I've actually done some research into this ( Don't ask why ) and there is metal out there that can stop bullets etc. ( you can easily stop most bullets with a block of concrete for crying out loud ) the problem is the weight, once you fix the problems with how you carry such heavy pieces of metal on yourself then bullets are a lot less dangerous and may even end up being obsolete and people will have to think of ways past these defences. This will probably be why suits of armour became obsolete, because they were just too heavy to carry around and the metal was too thin to slow down a bullet properly never mind stop it.

I was going to suggest Pitcairn Island.
The population looks smaller than "Dunbar's number" so we should be able to fit a couple dozen Libertarians and An-Caps on there.

He shouldn't have to try anything. The core development team, doesn't even code anymore they all do work for other bitcoin companies and have lost focus on what is really important.

And that is the problem man - nothing will stop centralisation at this rate. When the difficulty reaches 1 billion there will only be a few pools with enough hashing power to solve anything.

It will be so far out of reach of the ordinary man they might as well be a central bank

Thanks, am grateful for that since English is not my language.

Bias is in the eyes of the beholder.
To the anarchocapitalist, the state seems socialist/communist.
To the anarchocommunist, the state seems capitalist.
Even if both are anarchs, the division conquers them.

Truthfully neither know what a free society would look like today (even if they can imagine what it looked like in forests or long ago).  It is just so much theory and hubris to plan this battle at the theoretical end.

The wild animals belonged to no one until the hunter killed it, and the fruits of the pawpaw tree belonged to no one, until someone picked it. It was rudimentary, but it was certainly an example of a belief in the right of private PERSONAL property.

Murder was rare anachronistically unheard of in anarchic paleolithic, pre-patriarchic, pre-state communaties living organisms. War and organised violence was non-existent. The expression of violence against conspecifics http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspecific is non-existent on paleolithic art (rock and cave paintings); in post-neololithic, patriarchic, collectivist (socialist, feudalist, capitalist, imperialist) environment it is the norm. Socialist, feudalist and capitalist collectivists are have always been determined to ignore history. everything except the history that is written to approve of them. They spread Racism, Sexism, Science Fiction, Religion and an oxymoronic, orwellian vocabulary ("anarcho-capitalism, "communism") instead. They don't understand the difference between archic and anarchic.


How many times do we have to explain to the collectivised Capitalists, what a natural state of human being is?

Murder is not a crime, in your opinion?  Rape?  You require a state to define your mores for you?

You most certainly are.  The earliest mention of the term 'capitalism' was in the Communist Mannesfesto by Karl Marx.  How do you think he defined it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Marxist_political_economy

Do you need me to translate that?  Private entities aquire commodities to be used as resource inputs for the production of other commodities.  In it's simpliest form, that would be "private ownership and control of the means of production".  Marx's complaint with this system was that it generally treated human labor as a commodity itself, which he regarded as inhumane.  Many avowed capitalists did then, and do now, hold a similar view as to the special nature of the "human capital".  Ultimately that's a moral, and not a feature of capitalism per se, and capitalism can and often does work within the constraints of such a social moral.  That seems to be your complaint as well, but like Marx, you confuse a common stage of a industrial economy with a fundamental feature of capitalism.  For example, Britain & the US both had child labor and "sweatshops" a century ago, but as our societies grew more affluent across all classes both societies grew to regard children as precious, and also to regard minimum working conditions as a moral case, ultimately reflected in child labor laws and such.  Every single industrial society on Earth that has followed us on that path has also progressed through those stages.  Does anyone here not remember the cases of 12 to 14 year old girls working in unheated or un-air-conditioned shoe factories in China during the 90's, electronics factories Taiwan during the 80's, or fields in Mexico pretty much anytime in the last century?  The reasons you don't hear about such things anymore is because those societies grew too affluent to put up with such conditions anymore.  Not because of a few high profile activists & actors whining about it in front of American Wal-Marts.


