"In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." -Alexander Hamilton

What's so difficult to understand about theft? Theft, simply put, is the expropriation of property; viz., without the consent of the owner (not any different than consent of the governed). The only right is that of the owner to restitution (for being put out) and the return of his property. He can aqcuire, if they are willing, the help of others to re-obtain it if necessary, and if truly recidivist, jail the offender.

What you're saying is that 1% disagree that consent is required when obtaining objects (specifically those things which were previously owned). This means that there is only the strong and the weak, and that the strong may take by force, from the weak, those things which may belong to others or until such time as the weak organize and commit the same offense on those who were once their masters.

If that is the case, then there is no meaningful definition of justice or lawfulness or fairness and therefore no need for judges or juries or prosecutors or defenders, as that would make them a mere farcical organization which covers the true purpose of their action - that being to subjugate the weak, and to use deception, pretending that the rule of law was applied.

Is the disagreement that the concept of property doesn't exist?

In re UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

"Obviously there can be no law of treason more stringent than has now been stated, consistently with political liberty. In the very nature of things there can never be any liberty for the weaker party, on any other principle; and political liberty always means liberty for the weaker party. It is only the weaker party that is ever oppressed. The strong are always free by virtue of their superior strength. So long as government is a mere contest as to which of two parties shall rule the other, the weaker must always succumb. And whether the contest be carried on with ballots or bullets, the principle is the same; for under the theory of government now prevailing, the ballot either signifies a bullet, or it signifies nothing. And no one can consistently use a ballot, unless he intends to use a bullet, if the latter should be needed to insure submission to the former.

No attempt or pretence, that was ever carried into practical operation amongst civilized men—unless possibly the pretence of a "Divine Right," on the part of some, to govern and enslave others—embodied so much of shameless absurdity, falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villany of every kind, as the attempt or pretence of establishing a government by consent, and getting the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in subjection by force. Such a government is a mere conspiracy of the strong against the weak. It no more rests on consent than does the worst government on earth.

What substitute for their consent is offered to the weaker party, whose rights are thus annihilated, struck out of existence, by the stronger? Only this: Their consent is presumed! That is, these usurpers condescendingly and graciously presume that those whom they enslave, consent to surrender their all of life, liberty, and property into the hands of those who thus usurp dominion over them! And it is pretended that this presumption of their consent—when no actual consent has been given—is sufficient to save the rights of the victims, and to justify the usurpers! As well might the highwayman pretend to justify himself by presuming that the traveller consents to part with his money. As well might the assassin justify himself by simply presuming that his victim consents to part with his life. As well might the holder of chattel slaves attempt to justify himself by presuming that they consent to his authority, and to the whips and the robbery which he practises upon them. The presumption is simply a presumption that the weaker party consent to be slaves.

Such is the presumption on which alone our government relies to justify the power it maintains over its unwilling subjects. And it was to establish that presumption as the inexorable and perpetual law of this country, that so much money and blood have been expended." -- Lysander Spooner

Nothing like stirring the pot eh?

It isn't a handout if it was your money to begin with. It just means he found a way to reduce the extent of the plunder his local/state/federal government was imposing upon him. We should follow his lead until there is no more theft and all voluntary and consensual contribution.

More power to him. It's a laudable goal. Where do I "contribute"?

The band is 1 BTC because of the low volume order size. I only ordered 200 total (I wasn't sure of the level of interest). Volume discounts are higher for larger orders.

Additionally, the artwork is unique in that it has a "face" portion (which is extra), and it has both embossed and debossed artwork spanning the entire circumference of the band. Usually you do one or the other. I did both -and had to twist a few arms at that.

And finally there is also a written message on the inside of the band for which there is an additional charge.

The manufacturer told me with the above design artwork it would require multiple finishing passes. I hope that explains a few things for you.

They are a chain of 1's and 0's. There is other artwork (embossed lettering) which is a little harder to interpret.

The dimensions are as follows:

The "face" artwork is 1" x 1" on a side.
The band width is .5".

RESERVED

I heard mention that there might be a few people interested in some bitcoin related jewelry type items.

My sister and I designed a reminder band for bitcoin. Take a look and let me know.

 

The inside of the band says "MINED YOUR OWN BUSINESS." I liked the play on words. The external artwork is a bit more cryptic, but I'm sure most of you will figure out any subtle meanings.

I'm selling them for .3 BTC + .3 BTC for shipping (stateside).

Total .6 BTC. Drop me a PM.

And those ordinary meanings would be what...

Here's my simple take on it:

--------------------------------------------------------------
Government
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the exercise of political authority over the actions, affairs, etc., of a political unit, people, etc., as well as the performance of certain functions for this unit or body; the action of governing; political rule and administration
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the system or form by which a community, etc., is ruled: tyrannical government.
--------------------------------------------------------------

If you break down the meaning of the definition into its component parts, you'll catch some of the keywords used to describe it. You'll find the words "exercise", "authority", "action", "function", "rule", and "administration". These words are applied to persons (aka. body, people, and political unit).

To "exercise" one's "authority", also known as "rule or administer" over another person (political unit), via some "function" is to "act" in such a way as to exert a force (to change the physical condition of an object). The object being person or property.

If you exert this force without my express prior permission (consent of the governed), or you do not act in such a way that would be construed or interpreted as to be in defense of your property or person from invasion, then you will have committed an aggression against me. This aggression or violent act would be what I would call a crime.

