Allow me to put it to you that the original question is nonsensical.
[...]
It makes no sense to ask if a system is Democratic when that system has no actual government.
I second this. That's what I've been trying to say all along. Well said, rebuilder -- you have rebuilt this thread. |
|
|
|
If you treat your children from the beginning with the deference and respect you want them to treat you with in the future, you won't have to live in fear of what they're going to do when you're no longer able to dominate them.
Much better said than how I said it.  Don't raise a slave, you won't have to fear a slave revolt. Jesus this thread is full of win. |
|
|
|
If your 15 year old daughter chooses to repeatedly violate household rules, but no actual laws, what recourse do you have as a parent if they refuse to listen to a voice of wisdom?
It's your problem, not hers and the time to avoid it was 15 years ago. If she doesn't respect to you at age 15 years it's because your so-called wisdom is crap and she's figured it out.BOOM! Well said. I can personally verify this is true. |
|
|
|
I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child. By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child. What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation? Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home. Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will? Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted? Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view? If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell. Unfortunately, she is a prisoner in her parents' house. Held not by her parents, but by the State. And we know what happens when one party is made to be a prisoner, and one is made to be a guard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experimentIf she were free to leave, it would be a different matter. I have to admit, you have a point here. Yet, we live in a world where states force this issue; not one that conforms to anyone's ideal. This fact doesn't really change the questions posed, since she is (literally speaking) not a prisoner and her parents are not her wardens. But she is, and they are. If she were to escape, the State would bring her back, unless she could prove abuse, which in this case, the State would not side with her on. If she were to be thrown out, the State would levy fines or penalties against her parents. And, like a felon, her employment options are severely limited, again, by the State. She cannot find work sufficient to support herself, nor is she allowed to leave, even if she could support herself. Prisoner, slave, call it what you will, she's stuck where she is. And why is this? Because she has not attained some magical arbitrary age where suddenly she's responsible for herself. And what happens when she finally reaches this magical age? After 18 years of being told she can't be responsible, now she's suddenly told she must be! And people wonder why teens act so irresponsibly! Yes, we live in a world where States force this issue. And that's the problem. "My house, My rules," is fine when the other party is free to go. In fact, it's to be expected. But when the other party is not free to go, it becomes a prison sentence, with the date of parole circled on the calendar. Yes, the State will most likely force me to be a warden at some point in my daughters' lives. It is my most fervent hope, however, that my rules will be acceptable enough that they will want to stay, and I will not be forced to force them. 100% of what Myrkul said here is true. |
|
|
|
Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.
Tell me myrkul, given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? Why do they never get started? Why do they never last? Why is it only a fantasy among the likes of you? Why is libertarian thought such a massive failure? Why can't they get the ball rolling? Why is the movement so deficient? So powerless? So lacking in ability to become a reality? See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax. Honest questions. Answer them. |
|
|
|
Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth.
[...] given the posts here claiming how old libertarian thought is, why don't we see any significant or lasting AnCap or purely libertarian societies? [...] See what I mean? You're lashing out, man. Relax. Yeap. He's definitely lashing out. Anyone notice the (italicized) red herring he just threw out? Here he is changing the subject from his baseless and unproven theory of anthropogenic climate warmingcoolingchange, to his new baseless and unproven theory "Why doesn't libertarianism last long?". He's breaking rule number 1 of rational debate hyperlinked in my signature. FirstAscent scurries away from his failures like a rat when light shines upon him. This pleases me. |
|
|
|
No, it's called agitation derived from arguing with the brainwashed.
I doubt that. I don't get agitated arguing with you. In fact, I don't even need to argue with you -- all I have to do is point out that you haven't proven any of your claims. You only get angry because you know that your claims are smelly bullshit and I'm holding your head against them. I am amused :-) |
|
|
|
TLDR: FirstAscent is blowing smoke up everyone's ass while playing dialectical tricks. Nothing new under the sun for anthropogenic climate sycophants.
