I think what you don't realize Hawker, is that it can be reasonably assumed that for a corporation engaged in private court systems, law enforcement or lawyering/legislating to be profitable, or to be superior in both strength and resources, it had to have acquired those things by essentially 3 methods. They would have had to steal resources in a really stealthy manner, go to war over it (very overt), or they had to use reason, logic and incentives to negotiate for it (plurally the nice way).

As it has been proven in past discussions, warring and stealing are essentially a dangerous business, and tend to get you killed or imprisoned. At the very least, everybody hates you for it and will never trust or deal with you again. In which case, you will eventually peter out and go away, somebody prosecutes you, or some lucky vigilante takes you out. I'd hate to be the guy who has to constantly look over his shoulder because he was such unruly jerk.

Everybody should have the freedom of choice over how they want to be protected in their persons and things. Nobody should have an exclusive privilege to mete out how that is to be procured. Note, that I didn't say how anybody has a right to apply force over others for any arbitrary reason, but to defend and maintain ownership over what is rightfully theirs. It ain't rocket science. Try to think outside the box for once. Sheesh.

Gigabyte GA-770T-USB3 AM3.

I've had offers north of $500. Anything over $500 I'll entertain.

I never said anything about anybody giving anyone money or property, much less any conditions relating thereto. There is no honor among thieves first of all. And besides, if the property you brought to me was stolen, I would likely return it if I could find the real owner. Additionally, the conditions of use of stolen property have no validity, because the property wasn't yours to begin with (excepting to return it with good faith, or at a minimum wait for the owner to attempt repossess it).

It's wrong to tax regardless. The banks are committing theft by the involuntary use of their forced fiat financial system. Look to the source of the problem, as the symptoms can be misleading sometimes. Yes, really.

Having a monopoly on force is what a dictatorship is. If you can compete for justice and liberty (courts, law enforcement, prisons, arbitration, etc.) the likelihood any one person or persons can mete out punishment unilaterally and uncontested, is lessened. It's likely those groups would never get big enough to form a dictatorship. If you endow unlimited power to the select few, use an arbitrary unaccountable and unassailable vote, or violate contract rights, and you almost always get abused.

Society, which is a group of individuals acting in concert, can, with enough force, take anything they like, including the lives of others. This is a fact, merely because it is possible to do. Humanity only has such limits as the physical laws in the universe impose upon them. Again, a fact. Having the "right" to take something is another matter altogether. You, and society can justify anything that it wants (usually employing violence or threats thereto). The full range behavior encompasing charity to murder is possible.

I would like to think that straying to far from charity in the direction of murder is a bad idea. You really should keep your hands to yourself (rhetorically speaking). Just because a majority of persons think it's in their best interests to take from others what never belonged to them, seems like bad form. At the very least, it isn't logically consistent. Violating logic and reason will always take you in the wrong direction, and potentially confuse and scare the hell out of everybody. What do you say we not incite fear, uncertainty and doubt?

It's getting really twisted around here. Seriously, you tolerate people taking money from others? Ok, I can actually follow that logic. You are also not obligated to assist anyone who is being violently attacked or robbed unless you have a prior contract to protect them. This is true. All law should employ negative rights, contracts typically incorporate positive rights. So your logic does in fact stand, and does not violate the premise of non-initiation of aggression.

However, if you participate in the process of permitting (thru legislation) the plunder of your neighbor by making it acceptable (taxation), would that not, in some way, implicate you in a conspiracy to commit that crime? If your vote directly results in laws that violate the personal liberties and properties of another, would that not make you complicit in that act?

Your last paragraph is bassackwards. Bitcoin2cash is not aggressing anybody if he never laid a hand on anybody. His unwillingness to assist another in his "time of need" may not be considerate, but his lack of action cannot be construed as aggression. Aggression requires a transfer of energy or mass from one object to another, usually thru the act of forces applied to said object initiated by the individual.

