But now I'm confused; doesn't it cease to be a monopoly when you have competition? (But then does it become an oligarchy?) In the example of security: if you had government A competing with government B, C, D, etc, and most people choose government D because it's the best one there is, eventually they would go with A or B or C once government D got lazy and stopped providing quality work, right? Unless, as you said, they maintain dominance through force, which would be exactly what we have now. So natural monopolies are okay? My gov teacher never said anything about more than one monopoly  |
|
|
|
|
Any reliable source on what the Illuminati are etc? All I've ever run across in the past are propaganda vids on YouTube aimed directly at Christians.
|
|
|
|
And you call it the State.
So in other words, to procure a state, you must first secure a monopoly on security. Pretty much. Even Nozick acknowledges that an "ultra-minimal" state is essentially a natural monopoly on protection. Does he acknowledge that monopolies are bad?  |
|
|
|
explain how the Israelis are terrorists?
Israel has a state. You don't keep your people in line by telling them they can do whatever they want. You strike fear in their little hearts by telling them if they do something you don't like, you'll throw them in jail. You disguise this as being for their own good; you make killing illegal, even if it won't stop killing. You make thievery illegal, even if it won't stop thieving. You then introduce the idea of treason, to ensure nobody will question your rule. Then, when you have these pieces in play, you have the sanction of God to kill whomever you need to by labeling them terrorists. This is all, of course, extremely violent, and if it isn't violent, it's the promise of violence (otherwise known as intimidation.) ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Yes, this does mean all governments incite terror in their people. Thus, Israel, as a nation with a state, are terrorists. |
|
|
|
And you call it the State.
So in other words, to procure a state, you must first secure a monopoly on security. |
|
|
|
To be fair, $9 for a comprehensive understanding on Bitcoin isn't bad. The cheapest courses around my area are $50 per credit hour, so typically around $150 a class. Some people believe that if you're not getting any closer to a degree, then it's not worth taking. But then again, fuck the state and its pieces of paper All we need now is a way to pay with Bitcoin  Any idea how that's gonna work, or is it already supported? |
|
|
|
which was created by an anonymous hacker I have noticed this being mentioned more in the government media lately. Taking either the original definition of hacker or the newer derogatory term for hacker, Satoshi does not fit either. He wrote a computer program on his own computer and then released it to the world. The original term for hacker referred to someone who would go into other people's computer systems to check things out and discover things that other people were doing, even hacking into a software program to see what it does and change things to learn more about it. The new media term refers to people who break through security of other people's computer systems and cause mischief. Satoshi was neither. Am I to be considered a hacker because I write computer programs for my company? To be frank, they're the only ones using this term incorrectly; I believe they're doing it on purpose. What's so wrong about referring to Satoshi as he is?--a programmer. Most everyone (except Linux enthusiasts I suppose) considers a hacker to be a criminal who compromises the security of various computer systems. Funny how they picked up the unpopular term in lieu of the accepted term. Is Zuckerberg a hacker, too? According to wiki: Mark Zuckerberg (born 1984), American programmer and internet entrepreneur, founder of Facebook The media should also refer to him as a hacker. But it's cool, because he didn't invent satan money, and Facebook is generally accepted; hell, it's encouraged, since CISPA's about to reap the benefits of that. |
|
|
|
No communists here Well, they're lost, if they are. |
|
|
|
If its not free its not worth buying; The Bitcoiner philosophy.
Who the fuck says that? |
|
|
|
|
Can you edit the OP to reflect that it costs 9$?
|
|
|
|
Huge government spending items would not be purposefully created in order to ensure deficits which benefit the central banks.
This includes war.
I agree. It's madness; it couldn't possibly make sense. That is, until one realizes those who run the country do not have the nation's best interest in mind. We could attribute this to "Well, they're just stupid! They don't know what they're doing!" I say they do. |
|
|
|
|
Wars can only be ended by uprooting the state and discarding it.
Look at it this way: if America needed to wage war with nation X to produce jobs, and ultimately profits for the private entities driving America's hand, and they cannot get enough drive going to keep the process going (that is, through taxation) because Bitcoin cannot be taxed, a new tax will be introduced and many others would be removed. Ideally, this tax will occur at the end of the year, and it will be the same for everyone. Because Bitcoin cannot be tagged to any individual, you would no longer be able to tax individuals on capital gains or purchases. I'm not a tax expert and there's probably plenty of ways to tax someone (like through wages or land tax), but Bitcoin can still be accommodated by the IRS to ensure they're still leeching off you at every turn.
As of today, you can get away with evading taxation through Bitcoin (and thus, put a dent in this horseshit war on terrorism,) but don't expect this to always be the case. If need be, the government will adapt, and more taxes will be installed to replace the old ones which can no longer work. The only way to remedy this is to break from the state and fight for a national government which cannot tax, or fight for no national government at all.
|
|
|
|
Ever since I first learned how the fiat system works, I've seen the Federal Reserve and its defenders as a religion. Their irrationality and their devotion to their cause is just as religious as any true believer in any sect or cult.
Excellent connection I've always considered Anarchism to be akin to Atheism; when you shed this kind of light on it, Anarchism is Atheism. |
|
|
|
|
I have never realized exactly how awful some journalists are until I met Bitcoin. My god.
|
|
|
|
|
Cold storage. Nobody ever said bitcoin-qt was secure via encryption; it is still susceptible to key loggers etc.
|
|
|
|
Jesus gets whiter every year. You should see the brochure the Mormons dropped off in my mailbox....whoooeee.....damn that was one white ass lookin Jesus.
I saved it, and brought it over to my friends place to marvel at. Everyone there was mighty impressed.
I got one for Jehovah's witness. Jesus looked like a brown-haired American. I drew a monobrow and a black eye on him. Found it more accurate. |
|
|
|
I'm so proud of you son  |
|
|
|
Sort of makes more sense. but i do not understand why money should have no "value"(you know what i mean!).
Specifically, it should have these qualities: durable/long-lasting, easily transferable, and limited in supply (that is, in the case with fiat, more should be printed only to replace the old.) The trouble with money that can do other things (lets say gold for example), if someone needed gold to build a spaceship, that spaceship is now much more expensive, simply because gold is treated as a store of wealth and its price is way over what it's actually worth in practice. If gold were not used as a store of wealth, it wouldn't come with the added price tag of being money, and wouldn't cost so much to use in application. This makes it harder to get shit done. If a single Bitcoin hit $5,000,000 it would be a killer for someone who needed exactly 1 Bitcoin to create their time-flux capacitor |
|
|
|
so stuff that have alot of uses, is less useful as money. and stuff that does one thing (be money) and one thing only (be money) is more useful as money.
Any better? But that expect someone else to value it as much as you did when you traded it otherwise you loose, and in case of a catastrophe of some kind I would have big problems accepting something that is subjectived valued.
In a zombie apocalypse, Bitcoin would be useless, and you probably wouldn't survive anyway. In a realistic catastrophe, and the Internet was knocked out, Bitcoin would also be useless. However, you still could not eat gold, and you still could not eat dollars. In a catastrophe, odds are, you'll revert to communism, or forced communism (a.k.a. stealing.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