<Yap yap yap> I think you hit a nerve.  Baseless, stupid, and hypocritical opinions will hit nerves. Nah, a mature person shrugs off baseless criticism. Accurate criticism, however, hits them nerves hard, especially when it's criticism you are afraid is true. Lie to yourself long enough, and you'll start attacking people who tell you the truth. Well said. |
|
|
|
Now ask yourself: If Cunicula likes Daoist philosophy, could Daoist philosophy be libertarianism?
With the number of times I've seen you misconstrue libertarianism before on this forum, the answer is undoubtedly yes. Cunicula, from what I have experienced in this forum, could see a melanoma and say "Ahhhh!!!!!111ONE!! That's a symptom of libertarianism!!!!". He's the standard troll who has nothing going on for him but astroturfing, FUD, and hate for things he doesn't understand and has made no effort to understand. I sort of know what his priors are, and they're all standard signs of early child abuse, implanted in his brain way before he could develop rational defenses against them. |
|
|
|
If you can't stand letting my assertions stand uncontested, then by all means, contest them. That's what I've been asking you to do, rather than make childish mocking noises and useless remarks about the count of lines in a post.
If the metacontext wasn't important, you wouldn't abuse it so badly. I'm sorry (I'm not), I won't ignore the man behind the curtain. I think, based on my reading of this thread, that FirstAscent's assertions are wholly unsubstantiated, and that the only "support" he has lent to his claims is "there's tons of studies, go look for them". Since he is unwilling to actually provide direct evidence for his claims, I'm going to say that the burden of proof he needs to save face here is extraordinary, and he has not met it. Of course, as usual, like any other individual without any evidence, he demands that others prove him wrong rather than proving his claims to us. This is nothing but religious logic. TLDR: FirstAscent is blowing smoke up everyone's ass while playing dialectical tricks. Nothing new under the sun for anthropogenic climate sycophants. |
|
|
|
Bump to remind all you liberal crybabies how the world really works: 1) Governments tried to starve people via price controls. 2) The Free Market TM and Goat tried to rectify this by investing hard-earned capital in supporting the work of voluntary laborers. 3) Goat is demonized by liberal crybabies calling for even more regulations to pile on top of the already existing, failed ones. Article says In theory, the policy makes perfect sense. If you pay farmers above the market rate for paddy they will earn more, Thai rice – already known for its quality – will rise in price and in turn force up prices on world markets.
What "theory" is that? The "theory" of an economically illiterate populist cocksucker? vforvoluntary (man of men) responds with an epic cunt punt: No it doesn't. It makes absolutely no sense. A first year economics student can tell you that. If you subsidize something you will get more of that thing. So the supply expands, but the demand stays the same. The most fundamental of all economic laws, the law of supply and demand, stipulates that you can't just expect that because you produce more, you can charge more. In fact, the supply must follow demand and the price is formed at the equilibrium. The buyers will pay only as much as they deem the product is worth. If the competition is fierce and the product is abundant, then the prices will fall. This little scheme would have worked if the Thai government was the sole supplier of rice in the world, and the demand was increasing at the same pace as the supply, which is obviously not the case. Those who wonder why it didn't work are lacking in basic economic knowledge which makes them unfit to run any business, much less the economic policies of an entire nation.
Thai people voted for death and poverty (as it is usual when democracy is at play). Thailand is now fucked, and that rice will rot and be filled with bugs. Bravo politics! By the way, the same shit happened in Venezuela not a few years ago. And the same shit happened in Ecuador with the infamous Pan Techo y Empleo plan by murderer president León Febres-Cordero in the eighties. |
|
|
|
|
Good, if you want poor people and black people in particular to remain jobless.
Bad if you want to give everyone an opportunity to find a job, even if it is at a wage you would dislike for yourself.
