nope - Mac - and no, I didn't install that "Stealth Bit" malware
That's the only computer you've used to logon to Havelock? |
|
|
|
What is an economy?
Additional challenge : Can anyone explain in maximum 42 words??
An economy is a system that allows for the exchange of goods and services. An honest economy requires an honest monetary system at its foundation, which requires a separation of money and state. That's where Bitcoin comes in. |
|
|
|
|
Western Union needs to start letting their customers buy and sell bitcoins before the USPS does. They should already have all of the required licenses and know how to navigate all of the regulatory hurdles.
|
|
|
|
I laughed when I read "Special Agent Ponzi, United States Secret Service, determined that Michaelhack's fee was ...". Is that his real name? That's hilarious!
I assumed it was an alias to protect his true identity since he's involved in undercover sting operations. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't jump to conclusions from the sparse facts in these news stories. I'd like to see the actual complaints. The media often gets things completely wrong. One story, for instance, claims they're using the state equivalent of the statute used on Charlie Shrem, but doesn't actually say which statute (there are two charges in that complaint) or what part of it, or what they're actually alleging other than that people sold Bitcoin.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205808113/Def-Espinozahttp://www.scribd.com/doc/205808118/Def-Reid"MICHELHACK'S PHONE NUMBER WAS INCLUDED IN THE POSTING BUT REDACTED IN THIS AFFIDAVIT." But then they fail to redact his address and phone number from the first page of the affidavit. How nice. |
|
|
|
Hi guys,
Is there any info or support available for this unit? Mine worked for like 15 hours, but now i'm unable to ping the device. Also the unit seems to turn on (fan is spinning), but the lights on the back stopped working.
Any help would be greatly appreciated !
You're currently in the Securities section. I recommend you try posting here or here. |
|
|
|
Now, what I want to ask: Is it just me, or more and more people run away from stocks, bonds and all? Am I just an ignorant economic illiterate or what?
I think government bonds are a bad idea because you're most likely just loaning your money to a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats that are incapable of balancing or managing a budget. Corporate bonds are unlikely to outperform rising prices that result from money supply expansion, and are more geared for those that are risk averse. I also think the stock market is overvalued thanks to all of the quantitative easing that's been going on the past few years and my outlook for the US economy is rather bleak. In the past, people have felt the need to "invest" rather than "save" in order to stay ahead of the expanding money supply. With Bitcoin, now we can each choose to return to a sound monetary system and have the option of just saving without feeling the need to gamble/invest in the stock and bond markets. |
|
|
|
Check with that Casio out in alpine ( I can get the name if you want me too) I think they still cash them
As far as getting someone to cash it for you that will be an issue I have seen counterfeit postal money orders before
The name of the casino is Viejas, but I always redeem money orders at the post office. They can look it up in their system as soon as you give it to them and will know if it's valid or not. |
|
|
|
As a warning I think there's a dollar cap per money order so you might end up with 2 or 3 vs 1 money order
When I got one from campbx there couldn't cash it because it was 1st thing in the am but my bank didn't blink when I took it to them
I also think that Indian casino out toward alpine ( grew up in the area) will also cash them with a photo Id as well
Yeah, $1000 cap per money order, but they will sell multiple money orders at once. |
|
|
|
I'm selling 2 BTC at the Bitstamp exchange rate. Doesn't have to be one buyer, I'm willing to sell smaller amounts to multiple buyers. Escrow welcome, as long as you're paying the fees. If we use escrow, then I will send the BTC first. Otherwise, you will be required to send your payment first and I will send the BTC after your money order is received. For those located in Southern California, I'm also willing to accept cash in person at Pechanga Casino, where there is plenty of security.
Offer back on the table. Selling 2 BTC at Bitstamp's rate. |
|
|
|
The only concrete difference the article gives to distinguish rights from entitlements is that entitlements require forcible interference with the freedoms of others, whereas rights presumably do not. However, I would argue that all rights interfere with the freedoms of others by definition. Your right to liberty is nothing more and nothing less than the restriction of your neighbour's freedom to imprison you. All rights are necessarily identical to the restriction of the freedom of all other human beings to infringe them. What the article seems to mean is that entitlements are those rights which do not merely infringe freedoms, but which infringe those rights that the author considers most important. I believe that, as an adult, no one owes me anything (perhaps my parents did when I was a child but not anymore). In my opinion, rights are something we all have and entitlements are something that are taken from one and given to another. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin. I concur with the Libertarian Party's principle that says individuals "have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." Yes, but I imagine there are also atheists that believe being a human being comes with innate rights. Rights aren't dependant on another human being to provide them.
