Freedom is being able to protect myself however I want to and to be able to make as much money as I want to without anyone telling me how I can or cannot do it.
That works when there is no causal relationship between you and the rest of society. What do you mean by "causal relationship?" A causal relationship is when one variable causes a change in another variable. X causes a change in Y. X = your actions. Y = society. EDIT: what the fuck did you think it meant? I was just confused that you seem to have thought that it's possible to make money without any " casual" relationships. |
|
|
|
I guess you don't understand how small things summed in aggregate become big things. Have a good day.
And you never understood that in AnCap, all small things will aggregate into big things. Anarchy is not "everyone for themselves," it's "everyone for freely choosing their alliances." If you can't understand the larger implication of this then you can't understand AnCap. (Yes, even if those alliances form some sort pseudo-totalitarian, taxing authorities that control and tax whoever lives on their territory) I believe you missed the point. Small things, virtually unnoticed, go unenforced. But in aggregate, create monstrous problems. Wouldn't they also go unnoticed in a regulatory society, and thus will go unenforced? What do government regulators have that people who are involved with a person doing those things directly don't? |
|
|
|
Freedom is being able to protect myself however I want to and to be able to make as much money as I want to without anyone telling me how I can or cannot do it.
That works when there is no causal relationship between you and the rest of society. What do you mean by "causal relationship?" |
|
|
|
Ignorance of a law is not a defense.
That is a very dangerous idea. If a law is not self evident, or someone doesn't understand why what they are doing is inherently wrong, it's a horrible law. Mainly because it gives governments the power to pass arbitrary laws without actual legal purpose, for the sole reason of arresting people. Thats the way Soviet Russia worked and achieved power early on when it was arresting anyone those in power deemed enemies of the state. |
|
|
|
|
After we're done with knives, don't forget sticks. In Kendo, we use long bamboo sticks to represent swords during sparring matches, and without the heavy steel and fiberglass padded armor that we have to wear, those sticks can very easily break bones and cave in heads.
|
|
|
|
I see no similarity to the US' f**ked-up attitude.  Yes, attitude is the key word here, not deadly inanimate objects. Indeed. It's attitude which creates policies which allow an unhealthy and unnecessary quantity of guns in the US. And knives. You don't want restaurants to have knives for meal preparation? What about in your kitchen? Chopsticks. |
|
|
|
I see no similarity to the US' f**ked-up attitude. Yes, attitude is the key word here, not deadly inanimate objects. Indeed. It's attitude which creates policies which allow an unhealthy and unnecessary quantity of guns in the US. And knives. |
|
|
|
I see no similarity to the US' f**ked-up attitude. Yes, attitude is the key word here, not deadly inanimate objects. |
|
|
|
|
I had this issue with the wallet file too once. It was because there were too many tiny amounts of coins spread over many addresses, and trying to send coins overloaded Bitcoin-at with too many address inputs. In my case i had to extract the private keys and sweep them a few at a time. I seriously doubt it's an exploit.
|
|
|
|
|
WTF. You don't demand apologies, you let people decide for themselves if they wish to give them, and let everyone else judge the outcome. An apology from nethead would only have improved his standing in the community, not Roger's, and now that we know that one was publicly demanded, that option to possibly clear up his reputation was stolen from nethead.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi. Please be careful of the recent double-spend issue that was discovered with SatoshiDice. The way it works is, someone could deposit some BTC with you using a lot of small transaction sources (e.g. deposit 1BTC consisting of 0.1BTC coming fron 10 different addresses), then when they lose, doublt-spend by sending that exact same transaction to a different address, but with a small fee. There are apparently miners out there that will ignore that it's a double-spend, and ignore the free transaction, approving the one with the fee instead.
Also, was nice meeting you at the Bitcoin meetup a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
Oooh, interesting. I would say that the law does indeed apply here then!
