There is an epistemological clusterfuck with the fragment "intangible rights being property".  It's unparsable for many reasons, so I'll attempt my best to try and parse this broken English.

If you meant that "intangibles can be property", then "Nobody else has any other problem" is false.  I know of at least four different people who "have a problem with" (that is to say, they have come up with refutations of) the belief that intangibles can be property:

1. Hans Hermann Hoppe
2. Stephan Kinsella
3. Wendy McElroy
4. Stefan Molyneux

Your move.

Uncle Tom hates it when people talk about being free, because it reminds him of how unfree he is.

Some people can't hear the truth, and can't stand people who speak it, because it's just too painful to bear.

I'll leave the intro to Stockholm Syndrome here:


Tell me if this doesn't describe the behavior of the angry, petty and abusive people you've been addressing lately.

Oh, good point, Roman Law countries have this "no law, no crime" fundamental principle, where existing statutes aren't to be interpreted by judges and then be registered as case law.

Just one more way in which law is just a collection of arbitrary opinions like any other Scripture :-)

Yeah straw man and sarcasm, throw in a bone and you got a stew going baby. (But not a rational argument)

Exactamundo. It is like sitting on a Byzantine council surrounded by goats baleetin', deciding what part of what doctrine is valid without consulting priests.

This is the standard "SHUT UP ABOUT THE QUESTION" of the religious believer.  As such, I will ignore it.


Oh, believe me, I would in an instant... if it wasn't for the fact that the entire planet is infested with brainwashed idiots who, like you, are willing to ruin, cage, brutalize or murder anyone who disbelieves ("doesn't acknowledge" in your religious parlance) the Scripture you worship and analyze in your Bible Study threads...

...which, frankly, are an eyesore that lead nowhere.  If you wanted an answer to your stupid question, instead of trying to read the tea leaves of your Scripture, you should go and talk to one of your priests (I believe they are called "judges" or "lawyers" in your dogma), asking them for the Revealed Truth.


Religious-fueled anger all over again.  Not surprised.

That said, you're now on my ignore list for your gratuituous emotionally violent verbal abuse tirade.  Emotionally unstable individuals like you, who explode when someone questions their dogma, don't deserve the privilege of addressing decent humans.

"Illicit" means one thing, and one thing only: when the peasant does an activity that the master wants to do exclusively, then the peasant is acting illicitly.

For example: when you take money obtained by force or fraud and spend it on other stuff to make the original money disappear, it's called "money laundering"; when people doing business as "government" do the exact same thing, it's called "fiscal expense".

That is not what your interlocutor said.  In principle, any contract specifying an agreed-upon mutual performance on both sides with consideration, regardless of the consideration, is enforceable by a court.  However, Legal Land being Legal Land, actually trying to get a judgment is going to be a shit pie, Bitcoin or not.

This thread is, to my mind, the perfect example of the problems created by dogmatic belief in magical papers.  The bickering going on here about whether stealing Bitcoins is "illegal" or not according to this or that paper ("law"), is no different from the bickering going on in religious forums about whether homosexuality is a "sin" according to this or that Scriptural passage.

The real underlying questions being asked here are:

- Is taking someone's Bitcoins without his consent or under false pretesens wrong?  (Yes)
- If this were to happen to me, how would I go about recovering them?  (Spoiler alert: the men in blue costumes don't give a shit)

Discussing whether the contents of a piece of paper actually mean "stealing Bitcoins is illegal" is a waste of time that does nothing to answer the real underlying questions.

Snap out of the fantasy already, people.

Is this a threat?

Haha!

Yah.  They get murdered, caged, beaten up, or otherwise made irrelevant.

Change does not come from below or from above.  Change comes from within.

E.g., to end slavery, what it took wasn't a legal change -- no, that happened later, when change was already inevitable.  What ended slavery was the death of the collectively held belief that slaves are chattel and ethical norms are somehow magically different for two different classes of people.

BOOM!  Flawless victory.  Excellent response.

The statists in this thread have literally cranked their statism up to eleven.

Believing that a society can only be organized by a tiny omniscient and omnibenevolent cabal with the exclusive right to give everyone else orders and violently punish resistors, is religious-style brain damage. And it is clearly the product of forms of child abuse where the authoritiy who abused the child used threats and violence to make the child obey.

If you wanna teach an adult that obedience is morally good and disobedience is morally bad, just beat him up or otherwise abuse him when he is a child and disobeys. Do it often enough so that the child internalizes this abuse as righteous. When the child becomes an adult, he will be the perfect sheep, ready to even murder on his designated authority's behalf.

This comment will hit close to home for many of the statists in this thread, no doubt they were abused this way. They will claim "but I turned out okay"... but their behavior and belief structure tells us otherwise.

This thread confirms voluntaryist conclusions about mankind, even in the absence of rules: a minority are sociopathic dicks, a minority of people are altruism absolutists, and everyone else has self interest but also has the drive to help others.

The important thing is that people are not the dicks that the "we need to force people to behave well, else it would be mad max" socialist crowd insists we all are.

That's strictly true whether people believe in statism or not.

Statism contains, in fact, the very belief you bring to bear here, that magical pieces of paper protect you and others from such things happening.  You'll note how this is no different from the faith of Abrahamic religions in their pieces of paper.


I'm not sure what policy you think I'm arguing for... namely because I haven't actually set forth any policy to deal with toddlers peeing on people's property, so I'm not sure what you're criticizing here.

caligula continues to caligulate on this thread?

That statement makes sense to you, probably because you define "good" differently from everyone else in this convo.

Jesús failed hardcore.  He forgot to clean up the banks.  ;-)

The whole "in secret" thing, I can vouch for it.  In my country of origin, there existed (some still exist) quite a few characters who had connections with the money printers (this was before they dollarized the economy).  They got rich as FUCK.  As it is to be expected from a group of official counterfeiters and their scumbag friends.

Their M.O. was, essentially, like this: the counterfeiters would tell their friends "we're about to devalue the currency by counterfeiting more money and changing the peg to the dollar", which prompted their friends to buy large amounts of dollars at the then-official price, after which they would print a shitton of bonds (which they of course eventually defaulted upon).  Which would cause the currency to be worth even less nothing (try to imagine that grammar horror in terms of currency) than it was before.  Then they would repurchase all the money they had sold, and then some, using the bought dollars.  Kickbacks, of course, were the norm.

Insider forex trading for the lose.  Many people lost their homes, cars, businesses, some even their lives, to poverty.  But that was all "okay" because these scumbags made hundreds of millions, hand over fist, until a new president (who was ejected from power in a coup) dollarized the economy.  Now they're trying to bring back galloping devaluation (a national currency they will devalue at will, of course) using bullshit "sovereignity" arguments.

Expect the same to happen with the Fed (except this time the insiders are literally inside the Fed).  I've seen it happen, The Bernank is doing the exact same moves, there is no way in hell this isn't going to happen in the U.S., because it's -- quite simply put, and incontestably so, according to the history of every single statist currency that went bust -- the natural, and malevolent, destiny of paper currencies.  What mathematically cannot continue, will not continue.

Thank FSM we have Bitcoin to hedge against that inevitable upcoming disaster.

Oh Godvernment now the thread has a person who considers children to be chattel.

Well, at least he homeschools.