This seems to be the chief source of our disagreement - I do not believe that rights are innate. I would argue that slaves did not have an innate right to freedom, but that by blood, swear and tears those rights were valiantly won. Further, I believe the are more rights yet to win, including the right to a basic quality of life. Since you believe that the only rights that ought to be respected are those which are bestowed by a (judeochristian?) deity, can you point to the place in holy scripture where the rights are set out? Yeah, that's just something we disagree on. I'm no theologian or religious authority, so I'm not aware of a verse that specifically sets out all of our rights, but I think the Bible alludes to some of them when it says "...though shalt not murder...", "...steal...", "...covet...". It seems to be saying not to violate the rights of others. |
|
|
|
You're american I take it? A couple of points:
Yes, but obviously we agree that individual rights aren't exclusively reserved for Americans. You really believe there is a creator, and that's where your rights come from? That no matter how human society changes, whether anyone knows about the rights or not, whether anyone upholds them or not, a sin is committed every time one of them is infringed? What has your creator done recently to defend your rights? I also note that the right to amass as much property as you can and become fabulously wealthy is not included (or not important enough to be mentioned anyway), whereas the right to life is listed first.
Yes, but I imagine there are also athiests that believe being a human being comes with innate rights. Rights aren't dependant on another human being to provide them. Yes, it is wrong to infringe on the rights of others. Governments may or may not acknowledge or protect them, but they don't provide them. There is a difference between protecting and providing. I know you weren't necessarily arguing the opposite, but thanks for agreeing that government of some kind is needed to secure rights. I would argue that when the document refers to "the governed" and "the People" it is quite clearly referring to the majority, not the unanimity. It certainly cannot mean that every citizen has the right to "alter or to abolish" the government, because that would preclude the government having any power whatsoever, just or otherwise, and the document clearly opines that it should have power.
I would argue that it's the minority that needs their rights protected the most. For example, it was the tyranny of the majority in the southern states that denied the rights of slaves. The slaves had the the same rights as anyone else, despite the fact that the government at the time refused to acknowledge or protect their rights. It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to alter the government that allowed that. Even if it did declare a right to unlimited property or establish the ability of every citizen to remake the government as they see fit, the Declaration of Independence is just a letter, written by ordinary men. It does not bestow any rights on anyone, in any meaningful sense. When you quote it you are merely saying "this is what these guys thought, and I agree", which is fine but it doesn't hold any authority. In contrast, the Constitution of your country was written and unanimously ratified by the elected representatives of the first states to be united, and each subsequent state to join has also ratified it by majority. This mandate is what gives it authority, not some diktat by a creator. Surprisingly enough, that document contains the following: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
So tell me again about how taxes are infringing your rights. Correct, the Declaration of Independence does not bestow any rights on anyone. It's just a piece of paper that acknowledges that those rights exist. It's not the piece of paper itself, it's the principles that are being expressed on that piece of paper. The Constitution, in it's oiginal form, also allowed for slavery, but has since been altered to do away with "involuntary servitude". Taxation, though obviously not as heinous as slavery, has become the new, modern day version of "involuntary servitude". I don't mind paying reasonable taxes to a government that protects people's rights, but the majority is now using democracy and taxation as a means to entitlements. I also make a distinction between rights and entitlements.
This is just an exercise in semantics, if you have the right to unlimited property then that's what you're entitled to. If you're entitled to life, then you have the right to it. What is the difference, in your opinion, between a right and an entitlement? I believe there is a very distinct difference between the two. This article does a good job of explaining that difference: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/rights-versus-entitlements#axzz2rwtPKT2BThe first step in altering or abolishing the current system is to discuss it and bring it's failures to light.
