I also have another belief that I have not mentioned, and that a sustainable society over a time period in order to reduce "exploitative behavior" will need to equalize it's agents in all forms of energy control. This is a completely separate idea that I have not bothered to write about. But basically any intelligent agent will seek to dominate its environment. That includes other intelligent agents. If an agent is in a position of dominance, then there is a "evolution incentive" to dominate other agents. Look at humans compared to other life-forms. They are successful because they have the most control over the environment. Look at what happens when people are in a position of dominance in any period of history. And an intelligent agent is not smart if it does not seek to dominate more and more of its environment, that is a contradiction. Anyway I'm sure there are plenty who will disagree  . Attempting to dominate and being able to are quite different matters. This is why I like decentralizing power: it makes it more difficult for any single agent or institution to dominate others. Whereas, with government, by definition, a single institution has a monopoly on domination in it's geographic locality. |
|
|
|
It's not that long of a post guys...  Basically my interpretation is that governments (Justice Dragons) arise spontaneously from within communities and are so interconnected to them that destroying the government will destroy the community. It is the communities responsibility to keep watch so the government doesn't turn evil. It's our fault governments are evil because we created them. Is that a good summary, smellybobby? |
|
|
|
Right, but there will always be people who depend on an overarching power structure (A government), and depriving them of that desire is still coercive. Under this decentralized Federation anyone would be free to shop around for any Government they so wished for, rather than forcing an entire geographic area to submit to one ideology.
Your idea is a massive improvement over the current system and probably more likely to happen than "pure" anarchy. However, I take exception to your argument that somehow people who depend on government will be coerced in anarchy. If there are people who are so dependent on government to tell them what to do and make decisions for them there will certainly be a market with people providing those "services". It's likely they will not even have to pay for them as there will be plenty if sadist, power hungry volunteers who will be willing to control these people's lives. |
|
|
|
Of course, what I have written is built upon the hypothetical ideal scenario of knowing everyone's set of emotional and welfare functions. And I agree that there will never be a way to obtain this perfect scenario.
But just like my example is ideal, so is the idea that only the individual knows what is best. What about a baby? What about someone driving their car to fast? If the individual knew best there would be no reason to tell anyone what to do.
To be sure "letting individuals decide" isn't a panacea, and would not solve all problems. There will be gray areas as you point out, I simply think it is the best we can do. I think it maximizes overall utility, even if people make mistakes and don't always know what they want. Hayek (who was no anarchist) talks about decentralizing the decision making and how it is better for society in his book "The Constitution of Liberty". |
|
|
|
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-- Winston Churchill
^^^ This. Yet...democracy is fatally flawed. So where does that leave us? All governments are flawed, time to try something else. |
|
|
|
|
The problem is there is no way to quantify emotion and happiness, human emotions are subjective and cannot be measured with cardinal numbers. You can say something makes you more happy than something else, but not by how much. And even if you were to establish arbitrary measurements for yourself, they would not apply to anyone else. This is why I believe individuals are the only ones qualified to make decisions for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Internet debates are about convincing the reader, not the opponent.
|
|
|
|
lol what a moron running a loser website
you can take your measley .10 bitcoins and shove them
I'll pay the confirmed users .2 btc to remove that dumbass link
The utility of honoring my contract, supporting bitcoin2cash's business, and spiting you far outweighs the marginal utility of your 100 mBTC. |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't sound like it, but does the reward apply to start up businesses? I have some friends who are starting up an embedded systems deisgn company and I am going to help them get set up to accept bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
I have these pieces of green paper with dead people's faces on them that I am willing to sell you.  Will pay top btc if any are of Lady Gaga And don't tell me she isn't dead.. That's a problem you need to solve if you want to sell your paper. Oh this can definitely be arranged. I have a marker and limited draing abilities, but I'll come up with something. But seriously, I have some friends who are starting a business and I am going to help them get set-up to accept bitcoins. They create embedded systems for a variety of applications: data loggers, anonymous wi-fi servers, LED grow lights, etc. Think you might be interested in something along those lines? |
|
|
|
|
I think part of the confusion here is because we are confusing classes of things with definite amounts. Humans never desire iron or bread in their entirety, and are never faced with a choice of all iron or all bread, but rather as Mises says, definite amounts at definite times. You desire a certain amount of bread at a certain time and are willing to pay a definite amount of money for it, creating a price which reflects its value. Because the amounts of items that humans desire changes from human to human and at different times, value is indeed subjective. Energy also has subjective value because again humans desire and pay for specific amounts at definite times.
|
|
|
|
There are Bicoins as well as Dollars stuck in Mt. Gox. For many of those who wish to move their funds out it will be cheaper and faster to get them out if they are converted to Bitcoin first, which would cause the price to increase. If they already have the bulk of their funds in Bitcoin and move it out it will tend to reduce the amount of available Bitcoin compared to Dollars and cause the price to increase. Those that panic sell their BTC will be kicking themselves for all the money they lost.