No forces, no aggression. No contract, no obligation. May the peace be with you.

$650/rig. All software included and ready to go.

$95/card.

One thing we need to determine is whether or not it's possible for competing force agencies to resolve most of their disputes in an orderly and timely manner. Additionally, it's important to determine the solution or restitution of the problem in a proportional way. An eye for an eye, being the worst case scenario.

Competition on force contracts, which depend on the interpretation of what is right and wrong, are the the most difficult environments to deal in. It would seem plausible that violence could escalate very quickly in situations where the majority of individuals have a large belief-variation in what is wrong and right. Those situations can degrade quickly to feuding and infighting.

In reality, we actually have a market for governments. They exist on a global scale between countries, and within those police states exist some private contract dispute arbitration firms. What's interesting is, none of the governments of the world are free-will choice. You cannot choose your form of security and arbitration resolution exclusive of the state. The state can step in and overturn any or all of your decisions at any time. If they didn't step in, would justice still exist (even in the case where the arbitration is patently one-sided and unfair) or would the market eventually find its way?

I'm willing to part out. Name your price. Thanks

Prohibit is perhaps a strong word. Can I just ignore your "monopoly" and just do what I want with my stuff? If so, you don't have monopoly privilege. If however, you can constrain me thru government licensing, regulation and other agencies that can manipulate what I can do with my things on my property, then monopoly exists. So no monopoly on force either.

Just prohibit monopoly privilege. By evening the playing field, it's probable that the likes of Walmart couldn't manipulate pricing for long. Of course, if everybody conspired to financially hamstring their neighbor, not even the best of governments could stop it. A society is only as good as as the individuals it comprises.

Laws make for good suggestions, they don't stop crime, they don't make people more charitable, more meek, benevolent, friendly, caring or otherwise. However, making laws that give special privileges or authority to one class of individuals over another only exacerbates the problem.

And that amount would be?

About 1400 W.

$780 / rig is the current price or equivalent BTC.

Yeah, that would work a lot better (dollar voting vs. ballot voting). But only with a specific caveat. That the money collected for each candidate, or accumulated to the winning candidate, could only be used on behalf of the voter (no taxation). It couldn't be used to fund plundering activities. To wit, you couldn't fund legislative terrorism. It could only be used for, and on behalf of, those who cast their vote; never to injure or plunder another.

In any case, wouldn't it just be better to just contract for the services in the first place? Then you know exactly what you're getting. I understand the nature of collective forces and organized protection (or other whatnot), so why not start a personal security firm instead? Or an insurance company to spread and diffuse the risk?

I fail to see how that relates to my comment. You spoke of conquerors and sharecroppers, not education subsidies, legal system subsidies and business subsidies. I don't exactly see the connection here. Your topic/talking points had to do with how does one deals with the crimes of our ancestors and the accumulation of wealth due to violent expropriation.

Did I miss something?

You do make an interesting point. The theft/conquering/murder by some of our ancestors does make it difficult for the current property owners. Especially the poorest of them. I'm not sure how you resolve that issue. A good paper trail might be helpful.

The reason why you're arguing with a brick wall is because you're trying to convince us that theft of another person's property is acceptable if it improves a public service. The same logic is employed when taking from the wealthy to give to the impoverished since the poor would have a better life. Wealth distribution is just another colloquialism for theft.

Theft is never justified. The proper construction of law, and the logic and reasoning it exists (prevent theft, injury and enslavement), is the only way to legally deal with others. It is never justified to sacrifice the few for the many, the many for the many, or the many for the few. Never.

Just remind yourself that whenever you try to use law for something other than self defense and restitution, you really are committing a crime. You, your "representative", your "agent", your "government", or your "legislator", makes no difference what you call it, if you use the law for other than the above reason, you are a partner in crime.

Don't conflate lawfulness with whatever can be done with a majority of force, whether you do it personally or with a vote there is no difference (individual vs gang). The ends do not always justify the means.