In all honesty, I'm impressed he didn't nuke the entire thread and lock it

Libertarianism is the bastardization of Anarchism. It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Elwar gets bonus godwin points.

what??? perhaps we are wrong about what does and does not justify acquisition, but your claim that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified is prima facie ridiculous. we are CONSTANTLY debating ad nausium amongst each other about what does and does not justify acquisition. If you actually believe that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified than you clearly have made very little effort to understand our position.

tip: Ownership can't be justified with a circular argument - as such not by any term used in describing capitalism.

But lets assume you are right and I haven't researched your position: Then I should be baffled by a fitting explanation of that position by you.
Yes just write it down in your own words and lets see where it leads us.

Ok so I would love to talk with you about this it is one of my favorite topics but before we move onto a new topic i need to make sure that the previous one is settled. Do you believe that i have made a convincing argument for how your previous statement with regards to whether libertarians believe that property ownership must be justified was incorrect? Not meaning anything rude by it, i often myself find that i have said things that are incorrect, i just want to be clear.

As previously said, I often read from the Libertarian standpoint that property supposed to be either a) natural or b) a "god-given" right or a mixture of both.
Analogies like "two people can't eat the same apple" are used.

When it comes down to it I have seen no proper justification for the authority to claim property at all. What I often see is muddling property with consumption (which is justified by need).
I have not seen any proper justification for the authority over ownership of land for instance, you might start with that if you don't know where to start. If you know better it's fine if you start somewhere else.

This is perfect. Unfortunately this sort of rhetorical trickery works on me far too often. This is more than anything where i need practice in my debating so thank you for providing me with a really good opportunity to practice what i need the most practice with.

In this comment you are moving the goalpost and pretending as if this new similarly worded but entirely different claim is exactly the same as the original claim. You are hoping that since the wording is so similar that i will not notice that the goal post has been moved. Often i do not notice and it is often my downfall (i have a bad memory), fortunately this time i have noticed  Grin.

Before you said:
Earlier you made the claim that libertarianism exempt property from the principal that authority must be justified.

In this comment you say:
this time you are saying that libertarians do not make proper justification for ownership. Notice that it does not matter whether the justification is proper. All that has to happen for your claim to be false is for them to attempt to make any sort of justification for the authority that flows from property ownership.

I even anticipated this and accounted for it in my previous comment here

So now i ask the same thing that i asked in my previous comment again.

sorry for being so... mechanical about this. I learned a lot from debating with crumbs and mostly what i learned is that you have to be mechanical like this or you will never get anywhere  Grin

But what can you do.

tip: Ownership can't be justified with a circular argument - as such not by any term used in describing capitalism.

But lets assume you are right and I haven't researched your position: Then I should be baffled by a fitting explanation of that position by you.
Yes just write it down in your own words and lets see where it leads us.

I don't quite buy the low volume argument (whatever it may indicate for future price movements).
http://data.bitcoinity.org/#caaaaddgaa
Yesterday there was quite a bit of volume, in particular on btcchina. Not as much as in the last few days during the crash, but more than last month's average.

Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts.  In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...

Libertarianism is the bastardization of Anarchism. It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Elwar gets bonus godwin points.

not trusting the exchanges with too much of their money at one time, they will take advantage of this time to continue to cash out.

I don't quite understand what you mean here by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary. If you point is that the minority would walk away somewhere if they disagree with the majority, I don't think this relocation will be by their free will and accord. Actually, they will be coerced to do so by the majority. It happens daily in life even without state and its laws. But exactly the introduction of state in the form of the law allows to break this otherwise circular argument...

This would completely centralize the whole system, defeating the point ^^