I tried establishing a premise from the very basis, in an attempt to expand on my premises and see where you or I go wrong, when I started with the basis, "If it hurts me, it's bad." You right away pointed out that there are many extraneous circumstances where what is hurting me may not be hurting me as something else, where all I was hoping for was to start from something simple, so I just figured you had no interests in exploring premises, and would just prefer to stick to your own, right or wrong.


That's what you assumed I thought. What I think is that replanting trees allows you to harvest from only one piece of land, and not rely on harvesting the existing ecosystem. My example of a company in Chile, which I mentioned just a few weeks ago, was an example of how a company did that extremely well, being able to produce the majority of the world's (or at least China's) paper requirements without relying on destroying the surrounding forests and ecosystem, developing methods of growing trees cheaper and faster than their competitors, all without environmental regulation. In the end, what they do they only do for personal profit, but the end result is that they are protecting the ecosystem, because other logging companies that might otherwise destroy other forests, don't, because they can't compete with that Chilean company.



I regurgitate them, or repeat them, because you and others don't get them. You've demonstrated that in this post as well.


I'm not interested in that audience. Preaching to the choir doesn't do anything for me.

I just spit out my cup of tea. Thanks   

You don't say

Just remember, and remind everyone, that "police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

My parentsv aren't poor, either. They earn a combined ~$25,000 a month. It's just that all but $1,000 of it goes to support their various properties and investments (just as all but ~$450 of mine goes to investments) - things that give people a place to live and a place to work. You have one again missed my point entirely, which is that rich people that make a lot of money, such as my parents, aren't just sitting on bags of money, and can't just give up half their wealth without doing some serious harm to other people (one of their tenants is on government assisted housing, so hurting them directly hurts the poor, too).
As I said, you're too much of an idiot to recognize these things, even when I spell them out for you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=247874.msg2802864#msg2802864

Did crumbs just demonstrate that all taxation is by definition violent enforcement?

You rely on charity, or you die, because the "benevolent" government that doesn't let you pass forces you to starve to death. How is that different from not being able to afford buying food, paying for transportation, and not being able to find a job now? If you can't afford to survive, you change so you can, or you rely on charity, or you force others to give you their stuff. Hopefully (most likely) you won't find yourself in a situation where you are living in a sovereign micronation, surrounded by a hostile foreign power.


Regarding bolding, I don't understand what you want me to do? I've been told that the best way to convince someone is not to tell them now it is, but to ask them questions and make them come to the conclusion themselves. They won't believe you, but they will believe themselves. So, I ask many questions; not because I am stupid and don't know the answer, but because I want you to check and verify your own premises and see if your own conclusions make sense. Would you find it less frustrating and more convincing if I simply told you how things work and the way they are?

By the way, the reason you can't convince me is because you are desperately trying to convince me using feelings and concerns about society and my fellow man, while I prefer arguments based on logic, which admittedly has to many holes in it. We may just be of too different personality types to ever get anywhere.

I have thought of that. If I was in such a situation, would have to pay for access (in which case I am paying for something, even if I'm being ripped off, and I'm doing it voluntarily), OR I would pay someone else to deliver food for me. I could also work remotely online, like I do some of my work now. If you were in that came situation, would you just give up and die, not being able to think of ways to solve your problem? Is this why you are so afraid if losing government?




If I'm just ineffective at arguing and prone to persuasion, and you have been arguing with me for over a year, then what does it say about you?   And sure, I might have a lack of understanding about certain world topics, like biology and nature, but it's pretty evident to me that you also lack real world knowledge of other topics, like business, economics, and global trade.

Here's a link to a discussion I had just 4 years ago, where I was an adamant supporter of monetary policy, and was arguing against deflation and gold standard http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/10-banks-allowed-to-repay-tarp-bailout-money/#comment-21320688

Yes!


Yes!


Yes!


*Screeech* And you veered off from "nonviolent" for "forced kidnapping." >.< I mean, I would have said "If you don't pay your taxes, you can't step outside of your property," which, again, many of us would agree to, but I guess our two minds work differently, yours apparently having quite a bit more of a tendency towards violence than mine. 

Agreed. I pretty much ignore crumbs, because, unlike others on here, he is just all kinds of bonkers. I's half convinced he is just a troll, really. But, despite my attempts to ignore him, sometimes the things he says are just so stupid and badly thought out that I can't help but comment. I try to convince myself that I am doing it for the benefit of other readers who may be misled by his *ahem* opinions, but I think I'm only convincing myself.

Ah, kind of like, if you get arrested for possession of marijuana, you can't get a federally subsidized student loan.

This is actually a pretty nice scenario to demonstrate the difference between government and volyntarism, from which you may be able to derive better opinions on "morality."

Let's say in this scenario, bob lives near where he works, and doesn't actually need the car for day-to-day use.

