if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.
Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentiveYou really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.htmlok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer. either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally. what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose. Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through. ..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work. I do NOT agree that technology is a sole purpose to destroy work. We should NOT necessarily be hostile to technology. One of the central problems with technology, though is that frequently it is used to distract labor from unionization and solidarity and thereby the capitalists frequently become able to use and abuse technology in such a way that they extract nearly all of the surplus for themselves and use technology to divide and conquer, workers, labor and community. In the end, workers become more and more exploited by this b/c frequently if there are NOT strong governments and/or strong unions, they are NOT allowed to reap(enjoy) the benefits of the technological innovations. People who believe in no government and/or no unions also seem to believe in trickle down economics, as if giving the money to the capitalists and the rich, that some how, miraculously, that money will trickle down to the people and somehow suggesting that the capitalists deserve to take all the surplus value.. so they can be rainmakers. Frequently, however, we have seen that trickle down does NOT work and there are failures to invest in infrastructure, and running away with the capital and even capitalists who engage in behavior to accumulate much more capital than they need or want... and the situation with these filthy rich is NO longer about the accumulation of capital but a form of keeping the capital away from the masses b/c they want to control and exploit the masses and they want to insist that capital is NOT distributed to regular people... b/c of desires to keep an exploitable group willing to work for anything.. Capitalists are savers. that's how they get capital. They should get rewards for delayed gratification and risk-taking. If they judge wrong and the market (which is society) doesn't value their goods or services at a price they can sustainably charge, then they lose money no matter how hard they worked. Entrepreneurs only get paid for results, not effort. They only get paid when they contribute. They are heroes. Now in our modern system, entrepreneurs may not be savers. They may just have access to credit for arbitrary reasons. They may use the political system to shield themselves from competition. This is a total distortion of the free market and is not capitalism. You socialists like to use the political system to exploit capitalists, but that is not a better outcome. Consumers (and we are all consumers) get harmed because businesses must either charge higher prices to offset higher input costs or go out of business. The only way to prevent either group from harming or exploiting the other is to remove the political factor and take the gun out of the room. When anything becomes mandatory or banned, somebody loses. When exchange of labor, money, goods or services is voluntary, both parties win. If they didn't, there would be no exchange. You have too many presumptions in your descriptions of events... and you are talking gobbledy gook. First you praise and generalize about capitalists and then you suggest that the solution is to take away regulation. That is all bullshit. The problems that we have been having in recent times can be attributed too much liberty being given to capitalists and labor and government has been either too weak or too chickenshit to challenge the exploitation being carried out by capitalist. Look at the situation created as recently as since 2008 whereby jobs have been removed to bust unions and to make people unemployed and to reintroduce jobs at fractions of the previous rates. It was already bad before 2008, but got worse b/c capitalists (especially the filthy rich ones - NOT talking about the mom and pop capitalists, here) were given too much freedom and NOT taxed and allowed to remove jobs and capital and NOT to reinvest. |
|
|
|
So here is a stupid question to kill time: Suppose the Evil Lords decide to use the bitcoins seized from Silk Road and other places to kill bitcoin by spamming it with billions of tiny transactions, as fast as they can. How would the network defend itself from that attack?
I am guessing, but I thought that the network just processes transactions in the order received, and if there is a fee attached, then those transactions are processed first. Billions is a lot... and I suppose that the problem could be made worse by creating some repetition of the transactions - after the first ones are processed, they are put back into the cue. If there are so many transactions that the network is overwhelmed... the network may go down for a period of time. and then maybe a fork in the code to restart? YES>... I am continuing to guess. |
|
|
|
..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work.
Close. Technology's sole purpose is to save energy. That computer you are typing on saves you the trouble of coming to my house and arguing your fallacies in person. Very Funny.... and witty, Billyjoeallen... even though you are missing the point about how the capitalist is able to take all the surplus value from the increased benefits and to put them into his pocket. Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.
and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....