The only way the price does not increase is that there is no mass exodus. If there is a mass exodus the price will most certainly increase. However, It is possible that there could be a big correction after a run-up, the $1000 withdrawal limit will keep a lot of funds in the exchange in any case. Even after withdrawing a portion of their funds some will realize there are instant profits to be made even if they initially cancelled all of their orders. I expect there will be some pretty big gyrations for a couple of days... And then there is the weekend...
Fun stuff.
Unless people have lost confidence in bitcoins, in which case they will sell all their frozen coins and the price will plummet. We can speculate, but won't know until Mt. Gox reopens. |
|
|
|
If I got drunk, wandered in to your house and took a nap on your sofa, would that be a property rights violation IYO? I really don't think I should have to explain why this type of thing is "a violent act", or that if you argue this point anyone should take anything you say seriously.
You are begging the question that people have rights to property. So let's rephrase: If you got drunk, wandered into my house, took a nap on my sofa, woke up, and left, and I never knew, would that be a violent act? IMO no it would not be as no one was harmed and no one was fouled. You got a good night sleep and I didn't care. If people don't have rights to property they cannot survive. All organisms are subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, that is that the entropy of an open system is always increasing. In order to counteract this, organisms must decrease entropy locally by controlling and consuming resourcs around them. Ownership of property is simply the economic controll of resources, and fundamentally, energy, and the ability to utilize said resources in order to sustain oneself. This is the basis of property rights. For an insightful look at property without resort to the arbitrary constructs of "God-given" or "Natural" rights, read Butler Schafer's excellent book entitled "Boundaries of Order". Free online in PDF form. |
|
|
|
|
It may be possible to get rid of money if technology advances far enough, but I doubt it. Mises and the problems of economic calculation have convinced me.
|
|
|
|
I understand todays events are dramatic and negative. We seem to have a huge amount of low post count people starting threads like "RIP Bitcoin", for example. Is this Troll Invasion Part 2 or are people really acting this way?
Those with low post counts (like myself) are mostly not miners. They are not biased and they are without self-interest. In short, they can give much more impartial opinions. Those of us who are bears (that is my current position) are now labelled trolls because we can see some negatives in this currency. This is not a "bitcoin supporters forum". You all should be willing to debate the economics and not resort to the FAQ each time you are challenged. A FAQ is not gospel and Satoshi Nakamoto is not God. It's one thing to question the currency with logical and valid concerns, its another to spread gloom and doom based on insubstantial evidence. Can you blame us for getting tired of answering the same objections over Andover and over again? P.S. I'm not referring specifically to you, bit cola, as I don't think of read any of your posts before so I have no idea what you write about. |
|
|
|
I didn't think red necks used computers or even knew what the Internet was. Kidding. . Pretty cool idea. |
|
|
|
I have these pieces of green paper with dead people's faces on them that I am willing to sell you. |
|
|
|
|
Forgive my ignorance, but how do you tell that one person got all those blocks? Couldn't it have been multiple miners, and what are the statistics of that happening?
|
|
|
|
Jessy, do me a personal favour and don't ever complement Karmicads again. That was the longest post I've ever seen in a forum.  Was trying to be civil, just got more name calling for my trouble. I don't particularly object to juvenile insults (Adult professionals are fair game), but it just validates and encourages a decline is substantive dialog. Saying I'm dumb/whorish/amoral etc. is not an argument. I know. I am not criticizing you, I'm just amused. You gave Karmicads a pat on the head and he got excited and posted a 6000+ word response. I think you have been presenting your views very calmly, rationally and without malice. You've also handled the immature responses and jeering replies very well. I apologize for the fact that so many members of this forum seem to be incapable of accepting opinions different than theirs without resorting to ad hominems, name-calling and other school-yard behaviour. I'm not sure that I agree with you, but I appreciate your civil, logical approach to the issue. Whiteknight. Apologize for only yourself, you self-righteous pedant. Don't take my post personally. Also, count to ten before you reply. You tend to respond out of blind emotion, though, I've seen you apologize when you were in the wrong before, which is admirable. I will amend my statement to " I am sorry that so many members of this forum....". That way I am not apologizing for anyone. |
|
|
|
Jessy, do me a personal favour and don't ever complement Karmicads again. That was the longest post I've ever seen in a forum. Was trying to be civil, just got more name calling for my trouble. I don't particularly object to juvenile insults (Adult professionals are fair game), but it just validates and encourages a decline is substantive dialog. Saying I'm dumb/whorish/amoral etc. is not an argument. I know. I am not criticizing you, I'm just amused. You gave Karmicads a pat on the head and he got excited and posted a 6000+ word response. I think you have been presenting your views very calmly, rationally and without malice. You've also handled the immature responses and jeering replies very well. I apologize for the fact that so many members of this forum seem to be incapable of accepting opinions different than theirs without resorting to ad hominems, name-calling and other school-yard behaviour. I'm not sure that I agree with you, but I appreciate your civil, logical approach to the issue. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
