun control is necessary.
It does not matter what YOU SAID. All that matters in a discussion is what has been reasonably well proved, and that you haven't achieved. You might be more precise in your statement, something like.... "Even though I've been proved wrong on my theory of uniform application, I continue to believe it...Only if all the people except the criminals are disarmed will we be safe. Only when people have to uniformly rely on police never getting to the crime scene until the crime is over and the criminals have fled, will we be safe. Only when every rapist can get what he wants without fear of guns, will the world be a better place." I actually agree with uniform application of gun control. If you are not in control of your gun, you have a problem. Now, if by gun control, you mean those who by the fiat of government possess all the guns, and the "citizens" (slaves, as they are disarmed) have no weapons available to them, that's a whole different thing. Several of you have pointed out, more than once, that an armed revolution is futile. I daresay you are wrong, but it is undesirable. However, when the people, whether all of them or a large group, do decide to secede or "secede in place" and use the power of their numbers to withdraw consent peaceably, that government that so many of you think is their for your benefit will come against them WITH guns. And defensively, we the armed outnumber the goons by a significant number. Luckily for the 545 people who rule this nation, most of the slaves don't understand how vastly they outnumber their masters. But, having been involved in politics, I can guarantee to you that those who rule you DO understand it. And fear it. It's one of the reasons they go after hobby weapons and not handguns. It's why they promote "diversity" programs that are designed to not only fail but inflame the passions of different cultural groups within the nation. It's why they start diversionary wars overseas with false flag events. They will do ANYTHING to keep you looking anywhere but at them. Also, this is a personal observation I made over the course of the ten years I was involved in republican party politics: All those elected or seeking election want power the way a drowning man wants air. ALL of them. These are the people you cede the power of legal violence to if you buy into democracy and/or gun control. I dropped out. I looked at the alternatives. I chose to be an anarchist, as it makes the most sense to the enrichment (in all senses) to the greatest number of people. I do not vote, therefore I have EVERY right to bitch. I reject the system, not because it has failed, but because for those who rule it, it has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the ancient Emperors. You cannot FIX a system that works as it was designed. You can either accept it, and all that it implies, or reject it because it is a flawed outcome. Government is SUPPOSED to become vastly powerful. Those who say otherwise fall into exactly two camps. Those who would rule (are selling you something), and those who are deluded. I have little problem with your having dropped out, with your disgust with politicians or the practicality of greed for power. However it is a mistake to over generalize, actually it is a logical fallacy. We do not want to take a broad brush and paint Rand Paul and Barbara Waters with sameness. So forth and so on... |
|
|
|
I'm stupid. Please explain it to me.
.....it might be a bad idea to sell guns AND ban them from schools at the same time, as slightly less people are getting killed in isreal then 'Murica. But i really don't think thats its a good idea to give guns to children, they are incapable of realizing what power they have in their hands.Fortunately it does not matter much what you think. There are countless examples of children defending themselves and/or their families with firearms. These go back to when Americans had children that went to one room school houses. There were quite a few pitched battles between those children and attacking Indians. So I would say, based on considerable evidence, that children are quite capable of realizing what power they have in their hands. |
|
|
|
The local currency in Argentina is losing value quickly. People only trust the USD. That makes it much easier to talk with people about bitcoin, because they already distrust their currency.
The history of economic problems in Argentina goes back a solid two generations now. It is pretty bad. Thus black markets thrive of necessity. Bitcoin could be a part of what solves their problems, in that the people could take affairs of finance into their own hands, rendering the government's actions ineffective. It is control over money and finance that is at the root of the power of a government. Bitcoin is not a threat to those in power in the sense that if it makes inroads, some opponent will topple those in power. Rather it is a step in making the nation state totally irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
