That's funny... but the print out makes sense, that a subscriber would only see the contents by unignoring the "ignored" poster. 

Maybe I should ignore me, too... b/c I do NOT like to read my own posts?

I thought that you were ignoring me?  So how could you see my posts?  Maybe I do NOT understand ignore b/c so far I have NOT employed such a tool.

I like your numbers better than mine (that were pulled out of my ass to some extent), but I do NOT know what is ristos calculations... so I guess, I am shooting from a position of disadvantage.

I would think that these numbers are constantly changing... well they may hold for a period, but then some of them adjust and sometimes one or two whales can make a very big difference with a sudden change of heart  or the pulling of two walls, when we did NOT know that was the same whale.

  I agree with you regarding the part that people do NOT want to be controlled, and people want to have control in their lives. 

Now, you are saying that I do NOT want to pay...   Surely this is crazy talk....    What i said was that the fact that the very rich do NOT pay their fair share, and that the very rich have been receiving reductions in their contributions for about 30 years, these reductions have caused the rest and regular people to have to pay more.  What does this have to do with me - except for the fact that I am claiming that I am NOT one of the very rich?    However, even some people who are part of the very rich, including warren buffet and I believe bill gates, have recognized that the system is way too skewed in favor of the rich and that they have conceded that the rich (including themselves) need to pay more taxes in order to have more sustainable systems and infrastructure, etc etc etc.   

Also, I have never suggested that any of these community designs are up to me, and you should realize that if you were NOT so hell intent upon skewing reality and trying to get your way with name calling that is NOT based in reality.    Democratic input is part of the complications of taking into account a multitude of stakeholders in a process that involves compromise and frequently everyone NOT getting what they want.. but NONETHELESS attempting to satisfy the needs of the most stakeholders.  Surely, these kinds of processes are complicated and they are hard to follow and they are frequently flawed in application.  Nonetheless, they are NOT what you are framing them to be.  They are NOT one person or small group deciding, except to the extent to which the one person or the group has been duly elected or properly appointed within the process.  Then those kinds of groups and people have discretion within their office to carry out the mandates of their office within the public interest parameters.  The only way that I would be deciding would be if I were elected or appointed within an office that has discretion over the areas upon which I am supposed to decide.  Hopefully this clarifies, somewhat.

That's fine... Abandon all you want.   

I do NOT know why you would want to continue to ask me questions that I have expressed my opinion that I already sufficiently answered. 

If you want some interaction on a level that is more in line with your way of thinking and accepting of your definitions of the world, then I have NO problem with that.  Go forth and search for such interactions.

I would think that you should be able to accomplish all of your communication objectives in this regard without having to throw slurs at me.. and to suggest that I am NOT getting your point or failing to understand you.  I already mentioned several times, that I am NOT trying to trick you with any of my various responses.... I just don't feel inclined to continue to answer various questions that I either recognize as too basic and trivial or that I feel that I have sufficiently answered those questions in various repeated ways... .  And, if you want further answers to definitions or parameters that I have set forth, then you may need to go somewhere else to seek those kinds of answers.

I do NOT want to suggest exact sources - b/c it seems that i have already made such suggestions and I doubt that you are inclined to take my further suggestions in this direction, so we should be able to leave these matters on polite terms and agree to disagree.... but instead, you seem to be inclined to throw out slander rather than merely agreeing to leave the topic and to disagree on respectful terms.

I'm with you.  BTC price lingering remains part of the aggravation... b/c I believe many of us expect BTC prices to be maintaining higher levels, even at the moment.   

Getting periodic buy opportunities can be good; however, if the price lingers too long at a lower level, then the opposite affect may occur, too... a loss of confidence in the value of BTC....

Well, I anticipate that in the medium to long term, we should be good though and likely 6-12 months we will be hovering in the $1500 range...   

Rosey picture? 

It sure would be nice to get into the $700s at some point in the near future... I am a bit pessimistic, though, about whether we are going to experience that over the weekend.. maybe by the middle of next week, though.


I generally add a few more BTC or fractions of BTC when there are dips in the BTC prices....

Currently, what is your next buy point?  I am thinking that my next buy point would be under $610... and then again at $580... yet my buy point will fluctuate based on how quickly we are getting to that point.. b/c when possible, I would prefer to buy at the lower price... like any good capitalist.... hehehehe

So you are listening.. I thought that you were going to ignore me.  So does that mean that you are allowing me the graces of your ear and a chance to respond to your latest post or not.... Maybe you are too fickle to be able to tolerate such? 