Does it? This was a dispute between somebody living in Japan(?) and somebody living in Greece. I believe that it cannot be applied (it was me the Greece one), he got me by his own way thou Meh, you did what was right in the end, even though you didn't actually have to (no one could force you rather), so that's a plus. |
|
|
|
The social order originates in an altogether primitive and unanimous agreement. When men in the state of nature have reached that stage where the individual is unable to cope with adverse forces, they are compelled to change their way of living. They cannot create new forces, but they can unite their individual energies and thus overcome the obstacles to life. The fundamental problem is, then, "to find a form of association which defends and protects with the whole common energy, the person and property of each associate, and by which each individual associate, uniting himself to all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before". The solution is a contract by which each one puts in common his person and all his forces under the supreme direction of the "general will". Where results a moral and collective body formed of as many members as there are persons in the community. In this body the condition is equal for all, since each gives himself wholly; the union is perfect, since each gives himself unreservedly; and finally, each, giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody. This body is called the "State or Sovereign"; the members, who, taken together, form "the people" are the "citizens" as participating in the supreme authority, and "subjects" as subjected to the laws. By this contract man passes from the natural to the civil state, from instinct to morality and justice. He loses his natural freedom and his unlimited right to all that he attempts or is able to do, but he gains civil liberty and the ownership of all that he possesses by becoming the acknowledged trustee of a part of the public property. Aside from the "public property" quip, that's a description of an AnCap phyle, or society group. The whole "forming an association," forming a contract, giving of oneself to work together to overcome obstacles of life, etc. The reason is that what is being described is a contract. What we have in reality isn't a contract, since contracts are voluntary agreements between two or more people. |
|
|
|
I'll leave it here and people can decide for themselves if they believe it is a good or bad thing:
Definition:
Selfish: "Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure"
There are two kinds of selfishness: 1) Keeping what you have all to yourself, refusing to give any of it to others 2) Wanting to acquire something, and working actively and ruthlessly with the goal of acquiring it. Unless you can eat and survive off of whatever it is you are squatting on in #1, you'll starve to death. Problem solved. For #2, you can either acquire what you want by force, or by trade. If you do it by force, you can expect to receive force in kind. If you do it by trade, the ONLY way for you to be selfish is to give others what they want in return. You are selfish with money, because you are ruthlessly squandering your labor, and throwing it away at your employer, in order to get money in return. You are selfish with your lover, because you are giving up your affections, time, and money in exchange for their love (at least I hope it's in exchange, and not one sided). All businesses and corporations are selfish: they exist to pursue profits, and the only way they can do that is by giving you the best products and services they possibly can. And all those products that you are buying were invented by selfish men who thought "I bet I could make money if I figure out how to do/make this." Without selfishness, we would essentially be dead, because there would be no motivation to invent or do anything. "Why should I bother inventing, or doing, if someone else will do it and share it with me?" That's why communism was a failed system. |
|
|
|
(Myrkul) Your delusional to think you had no societal obligations when you were born. Again more of the selfish attitude and line of reasoning.
Myrkul - You keep using the term "slave" to get emotional sympathy to your point of view. It shows how weak your argument is. Settling an obligation is just that, nothing more. You just want to call it slavery because your case is so weak that to use other relevant terms would show the selfishness of the position that you came into the world with no obligation to it.
Until you can explain how we can possibly settle that obligation, we'll just have to call it slavery, if only for a lack of a better word  If you can provide a better word for an obligation that can not be settled, or describe how to settle that obligation, please do so. |
|
|
|
Oooh, interesting. I would say that the law does indeed apply here then!
Does it? This was a dispute between somebody living in Japan(?) and somebody living in Greece. |
|
|
|
Like i I said, when you accuse somebody of something, it is okay, but when somebody accuses you of the same things you accuse somebody else of, its it's, "how do you know.? Yyou never met me." This asinine kind of reasoning is just too silly to even go into. No doubt many people can see it, except CHharlie cContent himself. . But However, you know this double standard he shows asserts my earlier statement: He would have done the EXACT same thing, if he'd been in that position. . The guy is SUpPErR Hypocritical. .. And, no doubt, very immature and amateuristic. ARren't'ja cCharley XD
And now, he tries to win the argument by throwing it over my english mishaps.. lol.