Brilliant point. Very reality based. Not really. Market, by definition, is based on voluntary exchange. If you broad it's definition to include involuntary exchanges, it will include all human activity and therefore will lose any useful meaning. What you can say about "thing" if everything is a "thing"? Seems as if you are attempting to define some world that does NOT exist if you are suggesting that all market exchanges are voluntary. In the real world, actions and reactions of people fall into a broad array of categories, and these kinds of interactions need to be accounted for when we are attempting to organize a society. From my understanding, most people would prefer NOT to live in a society in which they fear for their lives b/c they are walking down the street wearing a $100 watch. |
|
|
|
if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.
Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentiveYou really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.htmlok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer. either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally. what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose. Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through. ..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work. I do NOT agree that technology is a sole purpose to destroy work. We should NOT necessarily be hostile to technology. One of the central problems with technology, though is that frequently it is used to distract labor from unionization and solidarity and thereby the capitalists frequently become able to use and abuse technology in such a way that they extract nearly all of the surplus for themselves and use technology to divide and conquer, workers, labor and community. In the end, workers become more and more exploited by this b/c frequently if there are NOT strong governments and/or strong unions, they are NOT allowed to reap(enjoy) the benefits of the technological innovations. People who believe in no government and/or no unions also seem to believe in trickle down economics, as if giving the money to the capitalists and the rich, that some how, miraculously, that money will trickle down to the people and somehow suggesting that the capitalists deserve to take all the surplus value.. so they can be rainmakers. Frequently, however, we have seen that trickle down does NOT work and there are failures to invest in infrastructure, and running away with the capital and even capitalists who engage in behavior to accumulate much more capital than they need or want... and the situation with these filthy rich is NO longer about the accumulation of capital but a form of keeping the capital away from the masses b/c they want to control and exploit the masses and they want to insist that capital is NOT distributed to regular people... b/c of desires to keep an exploitable group willing to work for anything.. |
|
|
|
Not sure what this conversation has to do with Bitcoin Bid Walls, but it sure is damn interesting.
It seems that this particular quasi-side track began with comments about Mt. Gox, and thereby accusing and alleging that Mt. Gox had been engaged in thievery and/or fraud. Thereafter, the comment that thievery is the same no matter who is taking the money, and another suggestion that government taxation was the same as thievery... The conversation devolved from there into various assertions about the role of government. Actually, nearly any conversation can devolve comparing and contrasting visions concerning the role of government and inspire the setting forth ideas about the past, present and future. |
|
|
|
insight: friend of mine working in JP Morgan in London also confirmed they are kinda elaborating their own coin as we speak..  They may succeed with novices but only until the banks fuck it up somehow, at which point people will begin to understand why they should support a coin not backed by any company/cartel. Agreed.... In the end, these kind of endeavors are likely to bring more attention and credibility to bitcoin... even though they may seem to mimic or compete. Bitcoin will likely prevail - yet, we may want to see how these various competitive cryptos play out... and these additional cryptos will likely create hype and even pump and dump opportunities... for day traders. Yes you're probably right. But a centralized bitcoin clone kind of defeats the purpose. Who will mine? JPMorgan? The public? A "trusted" central banker type entity? What if they need to change the rules, will they just hard fork it forcing everyone along? Sounds like a total disaster in the making. I think that those are the very factors that various centralized clones are going to decide, implement and screw up b/c they are NOT going to want to give up control, and then in the end, their failure to give up control is likely going to cause lack of confidence in investing in them in the long term. We will have to see how these imitators play out, but I would venture to bet that they are going to screw up in adequately answering the questions that you outlined. Accordingly, bitcoin or anything that is decentralized like bitcoin is going to inspire the most confidence from future investors. |
|
|
|
insight: friend of mine working in JP Morgan in London also confirmed they are kinda elaborating their own coin as we speak.. They may succeed with novices but only until the banks fuck it up somehow, at which point people will begin to understand why they should support a coin not backed by any company/cartel. Agreed.... In the end, these kind of endeavors are likely to bring more attention and credibility to bitcoin... even though they may seem to mimic or compete. Bitcoin will likely prevail - yet, we may want to see how these various competitive cryptos play out... and these additional cryptos will likely create hype and even pump and dump opportunities... for day traders. |
|
|
|
I'm looking for better definition on where you stand.
