I do not understand the law where this took place so I really cannot comment fully, but it went to court and in the documents there are mentions of informal probation so I am not too sure of the full details. 

I did silly things as well, plenty of them, probably more than most to be honest. But stealing is something that I cannot condone. To me it is similar to men who hit women - I don't get that either.

I wouldn't trust either person in this Hypothetical scenario - I mean kids make mistakes, but if they were not bought up to know right from wrong then they are a bad apple..

but that's my opinion as a parent - I teach my children the power of hard work. Other parents aren't the same, some may tech kids it is ok to take shortcuts, so taking the easy route may be in their DNA. I am sure people like that would spend there life looking for shortcuts, and may be caught up in scams/shady dealings.

I guess TWOC could be parents making a naughty child learn a lesson, or an angry GF reacting and trying to cause a fuss.. but again it could be a dirty little fuckface who you wouldnt lend $5 in real life who goes out with a gun and steals a neighbours car whilst blasting rap music thinking they are an original gangster

It's something that would make me suspicious enough to need to find out the full story.

It depends on where the offender is from. In most countries the possession of a self-fabricated weapon is illegal. So if a 12 year old makes a potato cannon and he gets caught using it in an abandoned field he can get arrested for it. As I stated in my post, it all depends on context.

that's the one that got me.. Its called Twocing in the UK, all the little scumbags do it - I do class it as a scumbag action.

then we come to scumbag=trustworthy??

I don't see the issue with "Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon", depending on the context. When I was young I made quite a few slingshots and potato cannons and I am pretty sure pretty much everyone has fabricated some sort of weapon when they were young  .

probably best if I don't go into specifics here fella. I was just genuinely interested in other peoples views on arrests and peoples trust.

one more hypothetical question.. would you trust someone who had been arrested for taking a car with hundreds of thousands of dollars?

what about if they already were in a position of trust and currently had the funds, then it came to light that they hadn't disclosed previous arrests?

Taken on face value, would you trust someone with funds if they had been arrested in the past for taking a car without the owners consent? I don't think I would, especially if they tried to hide that fact.

Personally I think that people make mistakes, I have made plenty over my lifetime, but I am happy to admit if I have made an error or done something wrong. People who do not have the guts to admit to mistakes and try to hide them are scummy to me 

Arrested but not convicted? That's not much to go on. I certainly wouldn't distrust someone over it. If the case wasn't prosecuted, we have to assume the charges were bogus.


Irrelevant. Cops are miserable pieces of shit. I've seen good people railroaded before -- doesn't take much. Try being on the wrong side of someone who is close to a police. Prosecutors tend to be more reasonable; they don't prosecute cases they can't prove. This is why juries exist. Pointing to an arrest record is just an appeal to authority. We don't know what really happened.

Regardless of fiat currencies being inflationary, there is still a certain amount of scarcity to it. Even with quantitative easing and fractional banking there is a limit on how much money can be conjured out of thin air. In cases of actual hyperinflation money, has always been completely devalued, with people resorting to foreign currencies or other forms of trade where possible.

Nonetheless I concur that axiom 3 hinges on the definition of scarcity. However I'd still argue that most monies we see today are scarce enough, while currencies affected by hyperinflation are empirically not scarce enough to be useful. It follows that hyperinflation as suggested by monsterer2 does not satisfy any viable definiton of the term scarce as required by axiom 3.

Point being, unless hyperinflationary money is shown to be potentially viable, any discussion about some sort of game theory based consensus is moot. In a free market there is a Nash equilibrium regarding hyperinflationary money -- using other forms of money instead.

Furthermore, this isn't about stealing, this is about counterfeiting.  If "Bob" has 1 coin, and he can reproduce that 1 coin and spend his reproductions, then he has created counterfeit coins.  The existing system of government currencies implements many features to make it difficult to counterfeit the currency.  It also implements significant penalties for counterfeiting. The question being asked by the OP is "What if we just allowed everyone to create as much counterfeit government currency as they want to? Could we build some kind of Nash equilibrium around this?"

And no, I can't prove my case either.

Double-clicking the button perhaps?

Well, see if my reasoning is correct, the moment I give merit to any user, will that amount sent be deducted from my amount of merits received?

I would say the idea is counter-intuitive. Giving users merits for posting consistently will just make merit the same as activity, thus making it useless. The idea of merit is to reward and force users to make quality posts. A simpler way to say it: activity reward users on their post amount over time (hence the name) and merit on their post quality.

i think it depends. i am not clear what the "offer" was here.
what do you mean "with starting capital"?

I've seen that bug before, but I doubt that happens at the same second. User "bitart" isn't in my list of people who sent Merit twice in one second.