Regarding emotion:  I do NOT get worked up about these kinds of posts b/c I accept that there are a variety of opinions out there, and sometimes posters get worked up and engage in personal attacks or other whimsical discourtesies.  I have been guilty of it myself, from time to time, and even more difficult to keep a polite tone when trying to type quickly and to get the ideas out quickly... b/c as we all know, there are only so many hours in the day.    I am also open to having some of these potentially controversial discussions via PM to the extent that there may be a way to address issues (that may be personal) outside of the public thread.

Actually, one of the difficulties with any proposed change is to figure out the extent to which various aspects of the existing system may need to be dismantled in order to incorporate new ideas.  For sure, I am NOT opposed to considering and possibly trying out new and innovative ideas; however, frequently a problem with these various anti-government ideations that posters are proposing to implement, there is a push to get rid of government (and taxes) on a broad and comprehensive scale, as if government were the oppressor of the people (or the one coercing the people), but then that solution usually would NOT account for the fact that frequently government may be the only force that we have that is powerful enough to keep large corporation and the rich in check, regarding the various methods that the rich and large corporation employ to exploit regular people.  Without government, then frequently regular people would lose much of their voice and power and would be outgunned by the resources of the rich and the large corporations. 

Generally, the government is NOT the evil to fight, except to the extent to which it is either coopted by the forces of the rich or that the government is NO longer representing the people.... and frequently, trickle down is insufficient method in ensuring the needs of the people are met (maybe that's where coercion comes to play?)...

I am glad that you are keeping a good sense of humor about this.

And, it moves us in the flying car direction, too.... win, win..   outfit the dogs and the owners with synchronized jetpacks that must follow exact governmental specifications.  And, the synchronized packs would be voluntary so long as the blind wanted the dogs to live...

In the event of non-compliance with any of the particulars, then death sentence to the dog.... something like that..... We'll have to work out the details... or maybe we will just implement and let the details be worked out at some later point.. see how it plays out...

Yes.  Insult and then ignore. 

Listening is half of the conversation, which you have chosen NOT to do.... 

YES... YOU ARE VERY possible to converse with.   hehehehe

   You throw out a personal attack and then you say, o.k... no need for me to respond.


Let me just say, the reason that I am saying that we do NOT need to go on about this particular topic is that if we cannot agree upon basic definitions (such as the application of coercion in government and I have been addressing variations of this question in various places for nearly 20 more than 50 pages), then we are NOT going to agree about other conclusions that are built upon those definitions.  

Personally, I do NOT find it fruitful or productive to spend time discussing things with people in circumstances in which we do NOT agree about fundamental definitions.   Sometimes we may go around and around the bush several times, and then figure out that we do agree on a redefinition of our original disagreement, yet I am just saying why go around and around the bush several times when it does NOT really matter that much.  I would rather talk about bitcoin related stuff b/c  I do NOT feel that I need to resolve these role of government matters ... NOT at the moment....  

Several posters have already made their points on the role of government topic in several ways... though I get the sense that probably, a few of us are NOT completely exhausted, yet, and accordingly, the discussion is NOT quite over, yet.  hehehe...

TO DA MOON

Yes, each of us view the world based on our experiences, opinions and beliefs.  Some of these are more grounded in reality.  I do NOT view someone to be living in fantasy land merely b/c s/he has a different view point than mine, and also, I do NOT throw out these accusations lightly.  If someone begins to talk about facts that are clearly NOT true, and NOT supported by evidence, then I begin to throw out these kinds of accusations.


You may be correct that I may have thrown out the accusations a few times without a context, so in that regard, there may have been a miscommunication regarding my reference point.


For the record, I have no problem with innovative solutions, and potentially incorporating innovative ideas in places where they have NOT been previously applied.  NONETHELESS, I am NOT going to throw out what is working for innovation, if the concept has NOT been thought through to some extent. 

Here, we may need a specific example... and let's take bitcoin, for example.  At this point, I do NOT agree with ideas of throwing out the dollar for bitcoin, b/c bitcoin may NOT be ready to handle all of that.  However, I may be willing to throw out silver and substitute bitcoin for silver or to throw out some country's smaller currency for bitcoin.  Or throw away part of the dollar, such as international remittances and let bitcoin take that portion of the market.  I am just saying that sometimes, we do NOT want to attempt too much unless we think that our proposals can handle the situation.    In any event, I am only one person's opinion, so I understand that others may have differing opinions and prognostications regarding a large variety of matters, including the role of government and community in our daily lives.

