My first and only opinion is, "What's Hemlis?"

"12345"

I was young when I first started Interneting.  But then I wised up and started using "12345six"

Pretty much hit the nail on the head.  I normally like RT but, as with all news providers, they'll do anything to get eyeballs, I suppose.  Only more evidence as to why one should trust no one.  Perusing over the bill, it's mostly about the government protecting its own intercommunication and how it's going to do it, and even ends with, to make sure nobody gets the wrong idea:


If one needs confirmation that their government works against them, this isn't the place to look, unless government spending tax money gets you riled up, but I reckon there's a lot more the government does with its allotted cash which would rile feathers.

I believe it's known as "bitcointalk"

Here's another version I like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo

BF3 isn't too bad, I hear it's more favorable than CoD (though, of course, the die-hard fans will always think that's wrong.)  I'm personally a TF2 nut, over 1k hours logged on it   Still not bored with it, though the community can resemble the CoD community at times.

Well, anyway.  Even if this applied to BTC mining, try stopping someone from doing what they wanna do in the privacy of their own homes.  Remember how successful the sodomy law was?  I don't.

Not a whole lot.  It's the monsters which walk around in broad daylight that scare the shit out of me.

I've been thinking about this too.  I use Wikipedia all the time and would love to donate, but I don't want to fuck around with PayPal or anything, and I'm kinda strapped for cash to begin with.  Rather than swap out my BTC for USD, I'd rather just send them to BTC directly.

But if they don't think my money is good enough, then I guess I won't be donating

I believe we've already been over this; around the same time I asked if you believed it was moral for the state to kill and rob and you'd said, "Yes," to which I called you a sociopathic proxy killer but you didn't understand how someone who believed killing the innocent was moral through supporting the institution which enacts on that force could possibly be a sociopath

I don't know who believes in the things you mentioned personally, but I'm sure the logic follows as two choices for the same thing is not a real vote.  At some point in time, you realize that a voiced vote is meaningless without someone to hear it, whereas a monetary vote (that is, denying money to a service you disagree with) means THE ENTIRE WORLD to that which you're 'voting' for.  Keep this in mind.

Now, let's look at an issue that does not necessarily pertain to government: lets say you really don't like Walmart.  You hate Walmart so much that you decide you will vote against it.  To accomplish this, you voice your opinion to Walmart and pray to your respective deity that they listen to your request--you can even get a coalition to send Walmart voiced opinions about their practices, you could get half the nation on your side--but ultimately, it is up to Walmart to say, "Yeah okay we'll act on your decision," or "No thanks but we'll keep doing what we're doing."  They have the ability to do this because votes of this kind make no change in the physical world; if people continue to buy from Walmart, they will continue to thrive.  A vote of this sort changes nothing.

However: lets say, instead of voting against Walmart by expressing your complaints to them, you instead decide you will no longer fund their actions.  Lets say you convince half of Walmart's entire user base to stop buying from Walmart.  Walmart, unable to keep its doors open, is forced to close down at least some of its stores.  The change you wanted in the world came to fruition, not because your vote was a measly opinion up for consideration, but because you physically altered the existence of the entity for which you sought an end.  Here, we clearly see the difference between a voiced opinion (e.g., a vote), and an action.

Which is all fine and dandy, you might say.  Except when it comes to government, for the second method I mentioned is, literally, illegal.

But returning to the point: to vote with one's voice, or one's ballot, is a pointless practice, which can serve only as an admission, consciously or not, that the voter is indeed in support of an immoral system, in which we are expected to be controlled and to control others, except--and here's the kicker--it is not us who enacts on that control, but a central entity, who is above the very law it creates (of course, based, or not based, on our opinions on how they should run.)  If we acknowledge the idea that the only thing limiting the government is a piece of paper (which is ignored quite often, especially in recent years, thus showing how a constitution, just like a vote, can make no physical change in the real world,) then not only do we see just how rigged the game is (see: Obama and Romney's campaigning budget), but to participate is to acknowledge that one's right to make an actual change in the world is forfeit for one's ability to convince someone else to make an actual change in the world.  A true vote is made with one's dollar.  When the government has guaranteed your vote through force, why bother pretending your opinion matters?

And I'm certain there are several other reasons not to vote but this seems like it gets to the heart of the matter.

Tedious for who?  I enjoy this kind of stuff, else I wouldn't be doing it.  If you can take the time to reply, you can save a lot of my time by making arguments as a grown up would.  You're certainly not doing otherwise; ad hominem and it's only the second response?  Please, make me want to care about your feelings about how government should be, since logic and reasoning don't seem to matter anyway, right?

Which is perfectly okay.  Some people prefer to listen to their feelings over what makes sense--just look at how popular religion is.  I'm not blaming you for that; you'll believe what you believe based on who told you what was true, who I assume was your parents or your school when you were growing up, and that's just who you are.  Just don't expect me to believe you when your feelings tell you that I'm stupid.  That's a word which can only hold weight when used by people who prefer to think.  When used by you, I can only assume you're upset that I wouldn't take you seriously.

