So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality. On the other hand, the poor also have less to defend than the rich so there is less incentive for roving gangs to plunder the poor.... which isn't to say it is not a problem. OK.
Income inequality is one of the many problems with a NAP i would say. LOL! Income equality would improve under NAP as poor people would have not only more incentive, but more opportunity to increase their wealth and income. In addition, big companies wouldn't be able to use the force of government to reduce competition and get special favors, so they wouldn't be as big. And BTW, I haven't paid U.S. federal income taxes since 2006. It is possible to not pay them. (I'm still working on not paying property tax, but that'll take more work. I haven't paid them directly since 2009 though.) |
|
|
|
|
My first job actually coding as a programmer was for a company working in the field. You could fax them an order, with a string like AGGGCTATCGGTACG and they would produce it and ship it out. Pretty cool seeing a desktop machine with bottles labelled A, C, G, T that fed into it. Anyway, I learned a lot about genetic engineering there - I actually wrote the code that analyzed and displayed the enzyme analysis (showing where each particular enzyme would break the chain).
The first thing I would say is that if someone says something like "they're putting fish genes in plants", the person has no clue and is probably talking FUD. Genes are what make organisms, not the other way around. Saying "fish gene" is the equivalent of saying "fish carbon atom" or "fish water molecule".
Genetic engineering is basically doing the same thing we've been doing for millenia only with more understanding and ability to test. I'm all for genetic modification - in general.
That being said, corporations are using the patent system to screw things up. I'm sure we've all heard about the evils of Monsanto and how they're attacking farmers inappropriately. If not, do some searching.
I'm all for labeling. IMHO there should be a private organization to do that, like for Kosher foods. We know we can't trust any government to do it properly - look at how they've screwed up 'organic' - allowing certain chemicals and up to certain concentrations that any reasonable person would find unacceptable for that designation.
|
|
|
|
Liberals? The liberals are not trying to take away your pot.
They are in New Hampshire. The republican controlled house and senate passed a MMJ law, and the democrat governor vetoed it. IIRC, a previous decrim law was passed and he vetoed that too. |
|
|
|
So I started a discussion about what I perceive as profiteering in another thread, and realized that there is a comparison with libertarianism and the Non Agression Pact. I define profiteering as selling at the maximum price you think your customers will pay; as a genuine free market would fully endorse. One forum user, evoorhees, states: It is natural, moral, legitimate, efficient, and productive to seek the highest profit one can obtain, so long as one doesn't resort to fraud, deception, trickery, or theft in order to obtain it.
I would point out that seeking the highest profit one can obtain might mean charging as little as possible in order to gain sales volume. The price of one item in one sale does not determine the total profit of an entire operation. So I wondered, why stop at profiteering? Why should fraud, deception or trickery somehow not be permitted? Please read that thread for more info there. Here I just want to discuss the analogy with NAP which, hopefully, is fairly obvious as follows.
Most followers of the Non Aggression Principle believe that fraud is the moral equivalent of the initiation of force. Shortening it down to NAP is just shorthand. But that's a long discussion. "The initiation of force and fraud is wrong." is one fairly standard way of saying it. Libertarians want there to be a minimum of laws, in fact, as I understand, there should be only one: do no violence unto others (where violence is understood to include such things as theft or damage, which implicitly defines such a thing as private property).
Many of us are fine with violence - as long as it is in defense. The thief cannot be blamed if that ferrari happened to be there, with the keys in the ignition; the bandit cannot be blamed if the rich man was travelling dark lonely streets without bodyguards; the large-scale farmer cannot be blamed if his small-scale neighbor left his farm unguarded while he was ill. And so on.
These seem pretty silly to me. The non-aggression principle does allow you to defend yourself, and it puts the blame in the appropriate place. The ferrari thief is wrong as he is aggressing. The bandit is aggressing. The large scale farmer is aggressing. It is the initiation of force that is aggression. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure this will fly as a consumer device, but if it has good POS functionality it might be just the thing to get retail operations on board with bitcoin. Imagine a small shop with a couple teenagers as cashiers. You don't want them using their own smartphones or the store owner's to do POS transactions, but having a small and cheap device next to the cash register would be easy to integrate into your regular operations.
Having some way for it to be integrated into an existing POS system would be very helpful (at least for those businesses that care about accurate accounting).
|
|
|
|
|
How hard would it be to add a timestamp to the images so we can quickly and easily see what time period they cover?
|
|
|
|
|
I know a lot of people want to find an easy way out, but there just isn't one.