Repeat yourself ad naseum... In essence, we do NOT disagree about that definition of coercion.

It seems that we just disagree about whether choosing something is coercion.. such as choosing to live in a society and being a member of a community... I am asserting such choices are NOT coercion.. even though there may be mandatory elements within living in a society.... and even though people in this thread are making out mandatory to be the same as coercion. 

It seems to me that you seem to be getting side-tracked about something that is NOT in contention.... even though there has been, for about 20 pages, a contention about whether or NOT coercion applies...

You and several of your buddies in this thread are asserting that coercion applies and is important and that coercion is a central consideration in these kinds of conversations about taxes, and I am asserting that the application of coercion is of much less importance that people in this thread are making it out to be.   I do NOT deny the existence of coercion, just the amount of emphasis being given to it. Hopefully that helps.

county commissioners are usually elected.. but they could be appointed... so yes, you can elect these people to carry out public services. 

Maybe we are going back to the problem of money in politics b/c certainly, we should want our publicly elected officials to act in the public's interest rather than in some narrow interest.  And, if they are NOT having public meetings or receiving public input from time to time about their various public projects, then they may be doing a disservice to the public.  Sometimes, there is NOT a need for public meetings for public projects that are NOT controversial. 

Certainly, how these matters play out will vary from community to community.


I agree that sometimes there may be a need to reallocate how power is retained in various governmental entities, and there may need to be less centralization, depending on the functions of that governmental entity.  But, I do NOT agree that the solution would be to privatize public goods - though sometimes that direction may be appropriate... depending on the good or service.  Even in those kinds of cases, the good would likely retain its public nature, but just be managed privately (which may still require public oversight).

It seems that i have already explained sufficiently why living in a community is NOT necessarily coercion, even though there may be varying coercive aspects to living in a community and some communities will have more coercive aspects than others.  You do NOT agree or you believe that I am missing something, so why go on about it?

Yes community and government are very similar terms - that is true..     And, varying levels of government are going to be more accessible than other levels of government and treat different public interest issues and jurisdictions.

I would imagine that you know as much as me that there are varying levels of government. 

so what if Octaft is nicer than me..?  who cares?    people have their different styles and different levels of patience.


regarding my renditions of what I believe to be the facts versus opinion.... Yes, sometimes, I make statements about matters that are assertions that may or may NOT be under contention. 

Frequently, people who live in fantasy lands attempt to create new facts or get caught up in technicalities... so maybe I am just trying to avoid too much fantasy...  I am NOT trying to take away from anyone's ability to challenge my assertions  b/c I have NO intention to misstate actual material facts - except for when it is fun to do so (with immaterial facts)... such as the flying car example... hehehhehe....

 If you believe I misstated something material to be a fact that is NOT a fact, then let me know. 

Who gives a flying fuck (there I go again, with my recent favorite expression in this thread)?     

These are all factors that the non-rural tennessee public could have taken into account when they were deciding about the best solution in the circumstances of that particular community.  Did you go to any of the meetings that involved the discussion of the road?  You could have had your input regarding the better flying car solution?

Yes, roads seem to be a very good example of a public good, and if roads are a public good, then the public has a right to have input into their direction, extent, quality and quantity... amongst other things related to such, in the event that they are considered to be public. 

As we know, sometimes roads can be private too.. as I would presume most of us recognize there are still concepts of private property rights that are recognized that will end up involving private roads built on the private property.

Having public input will likely result in varying degrees of control, and sometimes, these control may be given up - depending upon the extent to which public interests are perceived to be a factor.

Yeah... let's get on a tangent...

Frequently, a central reason for adding lanes or roads is a perceived need b/c of population growth or traffic congestion.

I do NOT know about the circumstances or the rationale for the road in your non-rural tennessee location, except for your proclamation (one citizen's assessment) that it was NOT necessary b/c they could have substituted flying cars in that location. 

I do NOT want to minimize the importance of your input, but I am sure that there was more than one person that decided that the road was going to be a benefit to the community and that is why it was built.  And, also with public projects there are opportunities for community stake holders to comment regarding the necessity or lack thereof of the project.