FEEL THE LOVE

Remember: ad hominem is a direct attack at a person as an argument.  In this case, I am making a definition; though one may find this, upon realizing themselves fitting into this definition, as insulting, someone's gotta be "it"--all I'm doing is making clear the difference between the makeup of an idiot and the non-idiot.  There's no way to say it without questioning someone's intelligence, since that's exactly what's happening.  Though I could use "highly irrational" instead, I also don't call cripples "differently abled".

If one needs ad hominem to make a point, they're an idiot; if one includes it anyway, they're a dickhead   But nobody really wants to listen to either.

To do this, one would need to be a very large and powerful organization in control of many people.  But either way, whether you are or aren't, it is still unfavorable; what's right for Joe won't be automatically right for Bill.  Truly, if Bitcoin is meant to succeed at a critical level, it must be on its own accord.  For this to happen, there will have to be alternatives to Bitcoin, if nothing more than to remind us why Bitcoin is the better choice, and at best, to force Bitcoin to constantly improve as a software, as the protocol is freely available for anyone, anywhere, to create the next best thing.

And besides, there's no need to make it official.  If, at any point in time, businesses choose to accept a different currency than the "one and only", they shouldn't be impeded.  Businesses will always go where the money is, and if that's in Bitcoin, so they'll go, and if that's in something else, so they'll go.  There is simply no such thing as a single currency in a free world--there is only the most liked, its competitors, and future possibilities.

First sign of an idiot: Uses the ad hominem argument (especially of the "you're very stupid (but I'm not)" variety)

Second sign of an idiot: When not using the ad hominem argument: propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.

This subforum has degenerated into a shit-sling.  What's a rational argument anymore?  Forget those--lets just say the exact same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, until someone agrees.

I still don't get the focus on guns.  When we see "criminals", why do we think "guns"?  Were there no criminals before guns?  Was theft a relatively new concept once the first rifle was introduced?  For if there was no crime, there would be no need for law, but we know there was law, for there was crime and a form of government to punish the criminal.

The very core of these debates is as follows: how to handle the problem of crime.  The solution, however, does not seem to be, "Disarm the criminals and they won't do any crimes"; this did not work, ever, in the history of man.  The true solution will begin once we ask, "What is causing all this crime?"  What drives a man to rob another man, whether with a gun, a shiv, or just smashing the victim's head into concrete?  These are the questions we need to ask; the gun debate is simply a distraction for lesser men with lesser minds to focus upon, as if it were the deciding factor between paradise and a living hell, while crime, no matter the ruling of gun control, will continue to happen with no end in sight, guns or no guns.

For the record: I'd rather be shot in the heart than beaten to death.  But more than anything, I'd rather not be attacked at all.

carrot

prostate

The one world currency would've been printed and controlled by the NWO itself.  Bitcoin may be a worldly currency, but it certainly will never be the one and only.

All press is good press.  Stuff like this happened with "regular" currency all the time, and Bitcoin is no different.  Scammers will be scammers, regardless of their medium.

OP, you so cray!

I've been seriously considering Thailand myself.  Anyone from there know what it's like for an ex-pat?  I've done some research here and there, it's apparently very inexpensive to live there.  Perhaps a freelancer could make a very nice living.

Not so.  Mentally ill people already take medication, and those who commit crime are treated like most any other person; this does not change, no matter what system you live under.  Though Libertarians may generally be rational, they should not assume all people of the world will always be rational.  Are you one of those irrational people?  If not, don't worry about them; they already figured out how to get by now, they'll figure it out any other way.  If you are, you should already know how you're getting along now.


We already have that; just list everything you don't like to happen to you, and then don't do that to other people.  Ta-da; it may seem surprising, but most people generally don't like the same things.  If you want a really simplified version of this:

1. Don't fuck with people.
2. Don't get fucked.

Just as well; since you're known to be a crazy cat lady, nobody wants to be around you in the first place, not to visit or for service, since you're both violent and likely to not pay, if not likely to rob the guy.  I hope your castle never needs repair, because guess who'll be doing that   But on the upside, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses will probably leave you alone.

Also, the system presented is not communism; in communism, your property is already home to several hobos, since it's "public" property (rather, it's state-owned property, which is different than capitalism, where you have state-owned property that's individually rented out to people which they mistakenly think is theirs.)

Wait, they're both queer and anti-gay?  Is this even possible?

There just happens to be a large amount of INTX on this site.  Probably a lot of on the Internet all together, it's a very introverted thing to do.