I've read a lot of very convincing arguments that (at least here in the U.S.) the income tax is illegal or illegitimate and you don't have to pay. But the system is rigged with government lawyers and government judges supporting government bureaucrats - all of whom are paid through the very taxes people are trying to avoid. Regardless of whether or not the arguments are valid, the court systems will ignore them or find them to be "frivolous". Same deal for mortgages. You cannot win by playing in their court.
The way to defeat the money masters is to stop playing their game. Pull as much money out of the banking system as you can, and try to avoid paying any fees to the banksters. Use alternative currencies like bitcoin, my Shire Silver, traditional precious metal bullion, Berkshares, LETs (not my favorite, but...), etc. Become as self-reliant as you can. Pay off your debts and try to live debt free.
It is possible to live without using banks, and it is getting easier all the time. It may still be impossible due to your chosen lifestyle, or it just may be inconvenient, but the more you live without banks, the less power they have. That's how you change things.
|
|
|
|
I remember a story about a mortgage taker who won a case in court against the Bank arguing that the money they gave him doesn't exist so he doesn't have to pay back ( minus some admin fees I guess ) I guess this was argued using Fractional Banking ??
Credit River DecisionIn this case, First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly, the bank was seeking possession of property that it had already foreclosed the mortgage on. The jury decided against the bank. The landowner's defense had been that the bank had not lent him any actual money, but had simply created credit on its books, and therefore, since nothing of value had been advanced by the bank, it was not entitled to the property that had been given as security for the loan. |
|
|
|
|
I just tried adding a guitar to the cart and it worked for me. Chrome under Linux.
|
|
|
|
I really like that you can retweet this and have the proceeds go straight into your GLBSE account where you can use it to buy FZB. You can bootstrap into bitcoin stock ownership without ever having your own wallet! I wouldn't count on being paid out in time...  I'm definitely not, but it is interesting that there's multiple ways to get free or cheap bitcoins (admittedly in small amounts) and you can invest them in small amounts for some good returns. And all without needing a wallet of your own. Kinda reminds me of playing that Neuromancer game, where you started off waking up in a plate of spaghetti and have to build your way back up, bootstrapping a small start and growing it. |
|
|
|
I really like that you can retweet this and have the proceeds go straight into your GLBSE account where you can use it to buy FZB. You can bootstrap into bitcoin stock ownership without ever having your own wallet! |
|
|
|
|
I'm somewhat surprised there isn't more excitement for something that isn't pirate related, but glad that it looks like I'll get all the shares I can afford.
The more real businesses we get on the exchange, the better.
|
|
|
|
If the price is allowed to float
yes, but does the price of the one universal commodity currency currently float in a way that is beneficial to the requirements of a local community at a given time and place? Why would there be one universal currency? That just sounds like a really bad idea. Eggs and baskets and all that. We can see in Europe what happens when you try to have just one currency. As amazing as bitcoin seems to be, I don't believe it can be all things to everyone. There are reasons to have other currencies. A free market in currencies is IMHO the way to go. Let each currency float against all the others, and the market will figure out the right price - and change the prices as needed. |
|
|
|
Just move to New Hampshire and put in some effort to change things. Lots of us here will help, and many of us are already working on it. Free State Project |
|
|
|
In a mutual credit system taking and giving credit is all about the community and there is no sense of debt in the same way. One of the reasons for this is that all of the credit is interest free.
This is a real problem. For one thing, it seems to be saying that people will be forced to not charge interest. That is just plain wrong. Why should anyone get to tell me how to use my hard earned money? Who made you the economic dictator? Second, it denies the reality that lending has a cost. When I lend someone something, whether its a lawnmower, a hammer, or some money, I am unable to use it until it is returned. And the longer it is loaned out, the more it costs me - whether the cost is in opportunities lost or just inconvenience doesn't matter. Interest on debts is a way to compensate the lender for their cost. It isn't necessarily the only way, but to deny that option is immoral. I know a lot of people don't like the idea of charging interest, but that's due mostly to the problems associated with it. But most of those problems are due to the underlying currency being based on debt. You don't get anywhere near as many problems with lending for interest when you use a wealth based currency. |
|
|
|
So often in history there were factories standing still while there were still skilled workers and there was still demand, but there was recession, there was "no money". So they could and should have established a local economic cycle with their own money before everyone starves of poverty.
With a money that is scarce, no matter if naturally or artificially, such things will always happen.
This is true, but only when there is some government either limiting the supply or fixing the price. If the price is allowed to float, then any amount of commodity money will suffice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
