|
Victims are naturally overwhelmed when they are being mistreated. So I meant "shelter" as the first impulse for them to (hopefully) know they exist and that they can run to.
What happens to the offender then is another question. In a free, anarchic society, he'll at least be ostracized. There'd probably be repuation systems. Today's prison systems are known to be inefficient don't help much to improve on our society. The video has some about that.
|
|
|
|
|
There'll be places the weak and abused can go. Those don't have necessarily to be security firms. Humans are good, many do voluntary service. Especially when they don't have to pay 90% of their earnings for income taxes, sales and other taxes. So there'll be shelters.
That's not one of the problems I see with libertarianism.
|
|
|
|
|
well i've heard society isn't that patriarchic anymore in the 21st century, and women can very well choose their own security firms.
|
|
|
|
yep, "small" government for a "small" military to "defend" against those pesky non-libertarian neighbors.  |
|
|
|
Libertarian pr0n 4 u.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItjiDWa48q4Should government provide law enforcement? Most would argue that government is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. Prof. Edward Stringhman, however, argues that government may not even be necessary at all.
To come to this conclusion, Prof. Stringham asks a few important questions. First, if something is really important, does it logically follow that government should provide it? Second, are markets capable of providing law enforcement and security in the modern world? Third, how are disputes currently settled between people of different countries?
Looking at the first question, it doesn't seem to be the case that important things must be provided by a government. For instance, think about food. Food is necessary for life, and yet, markets do an excellent job of providing food to consumers.
Even if you're convinced that markets can provide important things, you may think law enforcement and security are a special case that markets are incapable of providing in a modern world. However, markets already enforce private rules and provide security. Disney World, Las Vegas, and malls all have private rules that are enforced by private security.
Accepting the arguments above, you may still be skeptical about market's abilities to settle disputes between different systems of rules or law. This, in fact, was Ayn Rand's primary reason for advocating a minimal state. Current interactions in the real world provide examples as to how markets resolve these disputes. Think about an international soccer game or international trade. In both instances, individuals are interacting across state boundaries, and are only subject to the jurisdiction of their own territory. In these situations, these individuals contract with the arbiters such as a soccer league or a private court to resolve disputes.
Credits: This lecture was delivered in 2009 at the Metropolitan State College of Denver School of Business, as part of the Exploring Economic Freedom Lecture Series, directed by Prof. Alexandre Padilla. This video was produced and directed by Scott Houck, and edited by Adrienne Christy. Video production provided by the Educational Technology Center at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Video used by LearnLiberty.org with permission. |
|
|
|
|
He said somewhere that he is sceptical about Bitcoin in its current form as it is for the most part used as a speculation object, not as a currency. And he's right. Who would speculate with simple time-based tokens that he proposes?
He may or may not be a bit simplistic or idealistic in his views. I believe an aspect of Bitcoin that he might oversee is that Bitcoin is not idealistic, it acknowledges humans are greedy and handle out of self-interest and thus will spread the word. That's why Bitcoin might succeed in bringing real change to the world rather than LETS, Ripple, local currencies or what have you. Time will tell. It depends on how cleverly Bitcoin is being evangelized. So far, doesn't look too good imo.
|
|
|
|
|
Blockreihe vielleicht auch. Kette klingt für mich so nach Kettenbrief.
Für API könnt man Schnittstelle sagen, wenn's sein muss.
|
|
|
|
How can you for even a second fall for this kind of shit?
sry  |
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, Gandhi seems to have been wrong with the "winning" part on all too many instances of the past, otherwise we'd already see a much better world today.
|
|
|
|
|
While I individually still believe Bitcoin is yet too small to be taken seriously by the establishment, I do suspect that in the future the stronger Bitcoin becomes, the more will they attempt to discredit and fight it, with all means necessary.
Let's not forget that today's power structures depend on the financial system the way it is today, and that wars have been waged to gain control over a nation's money in order to secure or expand the status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
ahoi, klor warum nich auch mal samstag, würd bei mir gehen.
ich glaub aber in zukunft wär aber ein grundsätzlich regelmäßiger termin vielleicht nicht verkehrt, z.b. letzter mittwoch im monat oder was. ausnahmen dürfen natürlich die regel immer wieder mal bestätigen.
|
|
|
|
Akademiker der Microsoft Research-Abteilung schlagen in einem Papier eine Methode vor, um den Anreiz zur Weitergabe von Transaktionen zu verbessern. Freie Übersetzung eines einführenden Abschnitts meinerseits (ohne Gewähr): Bitcoin hat viel öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit während des letzten Jahres bekommen. Es stellt einen radikal neuen Ansatz von monetären Systemen dar, der auch in Politik und öffentlicher Presse zum Vorschein kam. Die kryptographischen Grundlagen haben sich im Großen und Ganzen bewährt, auch als die Verwendung sich zunehmend verbreitete. Wir stellen jedoch fest, dass es ein grundsätzliches Problem anderer Natur aufweist, das darauf basiert, wie Anreize strukturiert sind. Wir schlagen eine Änderung des Protokolls vor, die dieses Problem beheben kann.
|
|
|
|
yap Microsoft Research is like Google Labs. Bitcoin could surely be interesting for Microsoft as a way to compete with Google wallet, they could use it in their XBox/Live services etc... But for sure it doesn't mean anything. For example there's the phenomenally successful MS Research's Gestalt project which allows web pages to use other languages like Ruby or Python instead of JavaScript simply by using it inside script tags. It shook the foundations of this world, didn't it. I mean who wouldn't love to have more choice. It requires Silverlight or Moonlight (Mono) to be installed though, and folks don't like it just because it's Microsoft, and it probably also fell apart because of internal power struggles and strategy shifts within Microsoft. So same thing can happen for anything they try to do with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
It conveys the message that it is better than whatever, but also that it is not best.
|
|
|
|
Morgen (Sa) ist anscheinend wieder so 'ne Occupy-Demo in München. Geht irgendjemand da hin? Sogar der Konstantin Wecker wird da sein. Vielleicht kann man dem ja mal was von Bitcoin erzählen.  |
|
|
|
I'm not gonna accept anyone's funny monopoly bills.
It's your choice. You as an individual are part of the market. Nothing more, but also nothing less. |
|
|
|
Nations issuing money by themselves again is probably better than the FED system that we have today. But still, it's a good idea that nations aren't allowed to do it. That is just the next step in Separation of powers (not that those powers are really divided nowadays). The FED isn't really owned by the state as many believe, but it isn't entirely private either, as there are laws in place to secure its monopoly. The real solution is that banks issuing money should be in competition, which actually means competition of currencies (and gold, silver, bitcoin etc), which is what Ron Paul is advocating. |
|
|
|
wrong forum |
|
|
|
|
how are they big if they don't even have a wikipedia entry?
heck i once played in a band that had a wikipedia entry.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
