Hi! We just put online our Free Bitcoin faucet over at http://btcfree.net ! Come check it out and if you have any spare change please donate to the pool to help others get started with Bitcoins! Donate: 1GBLNvWtRs5TxNnoERsvL2tn6R5CMQqXoK Thanks http://btcfree.netDo you really only give out 0.00001000? Is that once a day? I will add it to the free bitcoins thread ( see my sig ) once I check it out. We pay out 0.001 per person. The transaction on the stats page was a test by mean. Payments are sent out every hour to reduce fees. Okay, thanks for the quick answer. Thanks for adding it to the thread
No problem. ( I'll wait until I see a payment before I add it though.  ) |
|
|
|
The lower the better. I usually run mine at 75, but that's just me.
Me too. |
|
|
|
Hi! We just put online our Free Bitcoin faucet over at http://btcfree.net ! Come check it out and if you have any spare change please donate to the pool to help others get started with Bitcoins! Donate: 1GBLNvWtRs5TxNnoERsvL2tn6R5CMQqXoK Thanks http://btcfree.netDo you really only give out 0.00001000? Is that once a day? I will add it to the free bitcoins thread ( see my sig ) once I check it out. |
|
|
|
Has anyone had any luck getting anything from this one? |
|
|
|
I tried this several times and it doesn't seem to be accepting the address I input. It gives no error message but just displays the input fields again. It is perhaps because the captcha you use is unreadable ( on my wide screen monitor anyway ). |
|
|
|
What I find extremely ironic is that you are insulting Ayn Rand, while at the same time saying you are for the EXACT SAME THING Atlas Shrugged and her ideas were about. She, and the characters in her book, were not for joining the government and destroying it from within, or even for fighting it. Her whole point in the book was to just stop supporting it and make it irrelevant. The characters didn't fight, and didn't impose their views on others, they simply casually avoided it and allowed it to rot from within.
I wouldn't say it is an irony but a superficial appearance... Let me qualify my words then by saying that I would, and do, support different things about the government, if it is in the best interest of society. I do support, like a majority of Canadians, things like medicare and the various 'social safety nets' we have here, and which we continue to vote for ( it is not something imposed on us, and things like medicare can be opted out of in many jurisdictions; it is a provincial area not federal ). I would not automatically let all rot in the way things are at present, but only those non-democratic, antiquated hierarchies etc., which keeps democracy from operating fairly. It is all part of the balancing act proudhon mentioned. And there is a great difference I feel between my views and hers in terms of self-interest. I don't feel "greed is good" * but that my well being is greatly linked to that of all of humanity... and it is not just an idea but, I feel, an authentic impulse that I find within me. I know nothing of her real inner reality and so only criticize her views as she expresses them in her words. ( *has her views been misrepresented in terms of quotes like that? Do you feel the example of pushing or letting fall over a cliff that was presented is unfair? ) But there are indeed parts of what she says that I do agree with, just as there is much overlap in the type of anarchism I like, and general libertarian views. I try not to think in terms of absolutes; "this way is all bad" or "this other philosophy is all good".... but more like, "I can somewhat agree with these parts but am turned off by these other areas." |
|
|
|
So Ayn Rand using Medicare and social security is not a case of hypocrisy because... ?
It is never hypocrisy to live in the real world, while trying to change it. I would agree with that if with discernment and reflection one can recognize ones errors and can bring themselves to revise their principles when it becomes clear they are at odds with how they actually come to live their lives. Somewhat like proudon's 'auditing ourselves along the way' or R.A. Wilson's 'not getting trapped in our own reality tunnels'... |
|
|
|
So Ayn Rand using Medicare and social security is not a case of hypocrisy because... ?
It is never hypocrisy to live in the real world, while trying to change it. I agree with that, and you can probably tell from my name I have sympathy for anarchists ideas, but I don't think the right action is (to paraphrase something written earlier) to push government over the cliff as soon as possible. Portnoy is right, I think, to point out that that would do a tremendous amount of harm to a enormous number of people. I think, as a society, we should march toward greater individual responsibility and liberty, but that has to be balanced along the way, and it will always be a messy balancing act. Maybe 1000 years on our collective level of intelligence and sense of right social behavior will be advanced enough to practically dispense with government as we know it - if anything, I think the technological advances of today our pointing us in that direction. Nevertheless, it would immoral to try to bring that future about prematurely for simple practical reasons. My current view is essentially that some type of anarchism is ultimately how we ought to live, but that the only way to ethically achieve that end is by education and by slowly and carefully auditing ourselves along the way. There's my two bitcents. That is very close to way I see things. The type of anarchism I tend to favor is not so much about trying to fight and bring down governments ( that is a type of hypocrisy itself since anarchism is supposed to be about not imposing ones views and ways on others ) but rather living ones life 'despite' governments. Things like Bitcoin help make the type of statist governments we have today more and more irrelevant. They don't need to be fought and conquered... they are rotting from within and will fall under their own weight. ( sure defend yourself if outright attacked, but one can usually avoid that as they [ these current systems of mass control ] become more ineffectual and impotent ) The better course, as I see it, to go along with what proudhon mentions, is to make the transition smoother by providing better alternatives. |
|
|
|
People in jail dont have access to hardware.