I don't believe the existence of force negates freedom; rather, the freedom to use force when force is used against you is the only way to achieve freedom, as the man who initiates force for his own interest is always at the expense of another; neither does this man believe in freedom in himself, but more importantly, he does not believe in freedom in you.  If society functions at its best when people are not taking from one another, but rather cooperating and competing fairly with one another, then it would be in our greatest interest to encourage freedom between people; to achieve freedom, we must be free ourselves, for only then do we instill freedom in others (and behold, the golden rule).  However, there will always be those who either miss or refute this idea; once a person decides your freedom is not as valuable as their own, they negate both.  For all rights are granted only between those who grant rights to others, he who initiates force is no longer free, not to himself, nor any others.  At this point, to simply roll over and let what will would only lead to exactly what we already have, that being, those who do not grant freedom calling the shots as if they invented the concept.  Therefore, to ensure a society's freedom, the society in question must identify those who would deny them of those freedoms, whether it be in the form of trespassing, robbery, or even organized government, and seek recourse for freedom lost; if it is the individual who was robbed (initiation of force), one would have to resort to force to make amends, if the robber does not willingly do so; if it is all of society who was robbed, so must society use force to make amends, if government does not willingly disappear.  The reality is, we cannot escape force, for there are always those who do not believe you have the right to be free; we can only agree that initiating force is detrimental to us all, and focus violent measures against those violent.

Freedom goes two ways, when occurring in society; the person who wants to do something, and the people who will be affected by it.  The free market does not mean, "Well Jack can assassinate Joe because he has all the freedom he wants," because that would likely be detrimental to Joe's health, something he doesn't want; what we should seek is to disburse freedom, I suppose you could say, from a completely omnipotent and centralized entity, and moreso into the hands of the individual.  When it comes to property, it depends on what the society believes; if we believe the land we live on is ours, then so would we all agree not to take another person's land, which gets tricky because we would be taking it from government which took it from another society etc. etc...  Plus, we would have to consider entering private property as initiation of force, which, as explained above, would be justly met with retaliation.  And others believe all land should be openly available to anyone.  To be frank, I have no idea how it would work, and what any specific society would consider an offense or not, for it would be different in different parts of the world.  But anyway, so long as there are multiple arbitration businesses, as opposed to any nation's just one, we see a less likely chance of being subject to serve in a system which pretends to work for its people but, as we know, serves only its own best interests at a global scale.

Here's a little video of what this would look like, to have multiple law-creation firms under one roof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0  Because there is no coerced monopoly, not in security nor law, businesses which provide these services would be forced to serve their customers as best as possible if they want to stay in business (I hope they do).

No kidding?  I didn't know guns killed people!  My god, how could we let guns be invented at all!    So your point is, "Resistance is futile so why make it any harder for the opposition?"  Noted.



And the rest of this post is mostly to mock you--there's your warning.

Its very simple if people have knives they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have piano wire they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have metal chains they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have prescription drugs they will use them and using here means KILLING themselves.

Its very simple if people have heavy tools they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have really loud guitars they will play them and playing here means SLAYING people.

Its very simple if murderers have eyes they will use them and using here means FINDING PEOPLE...to kill.

Its very simple if the state has guns they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if police officers have guns criminals will take them and they will use them and using here means KILLING people.
Ah, fuck it: Its very simple if police officers have guns they will use them and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have 3D printers they will use them and using here means printing guns and then KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have hands they will use them on guns and using here means KILLING people.

Its very simple if guns have people they will use them and using here means KILLING guns with people.

Its very simple if people have keyboards they will use them and using here means writing about KILLING people.

Its very simple if people have large pets they will use them and using here means KILLING people.  And if pet owners tie their pets down with metal chains...

Its very simple if people have a blackbelt they will use their fists of fury and using here means KILLING people.

And the obligatory:

It's very simple: if people have guns, they will use them, and using here means killing people.

Sounds like a case of semantics   It has always bugged me that we talk about anarcho-capitalism, but never talk about capital, the main feature of capitalism.  So it's not that Joe Schmoe can't protect his property, it's that Richguy Bill who saves a fortune by using the state as his free-of-charge protection for all the property that he owns.  Without state authority to protect the billionaire's property, the billionaire would be forced to spend a whole lot of money on private security to ensure his property is left unharmed; considering a lifestyle in which one begins at the bottom, such an exponential growth in spending cash to protect absent property would discourage people from amassing all that property in the first place--rather, people would be more inclined to own very few businesses, if more than one, thus completely thwarting wage slavery, nearly blurring the line between the rich and the poor.

So really, most of us are anarchists, who want to make a distinction from the anarcho-communists et al, but in reality, the anarcho-capitalist is just someone who believes in money over sharing.  Very very interesting, thank you for that link.  I'm gonna just relate to anarchism from now on, since anarcho-capitalism as most of us (and I say this but I have no idea if I'm the only one who actually thinks this way) know it, isn't actually very related to real capitalism.

I'd rather there be a voluntary exchange of service between me and my government; they provide security and infrastructure, I provide them with money, it's a win-win situation.





HA like that will ever happen.