Alright, let's take this further: the argument is that we would support the poor through voluntary charity, yes? Now let's say after 10 years, charity turns out to be woefully inadequate. Let's assume that -- while the world has not devolved into chaos and anarchy as a result of a lack of government -- that some are suffering because not everything went as planned. There's slums with no police protection because everyone that lives in the neighborhood can't afford it. How do we approach that? Are some things up for socialization, or is it all strictly no go, no budge?
Sure, the poor ain't doing so hot right now, but in order for the change to be worth it, it's not enough to be different. It's got to be better, and noticeably so. The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.
Oh, I'm fairly happy to take things piecemeal. If things don't appear to be working, back off and adjust approach. Obviously, I believe things would not tend to end up that way (though government action has created a huge underclass that would have to be accounted for) but I'm not one for big schemes that have to be implemented in one fell swoop (just look at Obamacare for how that kind of thing goes). Basically I see it like a big game of Jenga. There are some pieces which can be taken easily and others which require the removal of other pieces before they can be taken without collapsing the whole tower. Fortunately, almost every step that is taken to improve freedom should make the next one easier. Okay, so you're willing to take things piece-meal. Great, but you didn't provide any solution to the problem. Pretend you're taking things piece-meal, and this information has just come up. I'm personally not the type who is comfortable with "crossing that bridge when you come to it." For that matter, what if there are no solutions to the problems that come up? What if it turns out that, for most, your idea is, in fact, a dismal failure? Or what if it's not even possible, for example forms of government start popping up because that's what people want. What if all these small governments start warring with each other? How do we set up an army to fight off an invasion from a country who doesn't share our approach? All of these are questions that need to be addressed before you take the leap. I'm still lacking answers on the whole "what if I decide to get a large crew together to violently take your shit" argument I presented earlier, as well. That's a general statement to all who agree with you, not specifically directed at you. You can say all you want "it won't happen," but it will. There will always be monsters in this world who will take full advantage of whatever situation they are put in. It's just a question of how widespread it will be. I have a lot of questions for libertarians that I want answered. I've been asking them for years. Most of them still haven't been answered. I thought that might change here, but I'm starting to lose hope and am almost to the point of writing it off as another lost cause. I admire your persistence and your formulations of questions for the libertarians, and you are generally fairly polite in your presentation of various issues and various scenarios, yet it should be clear that trying to get concrete answers from the no government folks is an exercise in futility. It may be that they have an impossible task to describe some future society b/c no one person or group of libertarians are likely to be able to really design some community arrangement that adequately accounts for the variety of stakeholders (without involving some of the various stakeholders in the process).... which frequently causes the libertarians to speculate or to propose fairly specific plans that in fact have NOT been thought through very well. |
|
|
|
If you want to continue to assert that the government is the same as a robber, then why should we further engage in such discussion under the circumstances, that I am NOT going to go along with that stupid ass and simplistic framing of the situation.... that on the face of it, should be obvious to any one with brain cells and reason... although maybe the person would need to have at least the equivalent of a 6th grade education... to be able to engage in more complex thinking... Now I should NOT be insulting 5th graders b/c I am sure that many of them should be able to understand the difference between government and robbers... even some 1st graders will understand such.
You do appear to have a first grader's understanding of the topic at hand. Government robbers are a subset of the larger class of robbers, which includes private sector robbers. Grizzly bears and dogs are both mammals. The State and bandits are both robbers. They are different, but not in the ways that qualify them as mammals and robbers respectively. So, why don't you answer the question then? Are you going to leave your 1 year old with a dog or with a grizzly bear for safe keeping? Neither, obviously. Robbers are to be avoided, whatever their other characteristics. Thanks for your cooperation...   |
|
|
|
If you want to continue to assert that the government is the same as a robber, then why should we further engage in such discussion under the circumstances, that I am NOT going to go along with that stupid ass and simplistic framing of the situation.... that on the face of it, should be obvious to any one with brain cells and reason... although maybe the person would need to have at least the equivalent of a 6th grade education... to be able to engage in more complex thinking... Now I should NOT be insulting 5th graders b/c I am sure that many of them should be able to understand the difference between government and robbers... even some 1st graders will understand such.