Minimum wage laws are among the most racist laws on the books -- they are part of the modern Jim Crow laws together with zoning restrictions to keep people segregated. Nominally, they allegedly "benefit" (translation: ruin) everyone equally... but in reality it is minorities that get the most royally fucked.
|
|
|
|
|
In the matter of "what do the magical.papers say about theft and bitcoin", precedent is not necessary to prove that stealing bitcoin is forbidden by the magical papers -- showing a statute will do. Someone already showed a statute pertinent to the matter so I consider this case proven and closed.
|
|
|
|
DEMOCRACY VS ANARCHOCAPITALISM:
Democracy does not mean 'respect to all views' but 'destroy minority views', it means the majority rules and destroys the minority. Just think how democracy works and you easily see this is just true.
A good example of democracy would be 10 friends sitting on a table at a restaurant deciding what are they going to eat. What democracy means is that they will rise their hands in votations and they will eat all the same. But what if two of them are vegetarians and the other eight want to eat meat? Well they will have to pay the meat even if they don't want it and give thanks for the freedom they have.
What anarchist (anarchocapitalists) say is that everybody should be free to choose and pay what they like and can afford.
Which system is less violent? Obviously the second, just because it doesn't coercively force anybody to do the other's will.
Moreover, if you analyze your believes you'll find out that you defend democracy because your very own superstitions (that were inducted by propaganda). The first and more dangerous of all of them is that you believe and assume as right that there should be a goverment, and you see democracy as the less harmfull system to rule the monster.
If we return to the restaurant, imagine those 10 people were born in that table and forced to eat that way since the begining of their lifes. It is probably that the ones that would fight to stop the system would be the vegetarians, or the ones that were more oppressed by the system, and the ones that will defend it would be the ones that weren't so much oppressed. That's why you can expect hostility from this conversation. Because you're dealing with very deep beliefs.
DEMOCRACY AND BITCOIN:
There is a problem with the rule of the majority and bitcoin, and the problem is that, in case you have not realize it, in real world you are minority.
Is bitcoin democratic? No. It isn't. It is as democratic as cocacola.
It doesn't mind how much people vote for it, the protocol will may remain the same until the end of the days. If the protocol is changed, then it wont be cocacola, it will be pepsi. People are free to chose cocacola or pepsi.
As we have all already discussed, bitcoin has not intrinsic value, and it didn't have value before being a currency. Then, were does this value come from? It comes from the VOLUNTARY aceptance of the system: demand. There isn't a coercitive force or the rule of the majority that said, voted, or forced us to use bitcoin.
Merchants voluntarily accept bitcoins, we have all voluntarily given resources to obtain some coins, and we are voluntarily starting the ecosystem.
There wasn't any votation and there wont be votations for this.
In democracy you don't have the freedom to choose. With bitcoin you can choose not to use it.
And by the way, i'm spanish and i live in a collapsing democracy, i wonder if you know what the fuck a democracy is. If you are north american, you might like to know that you DON'T live in a democracy, but a republic.
Mrvision, you knocked it out of.the ballpark. Fantastic explanation. Eloquent. Truthful. Thanks for your post. |
|
|
|
It is my view that "democracy"
Your's isn't shared by most people which makes it a lot harder if not impossible to spread the right ideas. Instead of clinging to a term insisting it means something most understand it not to mean, why not use a "clean" word to be able to better communicate? It is the sole reason why I vehemently insist that Bitcoin is not democratic. Give up, man. You can't reason with Portnoy. Whenever he's asked to prove his beliefs, he changes the subject; if he is not indulged in this dishonest bait and switch, he throws a tantrum. What more proof does a person need to know that he isn't rational and he isn't trying to have a legitimate conversation about the topic? |
|
|
|
I see it differently in that i say that any human constructs like math are just an informational patterns and that intangible just means 'intrinsically informational'.
And the difference between tangible and intangible is whether the information is intrinsic to something physical. Information acquires (temporary) tangibility by modifying the states of something that already is tangible.
Yes, we know you believe that "tangible" means "physical" (key words of your reply highlighted). The link shows you how this belief of yours is wrong. Merely telling us again "Well, I say tangibility requires physicality" is not an argument, nor is it a refutation to the argument that were presented to you -- it is just denial that wastes everyone's time. As such, and pursuant to taking the conversation back to the topic, can you please stop making noise in this thread? Yeah, well, if you can point me where that article clearly describes why bitcoin is tangible then i'll be happy to leave. You should have left about five comments ago then.