Now that we got the obvious out of the way, we can certainly see how a person or group of persons can decide either jointly or individually how they wish to defend themselves. They could do this by negotiating and purchasing the material means by which to protect themselves. These things originate from a market. I can make a market in guns, bodyguards, ramparts, forts, roads, planes, courts (arbitration), etc. These things don't spring up from nowhere. People have to make them, therefore markets emerge to meet the needs of the people. So yes, there is in fact a market for government goods and services.

Are we much clearer now as to why I used the definition I did?

I appreciate you making my point even clearer. Government sucks. I didn't get to choose my lawmaker, somebody else did. That's the whole point of the inaneness of it all. And it is too a market. It's a market in violence and coercion.

Additionally, I can decide to obey whatever laws I choose to obey. The only reason why I even remotely consider half of them, is because if I don't, somebody might come take my property or life. Just writing/proclaiming/enacting/legislating a law, doesn't change the nature or character of the person, or even society in general, it just slightly influences them, because they'd rather avoid pain than indirectly impose it upon themselves.

Government should be quite simple: 1) Respond to initiations of violence, coercion and threats thereto, and 2), respect mutual contract. There you go: One and done (well two, if you want to be technical about it).

Stop the pandemic bullying.

If you assume that counterfeiting is not a crime (essentially a free market in patterned print production), then the only concern one should have when dealing with "money stock" is whether the person your contracting with, promises not to inflate nor create/destroy credit in a manner disagreeable to you.

To wit, you either accept the terms regarding the money type, defined by contract (i.e. letters of credit, bills of lading, receipts or equivalents etc.), or you don't. But when things "go south", then you refer to the contract you signed with the person or persons you bargained with, and determine if a fraud was perpetrated (breach of contract).

All things considered, I think most people won't go to such lengths to protect themselves thru contract from unscrupulous "invisible" banking techniques (inflation, credit expansion and contraction issues, fractional banking, etc.), mainly because it's so hard to follow to begin with. And besides, it's also too tempting to want to try to game the system, since you can point the proverbial "finger" at everybody else when it fails.

They will likely just use a form of money like gold and silver bullion, and perhaps bailment thereof, because of the universal difficulty in ability to cheat the system. There is some inflation and accounting problems, but it isn't too bad, which is why gold and silver eventually became the standard in the first place.

Actually, for the very examples you provide, illustrate the exact reason why I think voting is irrelevant, or at the very least ineffective and impaired. It seems to be the only system that prohibits a neutral or non-participatory choice. You will force me either way (damned if I do, and damned if I don't).

Every other market environment permits any mutually agreeable choice, or at a minimum, includes by default, refraining from further engagement. Government, disallows the latter as plausible or acceptable. Independence is not an option, it's an illusion painted by the very politicians who claim to hold it in so high esteem.

I've always been a bit confused as to the specifics of certain types of voting and it's purpose.

On it's face, it would seem that voting would indicate your desires as to how you wish to be governed, or in the corporate sense, how you wish your property to be disbursed or invested. In either case, your property and person are involved.

The notable difference between the two is, if you don't vote or the vote is not what you wished for in the case of the government form, you are still forced to accept the outcome (other's decisions imposed upon you). However, in the case of a corporate vote, if you don't like the way the vote went, you can sell your share of ownership and take your "bat and ball" somewhere else where you think it will be better spent or utilized. In which case, there wasn't much force involved or imposed.

To wit, you willingly entered into the contractual shared ownership of combined or aggregated assets, and you can just as easily leave that arrangement if you feel the need (contract rights). In the case of government, there is no leaving the societal system or "social contract", as it is referred to. You're stuck unless you intend on leaving the country or jurisdiction wherein you are constrained. Not really the same thing.

You can't truly vote with your feet. If one could truly withdraw his things and person from the physical reach of government and simultaneously maintain his independence and soveignty in situ, then the definition of property remains intact. Which is to say, property is a thing that one should be able to retain (own and control) without continual defense due to external forces, coercion, or attack (not that defense isn't indicative of property definition, but it does raise the question as to the legitimacy of the violent or coercive acts in the first place).

Otherwise it really isn't property anymore, but remotely manipulated by those who think they can acquire it or alter it thru extrajudicial means.

The way I look at it is quite simple. I detest government (or anybody else for that matter) meddling in the specific and narrow discrimination against property (guns, cars, land use, grass height, etc.).

It assumes them to be more intelligent and responsible with my property. Au contraire, I've yet to see them be responsible in that regard. Personally, I get a little tired of having so many parents lording over me. I've already got a mother and a father, and they've already educated me on what's right and wrong. If I have any questions I'll ask them.

I don't need somebody in some other locale, perhaps hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from me, dictating their conscience over me and the rest of the world. I'm sure if I need some assistance or other clarification as to any suggestions/ideas about being a good "citizen", then they can send me a brochure.

Voted.

That's an interesting conclusion, but not necessarily the only possibility. I probably wouldn't be so opposed to monopolies if they didn't degrade into self-serving oligarchies (extrajudicial plunder via the ruling classes). This happens by design with any monopoly.

Competition is good if it is understood that all security forces, courts, lawful enforcement, and other similarly related organizations, are given deference within the domain of their respective jurisdictions (via free association). Absent that, you tend to resort to riot and war. Shame.

It's quite simple: respect property.

Pirate,

Are deposits being accepted at this time? I ask this since you mentioned your DB was temporarily locked.

-FB

I say we take another poll. I like First Pirate S&T myself. It kinda has a good ring to it...

I thought that it was. I must have been seeing things.

Just to be clear, thanks for all of the effort Pirate. No malfeasance implied.

T'would be proud to be a sailor in the company of such a noble, illustrious and generous pirate captain.

Hats Phrygian Caps off to ya.

Arrghh