Naturally no.  In practice, it depends.  Using your example, prove that any such land was stolen.  Bear in mind, I've personally got as much claim to be a 'native' American, or at least the heirs of same, that anyone does.  While the tribal traditions of the Eastern 'longhouse' tribes most certainly did recognize real estate and personal property, it was very much a 'homesteading' type of culture.  If it was wild and uncultivated, no one owned it, until they killed it or cut it down.  So the idea that white men were willing to come into their region and then offer them low value gifts in exchange for the tribes to 'sell' the white men their untamed stretches of land was laughable.  For the most part, the stories of selling off land for nearly worthless beads was a myth, as the recipients largely knew the gifts were of little value.  They didn't complain because their cultural traditions didn't grant them any kind of exclusive claim on the untamed wilds, only on the areas that they had already invested their labors into cultivating.  The wild animals belonged to no one until the hunter killed it, and the fruits of the pawpaw tree belonged to no one, until someone picked it.  It was rudimentary, but it was certainly an example of a belief in the right of private property.  The cases that probably did exist of land disputes between natives and white settlers must have been relatively rare, and likely less common than land disputes between white settlers claiming the same stretches of untamed forest as their own.  The real problem for the natives was that the whites vastly outnumbered them, and were just as free to homestead around them as anyone; and ultimately that many of those same homesteaders were also racists, sometimes violently so.  If you dispute this perspective, then prove it.  If you can prove that any such land was actually stolen, it's not theirs, and the heirs of the wronged are entitled to compensation from the estates of the wrongdoers, but not from their heirs if those heirs didn't profit from those estates.  If those estates no longer exist, sadly, there is no one to sue; for those who are at fault are long dead, and the grandchild cannot be rightly held to the debts of his forefathers.
And what do you claim is it's natural state?

Says the one without capital, or knowledge of what it is.  By what logic do make this claim?  Are you going to come and take it?  With what, exactly?


No, they don't.  Limitless accumulation of resources is a self defeating enterprise.  It you even knew what capital was, you'd already know that, but you're not willing to learn something new.

It's chaotic, that's for sure.

As for whether it's inefficient, intuitively it may seen that a central planning body that can oversee everything and determine where resources are used best would be more efficient. In practice, and in history, this was shown not to be the case. The main reason is that when you have an enormous amount of constantly changing information, it's actually more efficient to only allow small groups/actors to work within the small sections of that information to make decisions. A large single planning body just can't process the information fast enough. It's decentralization, and is also why 3D printing and Bitcoin are way more efficient when it comes to giving people exactly and specifically what different people want, instead of having a single unweildy body, like a bank or a factory, produce the average of what people want, while lagging behind changing trends.


Agreed. The poor will undoubtedly rebel when they get fed up with being treated unfairly.  

It has happened over and over, with disastrous consequences. But which force are we talking about exactly? Capitalism, that prices goods and labor, and gives people information about whether their skills aren't valued, and perhaps should be changed or improved to get them out of poverty? Corruption and crime, often sustained by governments that pass regulations to help keep their corporate buddies in power and use the police force, paid for by taxing the poor, to keep those very same poor from revolting? Or just plain apathy and laziness of some people, who do nothing except complain about how their lives suck, while doing nothing to change their situation, and just watch their peers take evening classes, working on developing new skills, and quickly leaving them behind, while using excuses such as that their peers were just lucky?

We, as a society, make toilers rich all the time through capitalism.