In a volyntarist society, Bob will refuse to contribute to the gas, forcing the driver and other passenger to pay more, and will be forced to pay a much larger sum to compensate the driver on the rate occasions that he does need to use the car. Bob may decide that it's cheaper to only pay for the car when he needs to, or that it's cheaper to calculate how often he needs to use the car throughout the year, and make constant small payments to distribute his costs. Or bob, along with the driver and other passenger, may realize that the car is costing them too much for the little use they get out of it, and decide to switch to something else, such as two cheaper scooters, which the driver and the passenger can ride independently, and bob can borrow for a fee.

In a government/statist society, the driver and the passenger decide that the car is needed, and agree to force bob to pay for his share of the gas, even though bob rarely, if ever, needs to use the car. If bob refuses to pay, which he likely would due to not needing to use the car nearly as much as the other two people, they will claim that they are authorized to use force to make him pay, going as far as to keep track of all his finances, to see if he has the money to pay. Their justification for this will be that he can also use the car, should he need to, despite the fact that he is being forced to pay for way more use than he actually needs, or uses. As a result, Bob is forced to give up money for things he doesn't want, money that is in effect being "stolen" and used by others, and the car use remains fully funded, hiding the fact that the car may be way too expensive for what the "market" actually needs, preventing new ideas and vehicles from being used.

The last part is fairly relevant when comparing the rail and alternative transportation options of USA and Europe - In US, the roads and gasoline are subsidized so much (by forcing everyone to pay for them) that all other alternative methods of transportation are not able to compete. As a result, we are all forced to rely on driving everywhere, with no possibility of exploring other options like rail and public transportation.

Are you familiar with the concept of "positive reinforcement?" Or do you believe that the only way to control people is to force them and punish them when they get out of line?

Thanks Bruno. I'm still keeping up with this, and am aware, so no need to contact me. I'm currently just sitting back and apparently just letting you do all the work 

Maybe we can ask if Bitcoinstore can add medical supplies to their huge list of things?

I hope that, at the very least, this horrible experience serves as a great lesson on how the current banking system sucks so much. True, Roman's lack of communication has been awful through this, but this would never have happened in the first place, and would not have taken so long to resolve, if it hadn't been for such awful banks and financial regulations  

Thank you for taking as much time to look at and consider the information I provided, as it took me to Google for it 

[quote author=foggyb link=topic=254668.msg2806047#msg2806047 date=1374809441
I know from personal experience that abstinence education with minimal sex education (at school) does work with a high rate of success.

If the parents aren't on board, any school education program you can care to name will have a lower success rate.

The other problem is that the idea of abstinence is a Christian ideal. If you don't teach the core values of Christianity alongside abstinence, well of course the abstinence education isn't going to work.  It makes no sense to teach abstinence alongside moral relativism.
[/quote]

Personal experience, huh. You actually went to a whole bunch of schools, asked the kids to have sex with you, and was told "no?" I can't imagine what kind of personal experience you might be talking about.

Those sources I provided show some incredible amount of irony BTW. Statistics across the entire country show that places typically associated with good Christian values (such as southern states) that teach abstinence, have WAY higher instances of underage sex, unprotected sex, and teenage pregnancies, than the godless states that teach comprehensive sex education. Even in cases where abstinence states have stay-at-home soccer moms, and sex-ed states have working mom's.

Care to offer an opinion as to why that may be?

Yes. Completely banned. Illegal to own a gun. Extremely effective law, where being caught with a gun lands you in jail. And there are a lot of cops on the streets to enforce that law. The nonuniform application is part of the problem. That criminals don't care about laws, since they are criminals, and have to resort to shooting cops to avoid getting caught with guns and put away for a very long time is the other problem. So we can ban all guns in US, then ask Canada and Mexico to do the same. Then ask all the countries in South America. Then everywhere else in the world. Except criminals are criminals. They won't care about those laws, and will figure out a way around them, like by printing guns at home. Then we can start regulating 3D printers and online files. And that will be as effective as stopping Pirate Bay.
So yes, it is indeed a problem. One without a real solution.

I understand. Some people drive me crazy on here, too. I just feel better, from a certain sense of schadenfreude knowing where people like him will end up in the future. At best, it will be exactly where they are now, in countries crumbling from debt, their prospects for retirement and pensions quickly evaporating, and their society devolving into riots and destruction. At worst, in a society where government services are rapidly becoming as relevant as CDs and copyright laws in the age of file sharing, where their system of beliefs are irrelevant, or get them killed. Maybe we would be feeling sorry for their types instead.

God damn you're an idiot...

Did you know that Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, and Sergey Brin started out with approximately the same amount of money as you? Why are they rich and you are poor? And do you honestly think that if you were to take away all their money so that they are as poor as you, that you all will have the same equal chance of becoming rich? Man you're deluded...

Claims, findings, and sources.
http://advocatesforyouth.org/publications/409

I quite literally live on only about $400 to $500 a month. I have food and shelter, but haven't had a game system since the 90's, and am missing out on a lot of those games my friends talk about. I feel pretty needy. Can I have some of your money?

By the way, asking someone to force someone else to be charitable doesn't make you moral or ethical. All it does is make society not care, because it rightfully believes that someone else will take care of all social problems. Responsibility for your fellow man basically goes out the window.