---

Anyway, I posted this on another thread.  Yes, I am saying that I don't know how it would work exactly, for it is impossible to predict the future; nobody knows how societies will function without government for there are very few times in which it has happened, which is not to imply that it cannot function, but simply implies that governments have had a choke hold over people to the point where it cannot happen.  However, we can theorize how it would work, just as we theorize any other concept which has yet to come into fruition.  We as in, anyone who has already decided that the use of government force is immoral, for any reason at all.  If you believe stealing is moral, then sorry, but it's highly unlikely that I, a random patron of a forum on the Internet, am going to change your mind about that.  It doesn't matter if you believe it's a necessary evil or not; so long as one admits that the government and its buddies are the only entities allowed in the world to kill and lie and rob from society under the guise that it's good for us, nothing I ever say will make a lick of sense.  When one is ready to admit that no man, no matter who he is, is allowed to act in what is normally immoral for the rest of society, only then will I make sense.  Till then, you're better off talking to a wall than me, 'cos at least there's common ground with the wall; walls don't have empathy, either.


I have never said this wasn't true.  Of course, private businesses will be under the scrutiny of the the public.  The difference between a free society and a state society is who holds the ability to produce law: anybody via arbitration, or a monopoly named government.

I'm sorry, but I can't stand it when people are unable or unwilling to keep their arguments in a concise, easily read paragraph format, and instead opt to nitpick at every little thing said in the hopes of making several small points to add to a whole (and if that whole is your TL;DR, it's very weak; I don't know if it is 'cos I'm not reading anything else you've said.)  If you'd like to try again in the format you see me using, I'll be happy to respond.  Until then, I'll reply to your TL;DR:

There's no point in fighting that which I'm forced to pay for.  It is better to vote with one's wallet than with one's promise that their representatives will listen (and they don't, might I add, for they have their own interests in mind.)  If your point is that taxation is inevitable, then you're right: as long as people believe that it is inevitable, then it will be so.  But to say it as if it is a very law of nature that cannot and should not be tempered with is to assume absolute knowledge.  It sounds more like you're making a blind recommendation, based on feeling and, ultimately, what makes you most comfortable, with no consideration for any other human being.  If that's what you're doing, then I hope you'll see this as my way of saying, no, but thanks for the offer; I find it more effective to remove the enemy by the root than pretend that everything's dandy once any nation's grievances are taken care of, as it still leaves the fact that you're forced to pay into something that, IF you truly wanted it, you would be happy to pay for it.

Grumble grumble grumble!

Quick, someone see where the price of BTC is going!

You have to remember, a private security business aims to appease its customers and future customers by showing that it can handle the various problems it is presented without resorting to the use of force, as this would be the most obvious red flag as to which business not to use (assuming a society which believes non-violence is good thing is funding the business.)  It is the customer which ultimately decides the fate of a business, and it is the customer which can make the business owner wealthy or broke.  It is therefor in one's best interest to support peaceful security businesses whose sole purpose is to protect, not enforce.  As with any business, one should scrutinize every move a business makes, from the quality of service to every complaint, and make vocal (easily, nowadays, thanks to the Internet) the terrible or terrific things any given company will do.  Just as with publicly funded security, if you don't call them out for what they do, they'll keep doing it.  It's no different there; what is different is whether or not you can do something about it, which you can't when publicly funded security is compulsory and if those officers do a terrible job they can, at best, be fired, but you can never stop funding the uniform system which produced them, whereas in a free society, it's as simple as a phone call saying "I'd like to cancel my service" and then another phone call to a security business which has proven it does better.

To anyone interested, check this vid out, it's part one of a series which explains how law as we know it would work in a free society.  I forget which vid exactly (there's three of them I think) explains how private security would work, but it should be somewhere in there.

+18 so far.  Wanna see it take the 3rd place spot.

Nobody is saying they don't want to pay for those services.  Those who oppose taxes are saying they don't want to be forced to pay for those things--and by "those things", I'm not referring to hospitals and roads and schools and security which everyone likes to have, I'm referring to those other things, like the NSA and paying for wars they never asked for and adding onto a nationwide debt that will eventually turn into more owed per family than what one average family makes in their lifetimes.

At which point the argument takes a turn into, "Well how would we pay for public services without a public pool of money (taxation)?"  To which the answer would be, "Through the privatization of these services on an open market."  And then we'd get into how policemen and firefighters can be paid for privately, which is a hard concept to grasp when you're used to paying for it compulsively but anything worth learning takes time.

If you're referring to Asperger's Syndrome, then in a way, you might say that; however, you must first assume Asperger's is a real condition, which just happens to have the same traits as a specific personality type.  I've seen actual autistic people who have an actual disability, and "high-functioning autism" is not autism at all.

So it depends on how you're looking at it, whether or not you believe Asperger's is even a thing.  AFAIK the only confirmed autistic member here is kokjo, but most everyone else is just of the INTP/INTJ sort.

This is why politics always confused me when I was younger.  Why do they call themselves liberals, and then aim to use government force to take liberties away?  That's not very liberal, unless you consider taking liberties liberally as liberal, which seems to be the only thing they're liberal about.  Why don't we just call dogs "cats", pop open a cold beer and call it a day?

https://www.virwox.com/

You're gonna have a hard time getting BTC with PayPal btw.  They're known to be anti-Bitcoin, and do not allow their service to be used to acquire them.