Just look at India ten years ago compared to now. People with degrees were earning almost nothing, living in really horrid conditions. Then those same people started getting menial unskilled jobs, working in factories or phone support. Now those people are able to demand pay 10 to 30 times or more than what they used to get, working in research, software development, and engineering. India is no longer an ideal place to hire toilers, because millions of people were raised from the slums into middle class, not because of government programs, but because of market competition. Same deal with China. 10 years ago, people were working in horrible conditions in factories, toiling day and night for little pay, while barely earning enough to survive. Now, even though a lot of the work itself is similar, the working conditions are vastly improved. They are clean, well lit, with much better housing, resembling that of university campuses, instead of shantytowns. Sure, China has a bit to go still, but there's no argument that their toiler's situation has improved as well. And again, decades of communism and social planning couldn't do a thing to help those people out, but as soon as they allowed capitalism, however restricted, and outside companies to come in and compete for workers, things improved dramatically.

Wow.  You make it sound like the whole of society woudl self destruct without the 'adults' around to make us eat our broccoli, and stop smoking, and recycle, and don't get the Big Gulp.  Who the hell do you think you are?  Do you think that you are better suited to decide for me or my children?  Do you think you have the right to tell me I shouldn't eat cake?  Everything in moderateration isn't unhealthy, and chocolate is good for human beings.

Statist mentality in a nutshell.  There is no greater evil that can ever be done by men to men, but by those who belieive they are doing so for the greater good.

Of course not. As long as you point out the flaws in the system itself, not point to unrelated things and claim that they are the system. I.e. saying "Capitalism is bad because it fails to address this crime" is ok. Saying "Capitalism is bad because this crime is capitalism" is not ok.

I am saying economists try to establish an agreed-upon definition of terms before they start deriving economic theories and debating each other. It's hard to set up a Supply/Demand graph when some people decide that "Supply" means the supply of need instead of supply of products, for example.

Me, you, everyone. We all recognize that we own the things we have, almost from birth. Moreso, we recognize that we own then in spite of laws that may say otherwise. It's why people get upset when government comes in and "legally" seizes their property, such as in imminent domain cases to use for building malls, or in nationalization cases.

Violent state can help enforce it, just as violent individuals and violent private security firms can help enforce it, but that's all they do - enforce. They don't actually create the concept of property; the concept of "I own this because I made it myself using my own stuff."

Difference of opinion? It's ok if the resource in question is just commonly owned and shared by everyone who owns and shares it. It would be a big problem if someone rightfully feels like the own something, and then a bunch of other people start coming in and claiming ownership to it too. That's when violence may come in, from state or otherwise.

Not at all. Corporations are commonly owned. Capitalism just makes sure that there is a set number of owners who are responsible for their ownership, instead of having things be unowned and in a free-for-all.

Voluntary suggests it was traded voluntarily. Trade means two or more parties. Ill-gotten stolen things are by definition not voluntarily traded away by their previous owners. So, no, I am not talking about that.

I'll tell you what the Iraq war was about.

Over the last few decades, since the end of WW2, the military has grown and grown in America.  It has become a huge part of the economy with many people deriving their income from military contractors and those contractors getting their money through military contracts which of course are paid by tax.  And yet, no-one invading or threatening to invade the homeland.  How could they with oceans either side?  Surely, then a huge part of that money could be saved?  

So, the reality is, is that the military has to be justified.  They have to fight in wars.  Any excuse can be made no matter how flimsy.  

The Iraq war is all about keeping thousands of Americans in jobs.  That's the reality of it.  That's why so many are ready and willing to swallow the propaganda.  And why the truth doesn't get out.  There is quite simply no demand for the truth so the media have little reason to supply it.

Having to reconfigure such a large part of the economy away from the military would result in a lot of short-term pain for a lot of people.  And we know in politics that never happens.  Much easier to just go shoot up a bunch of brown people and their possessions that nobody cares about anyway.  If they end up getting upset that their friends and family have been killed and their local economy destroyed and thus their opportunities in life destroyed and some end up with a grudge and some proportion of them decide to take it out on those who inflicted it by committing terrorist acts...  well... so much the better for the military and security industry.

EDIT: I can think of another institution that is thousands of years old and has no place in a civilized society. 

You will be fine for as long as transaction is 0.00005430 BTC or more and you pay transaction fees.