Ya right. And if that evil government decides to make it illegal to use this or that type of hardware or software I am sure it will be a great success just like the war on drugs.  |
|
|
|
There are many in the libertarian community that believe that pushing the government over the cliff sooner is the better strategy as opposed to the long slow crash.
And the innocent lives that will be harmed and lost don't count for anything. The end justifies the means. Thanks for confirming my views on them. Again, how often did Karl Marx purchase a product at a free market rate?
And don't for a second imagine that I am some kind of Marxist or Communist. I probably have as many problems with their philosophies and hypocrisies as I do with the objectivists and neocons and fundamentalists and other groups dissociated from reality and lost in their own ideologies. So do you want to get back on track and deal with the questions and points fergalish raised? |
|
|
|
my tl;dr summary is probably sufficient, along with the amazon description
what it has to do with bitcoin: the internet may not be as open as we would like soon enough, and bitcoin may find itself co-opted one day. i guess i see this book as a good base of knowledge for how these kinds of things have historically taken place, and what we might do to prevent it from happening to these new technologies.
Open and decentralized systems like bitcoin and namecoin have themselves arisen in response to the problem you mention. They don't need to be protected as much as they 'are' [ a part of ] the protection and solution. not if the network are centrally controlled and censored, and not if there is no hardware to run the necessary softare on. Are you seriously worried about someone, some evil government or whatever, taking control of all the networks and hardware on the planet? Keeping people from using whatever hardware they already have or could easily acquire; keeping them from writing/using whatever software they want; keeping people from using any network they want... mesh networks... phones... hell, you would have to even keep people from having face to face interactions. Bitcoin doesn't require an internet... I tell ya, this new technology you seem interesting in protecting 'is' the answer to the problem of centralization of power and control. |
|
|
|
my tl;dr summary is probably sufficient, along with the amazon description
what it has to do with bitcoin: the internet may not be as open as we would like soon enough, and bitcoin may find itself co-opted one day. i guess i see this book as a good base of knowledge for how these kinds of things have historically taken place, and what we might do to prevent it from happening to these new technologies.
Open and decentralized systems like bitcoin and namecoin have themselves arisen in response to the problem you mention. They don't need to be protected as much as they 'are' [ a part of ] the protection and solution. |
|
|
|
I hope not to see you bow out over this Portnoy, as I consider this primarily a discussion on logic and the nature of hypocrisy, rather than Rand's ideas.
Sorry, but either way it is no doubt getting off topic. |
|
|
|
I read through this thread and saw plenty talking about why charging higher prices is good, but little about why lower prices are bad. So, to answer that question:
Bitcoin services charging lower, more "fair" fees, would be VERY bad, because that would mean everyone who is using their service would be satisfied with what they are getting...
Vorhees did bring that up and it was replied to... I don't see anyone trying to deny you or anyone a fair return on your efforts. If you were paying attention you may have noticed that both fergalish
and I provided an example where one could get even greater profits while at the same time serving ones customers [ and the economy as a whole ] in the best possible way at
fair prices... [ etc... ]
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I will check it out when I get time. And it seems I spoke too soon in saying that mycryptcoin was working again. |
|
|
|
"I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security."
Which surely tells us something about her philosophy and not just her since such hypocrisy seems not uncommon among Randians.
How do you explain how so many who follow Any Rand also call themselves Christians? How does one reconcile Atlas Shrugged with the Sermon on the Mount for example?
And Karl Marx most likely bought a sandwich and earned money by producing a good or service. Was he a hypocrite? Or did he pay more for goods if the person's need was greater? So Ayn Rand using Medicare and social security is not a case of hypocrisy because... ? Because she believed she has paid into it, and thus it was her money, or the service she paid for. Which is technically true. It is still hypocrisy and this also shows how easy it is for Randians to justify anything they do, whether it fits with their stated principles or not. She could also say it is in her best interest to be a hypocrite. It is alright to have others pay for her to get medical care etc. while she rails on against having to pay anything to help others herself. Just like it is okay for Palin to attack such things as socialized medicine while admitting that she and her family used to travel across the border to get services at the expense of Canadian tax payers. The great thing about Rands philosophy, as well as Straussian neoconservatism, is that one doesn't have to follow oneself the religious and other dogmas that one demands of those one rules over. Lies and hypocrisy are justified when dealing with lower and weaker people if it enhances oneself. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
