Snowden on the move
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/23/politics/nsa-leaks

If there someday occurs these matrilinial autark communities, there may simultaneously exist other communities which are different.  When these communities collide, there will possibly be some sort of dispute.  Resolving that dispute without violence or worse might be a goal.  If the collision happens to be with a community that does engage in trade (even if the autarks dont) understanding the principles of the other may serve them well.

The traders approach and roll out their tinkers wagon to start hawking their wares.
Maybe the autarks say "we have nothing extra, we are autarks".
The traders may say, "well, look at these nifty seeds, and try this tasty drink.
The autarks reply "no, we have what we need and nothing to offer, all is for all"
And the traders say "check out this self maintaining robot that eats garbage, it will save you an hour a day, and by the way I really like that hat over there, can I give you this robot as a gift?"
And the autarks say "the hat is not mine, all is for all"

The trader leaves the robot and takes the hat,
Later some of the autarks find a use for the robot to reduce their toiling and both are pleased with themselves for adhering to their principles and go on their way.

Treason requires helping a foreign nation.  Which nation are you alleging he is helping, making war against or seriously injuring the US to the benefit of...?
Does this seriously hurt the USA?  It looks like most seem to be taking it in stride.
I'd guess the AG will go after a lesser crime, easier to prove, but which might still warrant extradition.

However if he is exposing unlawful activity, as some in the US congress have stated, then he may have some sort of immunity.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

No, trusted escrow.  I think the sellers send the BTC to broker, then buyer deposits to seller's account, then BTC are released to buyer after confirmation from seller.  So the only trust to seller is accurate confirmation.  
Buyer supplies evidence of the purchase to escrow so escrow can do dispute resolution.
Or at least that is how it seemed to work in the one transaction I did.

I will likely do more on Monday when banks open if there are BTC up for sale.

Simply put, it is the non-violent non-governmental dispute resolution process used in trade.  
Though in places where governments arise, they tend to usurp it as their authority.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria

lex mercatoria is about as old as commerce, and there is evidence of it as old as there is writing.  Sumarians had a form of it more than 4K years ago.

It has been most useful for places where there are different cultures mixing, and each culture may have different "house rules" for how trade is conducted.

When you look at the Trust system that is evolving here, it mirrors it tightly. 
The claim that it is dead is a weird one.  Or maybe just extremely picky.  As if something which arises everywhere they care to look doesn't exist simply because the language used to describe it is a different one.  One might as well claim that love is dead because folks aren't building temples to Venus.
Call it lex mercatoria, call it the code of Ur, or in modern America, binding arbitration.  A time traveler would find enough similarity to be less confused than many of its critics here.

Though Montana beckons, my little farm would not do well without my attendance.  I'd have to attract some help with that to gain enough freedom for me to attend.  The rest of today is going to be absorbed by fixing my well, so I will leave you in the good hands of the wit-battlers.

I make no claim to superior intellect.  Nor do I claim to be engaging in a battle of wits.  If you are looking for a battle of wits, look elsewhere. I am only looking to better understand.
In a dialog, folks often re-characterize the statements of their interlocutor in order to show that they understand the intent of the statement.
Willful misunderstanding is evident when the re-characterizations are consistently the opposite or orthagonal. I suspect this is rewarding for him in some way, but the only meaningful response is to be pedantic which is tiring and with a wit-battler, and generally fruitless, so I am happy to let others do that.

Lex mercatoria is not dead as evidenced by its use in bitcointalk.org (and most anywhere there is trade). Contract law is not dead, quite the contrary it thrives.  Further to that, increasingly it is engaged without direct government engagement through binding arbitration.  So the trend (at least in the USA) is toward MORE lex mercatoria, rather than less.  This is sensible as it is less expensive for all to have a smaller government footprint in places where it has overstepped.
The claim that the existing large governments use of the lex merc principles means that it is dead/extinct/dinosaur, is as absurd as claiming that math is dead because there are now computers. 
I am not seeking to convince anyone of anything and I deeply appreciate thoughtful refutations and being shown where my thought has failed.  When apparently intelligent folks take these thoughts, ignore them, and attack thoughts which are not mine, it is not my responsibility to corral those folks and attempt to get them to attack mine instead.  As much as I'd prefer that, I am very happy to let them run off on their own and enjoy themselves.


The July 4 Rainbow Gathering in Montana looks delightful.  Montana summers are some of the best I've had with many fond memories of picking some fresh raspberries that the deer missed, and pulling the occasional rainbow trout out of Flathead Lake. 

Does the site list how many BTC are bought with each US$10?

It bizarrely assumes that because a government does something, that it could not be done without it (even things that were done quite well before they were monopolized by government).  It is sort of a mix between Candide and "learned helplessness".

And then there is Bitcoin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhR1bI7ecT8

OK, so you have less iconoclasm and more "willful misunderstanding". 
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I did.  Had a hard time taking it seriously though.  Seemed more like it should be on Onion for all the sense it made.

Gold coins in person.

I'm not the one saying it failed when it hasn't. (likewise with healthcare)  But nice try attempting to put those words in my mouth.
It still exists.  It still works.  That it was adopted by other bigger entities doesn't mean that it doesn't work.  It was and is the norm of human interaction in a marketplace.

Since you aren't seeing the parallels, I'll try another.
Math was adopted and used by folks to make catapults and hydrogen bombs.  Maybe I don't like those things, but that doesn't mean that the fault is math.

Lets flip it...
Maybe you like anarchy.  Then someone calling himself an anarchist throws a molotov cocktail and hits an innocent bystander burning her and her unborn child to death.  So anarchy as a philosophy is a failure, right?  It failed to protect them.

I like your iconoclasm, but you are missing the mark on this.

When you say "didn't work" what exactly do you mean?
lex merc is the foundation of all contract law worldwide today.  It existed without states and with them equally well.

That would be like saying health care doesn't work because governments also do it.  Weird eh?

This one particularly stood out as a bit absurd to be suggested here, and to me.

So, how is it working / not-working for you?  Do you need more government?

Have you not noticed?
It is pretty much exactly the mechanism used in this forum.
It seems to form almost spontaneously where there is trade without state intervention.

If I'm happy to let lex mercatoria suffice for that, have you anything else?  Seems pretty thin grounds for capitalism's need of a state.

Maybe it does require one, but I don't see how.  
If it does, that is a place where work is needed to reduce the burden on that requirement, and thereby lower the costs for human interaction.

The governmentisgood site looks more like arguments for how government has interfered with free trade and made it less effective.  
A list of how government has attacked free trade is not much of a requirement for government from free trade.  

Forgive my ignorance as I can not see what you are thinking about.
Do you refer to the state/non-state dichotomy, the private/public dichotomy, or something else?
This is less of an answer than I'd hoped for to a claim that begs the question. 

Let us start again and see if we can get to a slightly less circular reasoning answer.  How does capitalism require a state?

Is it necessary that an entity that tells you what is private/personal and what is public be a state?