Quite right, but people disagree on what constitutes failure. Your main grievance seems to be "they take bits of my property and use them in ways that don't directly benefit me!" whereas my chief critique of your government would probably be "they allow millions of their citizens to live in poverty while surrounded by fabulous wealth, and they are a bit too fond of bombing Pakistani weddings." I'm not complaining about the taxes I pay. My taxes are relatively small and I'm actually benefiting from the system as it is now. I'm just looking at the big picture and arguing that society would be better off if we didn't "rob Peter to pay Paul". |
|
|
|
In all seriousness though, who decides what rights each individual should have if not the majority? Who defends an individual's rights if not the majority? Without a government, your rights only last until some-one more powerful than you comes to take them away. Sure, from your point of view the government infringes some of your rights now, but don't pretend that there is some set of inalienable set of absolute human rights that God handed down to us, that the evil government is now infringing. It was you who decided you should have (e.g.) an absolute right to property in the first place. What rights are you going to appoint yourself next? Rights must be agreed upon and defended by the majority, or they are meaningless.
Aside from that fact, which is self-evident, I believe there are rights more important than the right to property. Stealing may be morally repugnant, but to wilfully allow people to starve or die of illness when it's within your power to prevent it is murder, which in my book is worse by orders of magnitude.
Straight from the USA's Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I think you'll find the answers to most of your questions in those few lines. I also make a distinction between rights and entitlements. You seem to believe in entitlements and I don't. The first step in altering or abolishing the current system is to discuss it and bring it's failures to light. |
|
|
|
In marketing terms those metric prefixes sound very small and evoke the suggestion of dealing with tiny little fractions. Though I'm not much of a salesman, but arriving home and telling your girlfriend or wife, or both, you bought 100 milliBitcoins for $80 would not impress her and make her think of you making a great investment. The story turns 180 degrees when you tell her that you bought 1000 rootBitcoins for $80, doesn't it? Additionally there is no need to name each increase by the factor ten/hundred/thousand; nobody writes 1 gigaDollar or 1 megaDollar or 1 kiloDollar or 1 deciDollar.
Yeah, I agree that those metric prefixes don't really "sound right" when talking about money. I was an electronics tech for twenty years, so I'm accustomed to the metric prefix terminology when discussing millivolts, kilowatts, picofarads, etc., but it just doesn't seem quite right when talking about money. I'm not sold on "rootBitcoins", but I'll go along with whatever term most in the community go with. I don't have an adamant opinion on it, just tossing some ideas around. As you know, bitcoins are very different than fiat currencies and there is less of a need for metric prefixes when discussing them because bankers just create more of them before they have a chance to appreciate in value ("deflation" they like to call it). If the dollar supply had been controlled over the last hundred years the same way the bitcoin supply will be controlled for the next hundred years, they would have been forced to redefine the currency units (similar to a 10-for-1 stock split) or something along those lines. |
|
|
|
I can't argue with that - and I agree with you.
But like I said before - perhaps its the "democratic" process itself that is at fault here.
I'm not talking about direct participatory democracy here - I'm talking, for example, about a situation whereby a billionaire Australian US citizen can have a massive amount of political clout in the UK via a media empire propagating self serving propoganda.
Of course things are changing - some of us don't today rely on information gatekeepers in order to form an informed opinion. Information, and the access to it, is being disseminated via the internet. Maybe democracy is more possible today than its ever been.
But for me personally, because of the electoral system in the UK ( I can't comment on the US electoral system) I am in the position whereby my views are not being reflected or represented by any of the mainstream parties.
And so I am increasingly coming around to the view that my only option is to not to use my vote at all - because in voting I am being complicit in my own disenfranchisement.
I haven't voted myself in over a decade. I think the democratic process becomes a problem when it trumps an individual's rights. I share Larken Rose's sentiments about that process that he very eloquently explains in this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A |
|
|
|
How can a democratically elected Government be said to be "stealing" exactly ? If they are stealing then surely they have a mandate to do so from the electorate ie. the majority. And so its not stealing is it ? Technically the will of the majority doesn't necesarily make it "right", I'll grant you. But then you have to ask - who exactly is the thief here ? How did entrepeneurship secure rights over the land - because as we all know, land is the source of all wealth ? How did entrepeneurship secure rights over labour ? I'll grant you that the democratic process is flawed (thats for another thread perhaps)- but still, it does beg the question doesn't it ?  If a democratically elected government decides to spy on their citizens' communications or drop bombs on innocent people from drones, does that make it acceptable? Some, including me, would argue no. I consider stealing to be taking something from someone by fraud, force, or threat of force. It's wrong for anyone to do that as far as I'm concerned--individuals, businesses, corporations, governments, etc... To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
Yes, very sexy! Now I need to go fap... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