You do appear to have a first grader's understanding of the topic at hand. Government robbers are a subset of the larger class of robbers, which includes private sector robbers. Grizzly bears and dogs are both mammals. The State and bandits are both robbers. They are different, but not in the ways that qualify them as mammals and robbers respectively. So, why don't you answer the question then? Are you going to leave your 1 year old with a dog or with a grizzly bear for safe keeping? |
|
|
|
China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?
From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin. So what is left? I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.) Some countries (like the US) have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses. If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine private commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties who don't care about regulation, they will have failed succeeded in their goal. FTFY Chinese corrupted officers will push Bitcoin price up 1000 times http://www.bit-sky.com/index.php/english/370-chinese-corrupted-officers-will-push-bitcoin-price-up-1000-timesGOOD NEWS!!! Thanks for that contribution!!!. John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s.
Whats this supposed to imply? That morality is supposed to change with time or something? We may still cite John Steward Mill and others even though the ideas have been around a while, and maybe there was NO reference to John Steward Mill in the original post. I do believe that some things that were said in the 1800s may NOT apply very well in the modern world due to population growth and technological applications that may NOT fit very well into some of the current paradigms. I was quite a fan of JS Mill during some parts of my life, but in recent times, I have been giving more weight to concerns and needs of community b/c I am of the opinion that some of the JS Mill thinking may NOT apply very well to some social responsibility concepts... there needs to be some balance.. ... yet I am NOT in any position to assert exactly where that balance line should be drawn.. that would be a product of the community, ultimately.. and surely I would think that any society would like to have balances that allow for personal liberty within a community framework, if possible. JayJuan, check out this video. It pretty much sums things up. http://youtu.be/muHg86Mys7IThe video portrays general libertarian principles, and my assertion remains that libertarianism can provide a partial framework for consideration, but it does NOT provide all of the answers, when it comes down to actual application, especially when some people may confuse basic concepts... such as creating some version of voluntary consent that the community has to beg for a guy to pay taxes or some ridiculous conception like that. Ultimately there are theories about social consent and the social contract, and I am NOT opposed to those theories being applicable guides, so long as they are NOT perverted into something that makes little to no sense when people start spouting various anti-government rhetoric. |
|
|
|
I am NOT sure how my comments attribute me to subscribing to embracing gang violence. I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute. I am NOT locked into this thinking, but it seems that some posters in this discussion have suggested that they do NOT want to pay anything,.
There is a world of difference between not wanting to pay and not wanting to be forced to pay. Sounds like a distinction without a difference, and actually, you seem to be over-emphasizing the "force" aspect, just as one of the people on your team, I believe it may have been Billyjoeallen, asserted that I am failing/refusing to see the gun. So in that regard, guys on your team seem to be emphasizing the gun, and I don't think the gun is as important as the weight that you are giving to it... In my thinking the gun is only important in your state of mind and your consideration of the matter.... And, it seems to me that guys on your team seem to overfocus on the gun b/c guys on your team are so hostile to paying into the community that you guys are truly of the belief that you are being forced and you are feeling sorry for yourselves b/c you want to be "free" from community whatever the fuck that is... detached from society.. live on your own microcosm... |
|
|
|
John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s.
Whats this supposed to imply? That morality is supposed to change with time or something? We may still cite John Steward Mill and others even though the ideas have been around a while, and maybe there was NO reference to John Steward Mill in the original post. I do believe that some things that were said in the 1800s may NOT apply very well in the modern world due to population growth and technological applications that may NOT fit very well into some of the current paradigms. I was quite a fan of JS Mill during some parts of my life, but in recent times, I have been giving more weight to concerns and needs of community b/c I am of the opinion that some of the JS Mill thinking may NOT apply very well to some social responsibility concepts... there needs to be some balance.. ... yet I am NOT in any position to assert exactly where that balance line should be drawn.. that would be a product of the community, ultimately.. and surely I would think that any society would like to have balances that allow for personal liberty within a community framework, if possible. |
|
|
|
China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?
From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin. So what is left? Lots of things are left - including: Storage of value, exportation of capital from country and speculation. Surely, those other aspects would be helpful for bitcoin in china, but they are NOT going to kill bitcoin in china. Also, do you really believe that chinese people are good at following rules? Surely, they can be good at following some rules, but they are also good at finding work arounds. I put my money on the work arounds. I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.) Some countries (like the US) have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses.