You're both dumb. |
|
|
|
Dalkore, just caught up reading the rest of your arguments. The gist of your claim is that, since you were born in this society that provided you, you now "owe" that society for the things it provided. Fair enough. So, tell me, how much is that debt, exactly, and how can one pay it off? I'm not even suggesting "i paid of my debt, so nowI can ignore rules and laws when I'm visiting others or am on public property." Rules that others establish for their own property I'm fine with. I mean, how much do I have to pay to buy back the claims that the state has laid on me and my own property, so that I can be free to have my own rules on the land I own, and pay taxes only for services I want?
I like this line of thought. One question, though: How would this not be a slave purchasing their own freedom? Oh, it surely would be. But, as you say, even many slaves got to purchase their freedom. I think this just highlights the fallacy of the "You are born owing a debt" bullshit. I'm actually kind of agreeing with the "you are born owning a debt" thing, especially if you were born in a public hospital, went to public school, and used public services your parents never fully paid for. The fallacy I'm trying to point out is that a debt can be paid back, because it has a specific value, but this debt is like the debt they recently highlighted as a problem in India, where a father borrowed some money, is having to work at a clay brick making place to pay it off, dies (from old age or exhaustion) leaving his family with the debt, and the children are having to work, stuffing clay into molds morning till dawn, to pay off the debt they inherited. The main problem with that debt is that the kids and their mothers are illiterate and can't count, so they don't actually know how much they still owe. They could be told $300, or $50, and it won't make a difference, because they don't understand how much that is, and the company doing this isn't going to let them off. I don't know what to call that situation. Slavery? Deceptive and fraudulent loan practices? Taxes? Either way, that's kind of the situation we find ourselves in, all the unfair horribleness and all. Though I'm actively avoiding using inflammatory words like "slavery" because I am trying to keep the discussion cool and logical, instead of being dismissed for using absolutes. |
|
|
|
After reading those, i want EVERYONE here to reply to:
If someone did a mistake and added to your real bank account even 1$, i say it again BY MISTAKE, would you give it back? Tell the truth here.
Yes. I have, in fact, returned from my car to the store to return a few bucks that they gave me in change by accident on a few occasions. First, it's not money that I am taking from some nebulous "business," it's someone's salary, bonus, or retirement income (if their retirement is in stocks). It's taking money from real, actual people (and not the rich CEOs, since they would just write off the loss and pass it on to soqmeone else, it not affecting their own salary). And second, I see no reason to ruin relationships with places I plan to use and shop from again. I doubt BitcoinStore will do business with nethead again, and now that it's public, some other places may deny him service as well (though doubtful). I have way more to lose from lack of access to goods and services than the store has from losing one customer. That said, lessons were quite thoroughly learned by everyone involved, issues were fixed, and the initial dispute settled, so.... Yay? |
|
|
|
What would you guys think of a policy that states "We will not release personal information to third parties, but if they are investigating fraud and ask us questions, we may answer very specific questions with simple yes/no questions
I do not like it, in the case of "Rogver vs Nethead" a yes/no was all that was needed to confirm he was likely the owner of the bitcoin address in question. The fact that his email address and ip was revealed was not of much consequence as that information was already know to the bitcoinstore, so the end result was the same. Blockchain's policy stands as it always has "We will not sell, distribute or lease your personal information to third parties unless we are required by law to do so.". Hopefully if required to do so by law we will be holding as little information as possible. Yes I am fully aware this policy was broken and I apologise for that. Steps have been taken to resolve the immediate problem of admin access and make determining information on wallets more difficult in future by hashing addresses. The same hashing will be done with ip addresses. I don't understand what you mean. Would you have been OK with answering "yes" had Roger asked you "Does this particular Bitcoin address reside in a wallet belonging to this specific email address?" (asking you instead of doing it yourself) Or is having to answer "yes/no/anything at all" the part you don't like? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