In other words, what is your definition of tangibility (in your own words and without links please) ?
I gave you a link that defines tangibility in a philosophically rigorous way (presumably, you can infer from my behavior that I agree with said definition). Either you didn't read it (in which case there's no guarantee you'll read anything I say) or you didn't give a shit (in which case there's no guarantee you'll be able to sustain a conversation with me). So, if you want to discuss this like a rational adult with me, you'll have to make do with what you already have. |
|
|
|
To answer your question, if one's goal is to live in a society that has the freedom to maximize it's potential the best social system is the one where each participant has the freedom to live, to own and be in absolute control over their body and their property, meaning no involuntary participation or taxation.
And that doesn't go against the principles of democracy given the proper supports such as those constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms I mentioned. That is pure fantasy.  What I described doesn't allow for involuntary payment of subscription i.e. theft, it doesn't allow for through violence enforced arbitrary rules every single individual hasn't explicitly contractually consented to, it doesn't include the taking from some and giving to others through violence and robbery, it doesn't include the phrase "for the common good", and it doesn't allow for the delusion that a piece of paper is going to offer any kind of protection against violent psychopaths. Note how Portnoy attempts to change the subject anytime he fails to prove anything he claims is true. This is a standard tactic to confuse and sabotage the conversation. Hold him to his claims, make him prove that he is correct, and he will very shortly throw a tantrum. Then you've won. |
|
|
|
I am still waiting for you to answer my question, which I asked first.
"The best social system is one where ____ "
That's offtopic because the answer is irrelevant to the question "Is Bitcoin democratic?". I won't answer this in this thread. It is not off topic or irrelevant I gave you a reason why the topic you're trying to introduce is off topic and irrelevant. You even quoted it right here. You didn't even bother refuting that reason -- you just contradicted me. Contradiction is not an argument. The fact that you keep trying to change the subject and introduce a new argument means you have officially broke Rule #1 in the rational discussion flowchart on my signature. You are being deliberately irrational. and has come up naturally in the course of conversation and debate on this subject
That's a lie. The topic doesn't "come up naturally". Statists artificially change the subject to this unrelated topic -- exactly like you just did -- usually to avoid being having to admit that they are wrong. Given the following text, it's no surprise that you're attempting to do the same. You are being deliberately irrational most likely in order to sabotage the discussion, because you know that you can't prove that your beliefs are correct... therefore you do the dishonest thing and attempt to change the subject, hoping that your interlocutors will forget that you fucked up and bite your bait. You know you're fucked, so you throw out a red herring. But nobody fell for your trap. You have failed. and I will not subject myself to any more of your unnecessarily strict and formal interrogation
TADAAAA! Here is where Portnoy feigns indignation and storms out, running away to save face. He failed to prove his claims, and he also failed to derail the conversation by introducing a different topic while his previous claims remained unproven. What course of action remains in his Bat-belt of Intellectual Dishonesty? Make like an octopus, eject a cloud of black ink, feign indignation and storm out cowardly. Portnoy can't or won't prove to us that "Bitcoin is democratic". Therefore, he strepitously exits the discussion with pretend indignation.
His deliberate irratinonality has earned Portnoy a speedy addition to my ignore list. |
|
|
|
All of that is answered in my response if you know how to read normal forum conversation...
but here, more formal definitions:
* government of the people by the people for the people.
* a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
* political or social equality.
That answers question 1 partially (for example, you don't define "government", or "equality", or "rights", which leaves you an opening to weasel out of logical inconsistencies you might commit). How about a complete answer to 1 and then answers to questions 2 and 3? Thanks. =================================================
I am still waiting for you to answer my question, which I asked first.
"The best social system is one where ____ "
That's offtopic because the answer is irrelevant to the question "Is Bitcoin democratic?". I won't answer that in this thread, sorry. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