If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties, they will have failed in their goal.
bitcoin is likely to be used whether with the cooperation of governments or NOT. I agree with you that bitcoin could become very marginalized if there were outright and extensive attacks - however, there may also be backlash and wider scoff law type issues.. such as drug trafficking and porn that are illegal but happen despite laws. Yes, if there was extensive attack then maybe bitcoin could return to $10 or less per BTC.... the reduction of value does NOT automatically imply that BTC has been stifled to death... but just more underground in its uses. |
|
|
|
Is that a guess or did he admit to it somewhere? Look for the news articles / interviews when he basically said "I wasn't going to buy the bitcoins but I changed my mind and bought all the bitcoins this week". The price really was in the mid 800s at that point in time. We can't be sure exactly what his average was but we can say for sure that a) he bought a boatload and b) his average was somewhere in the 800s. Whether true or NOT, those kinds of stories make me feel good b/c smarter people than me seem to have higher buy-in prices than me. My current average buy-in price is in the upper $600s. The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.
And that is why non-aggression is so important. You can do what you want as long as you don't interfere with others.John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s. We also have social responsibilities, too, so likely we cannot leave the matter at just do whatever you want so long as you do NOT hurt anyone. I am NOT sure how my comments attribute me to subscribing to embracing gang violence. I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute. I am NOT locked into this thinking, but it seems that some posters in this discussion have suggested that they do NOT want to pay anything, and I have some difficulties imagining a community in which either all or some people do NOT pay anything into the community. I admit, this lack of vision may be a result of my NOT understanding the new system that may NOT require contributions from either all or some community members.
DO YOU HAVE A MACRO TO CAPITALIZE 'not' EVERY TIME YOU TYPE IT? I have been thinking that meaning is more clear - or less ambiguous. I imagine that you are viewing this matter differently, otherwise you would NOT have commented on such a stylistic matter. |
|
|
|
I'm still hoping you'll admit that a community is voluntary and does not initiate violence, at least not against its own members, in contradistinction to a the involuntary membership and routine initiation or threat of violence characteristic of a gang, JayJuanGee. If you want to hold a value system in which initiating or threatening violence against people who just want to mind their business is a routine way of life, I certainly can't stop you, but I would feel reassured if you at least recognized that you were doing so.
I am NOT sure how my comments attribute me to subscribing to embracing gang violence. I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute. I am NOT locked into this thinking, but it seems that some posters in this discussion have suggested that they do NOT want to pay anything, and I have some difficulties imagining a community in which either all or some people do NOT pay anything into the community. I admit, this lack of vision may be a result of my NOT understanding the new system that may NOT require contributions from either all or some community members. |
|
|
|
Btw. I am in the process of coauthoring (with sirius) an e-book about "History of Bitcoin Economy". What would you like to have discussed?
Are you going to discuss [ ... ] the fact that governments may see their abilities and efforts as very difficult to regulate and/or stifle bitcoin given the P2P nature of it... I think that he said "history" and not "fairy tales".  Bitcoin is very easy to regulate and stifle, see China for example. I think that my outline of the regulatory issues and obstacles are in line with reality. NOT every "history" book is going to recognize certain kinds of dynamics, and some history books will get history wrong b/c they fail to take into account certain actual dynamics. Surely, it will be easier to write a history book that minimizes taking on controversial topics.... HOWEVER, merely b/c a topic is controversial does NOT equate that topic to a fairy tale. China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?I agree with the concept that governments could push bitcoin into the underground; however, it remains quite unclear how much they are able to actually and directly regulate bitcoin... we DO NOT have a world coordinated government at this point, which would also make it more difficult to regulate bitcoin b/c so far governments have NOT seemed to have been very concerted or coordinated in their attempts to regulate and/or control bitcoin... There seems to be a hodge podge of governmental action.. and even governmental action in one direction and then redefinition and regrouping and reversing and then action in another direction... rinse and repeat. The actions and reactions of governments are NOT a fairy tale... and different historians would frame these dynamics in different ways. |
|
|
|
Take those amazing academic credentials and put them to use explaining to me how we get to the ideal that you want. I swear I must have asked for this 100 times, but maybe some of you don't understand that "*wave wand* PRESTO! Libertarianism!" will not actually work?
What do you mean by "how"? Do you mean a path to transition from the current government configuration to one which more respects personal freedom or a plan as to how to change government to lead into that change? Cause if it's the latter, I have to admit, it's not looking too hopeful and I'm sure you collectivists will drive things into the ground at least once, if not more before things start to look hopeful. In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm a fan of Bitcoin. HERE, HERE... if you take out the attacks on your fellow posters.. I largely agree that it looks as if there are a lot of problems in current government.... including its trampling on personal freedoms... and its irresponsible monetary policies that seem to be doling out money to the rich as if it were candy. Example 1:
Let's say one four legged animal is a brown dog and the other four legged animal is a black dog
Therefore both of them are dogs, and it may NOT make a difference in the situation and the two can be compared with one another.
Example 2
one four legged animal is a brown dog and another brown four legged animal is a grizzly bear (or a lion)
You in no way made the case that your situation 1 was materially different from your situation 2. Your claim amounted to "It's the government, innit?". I was NOT trying to make any case, and I do NOT believe that i need to - b/c it should seem pretty obvious that the two situations are different. I outlined situation 1 and situation 2 in order to outline what appeared to be the parameters of the various arguments that seemed to have been being put forth to suggest that those two situations are the same, even though it should be logically and analytically obvious that the two situations are different. ... even thought they "feel the same" on the self-centered person who cannot imagine a world beyond him/herself YES... your academic credentials are so great that you want to continue to pursue a topic that I have NO interest in pursuing.
You guys are a riot. You attempt to impugn my reading, writing and maths skills to which I respond that they are adequate and suddenly it's me claiming amazing academic credentials? This kind of thing is only to be expected, of course. Hyperbole, straw men and straight up ad-hom Ah well, I'm done with running through logic with you. To descend to your level, "I'm right and you're wrong" and let that be an end to it. Your inability to express the reasoning behind your beliefs duly noted. There is NO ad hominem attack here. And, maybe finally, you may be seeing the light that we have adequately explored this topic to realize that we do NOT need to keep discussing a matter in which the foundational presumptions cannot be agreed upon. So, yes, we can agree to disagree and move on to other topics. |
|
|
|
EXACTLY.... if you cannot see the logic of the obvious, then it seems likely that you gotta go study up on some basics and possibly to work on your analytical skills... .. Maybe take a few classes or practice reading, writing and math.. things like that. The brushing up is going to vary from person to person.... ... and I suppose my main point here is that if you cannot see the difference between a thief and a government, and we CANNOT get beyond that basic logical point, then why are we wasting time to engage in a discussion that is NOT going to get us anywhere.... Clearly, I consider the two to be different, and clearly I feel that I need NOT explain anymore than I already have about why the two are different. In any event, I have NO issues with exploring various possible discussions on a broad array of topics, so long as they do NOT devolve and continually repeat into the ridiculous and silly realm.... such as continuing to assert that governments are the same as thieves b/c they make you pay taxes. I would laugh, if it were NOT causing me to cry over such need to repeat what to me seems obvious.  I have to concede that you are correct. The government is not a band of thieves. Thieves don't use violence or threat of violence to steal. Robbers do. The government is a band of robbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RobberyI am glad we got some movement on this topic... he he he... I am of the belief that I have explained more than sufficiently ad nauseum about such a trivial point. And, you are NOT lacking in your ability to deviate from any topic with finger pointing rather than really engaging in some kind of meaningful discussion. If you want to continue to assert that the government is the same as a robber, then why should we further engage in such discussion under the circumstances, that I am NOT going to go along with that stupid ass and simplistic framing of the situation.... that on the face of it, should be obvious to any one with brain cells and reason... although maybe the person would need to have at least the equivalent of a 6th grade education... to be able to engage in more complex thinking... Now I should NOT be insulting 5th graders b/c I am sure that many of them should be able to understand the difference between government and robbers... even some 1st graders will understand such. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
