14 hours and there has been zero response regarding purchase (aside from the Confirmations my BTC were sent)
I realize it's been a very short period of time, but any sort of acknowledgment would be nice.
It's probably better to keep communication to a minimum. |
|
|
|
|
It's too bad that Silk Road doesn't have an auction mechanism. I'd like that, if I hypothetically had any interest in Silk Road to begin with.
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that your problem isn't with the systems used (renting, employment, etc) but with the coercion used by some people using those systems.
As long as there isn't any coercion, then both people are better off by the deal, regardless of the exact nature of the deal, whether it's a co-op, or an employee/employer relationship, or something else entirely.
If an employer isn't exploiting you, he's your partner. If a renter isn't exploiting you, he's your seller. If your lender isn't exploiting you, he isn't charging you to borrow from him. |
|
|
|
not sure how to keep anon (if your gonna use a dr.), but just came across this article and thought bone marrow might be a good category and other things depending on how far you want to go. something like Ripple could be helpful too. the potential for things to be involuntary concerns me though. http://www.latimes.com/health/fl-nbcol-bone-marrow-brochu-0304-20110304,0,397693.columnalso i was thinking of a movie i saw a long time ago, a scene involves a bunch of asian guys, and a lottery. When the guy's name is pulled he wins something he had requested, but has to give up something random. I think one of the characters has to give up an eye, but his daughter gets a kidney. or something like that. any one know the name of the movie? Reminds me of Repo! The Genetic Opera. If you never worked to obtain your organs, why should you get anything in exchange for them? If your spare organ will save someone's life, should that person become your slave after he gets your organ? |
|
|
|
I don't understand what exploitation is. To me, the question is "am I in a better situation now than I was before" is way more important than anything else. I am concerned with maximizing prosperity for everyone, not what's fair and what's non-exploitative, who profit more, how equal is our society, etc. Well, slave owners make tons of profit. You would tolerate slavery in your society? If Adam wants a person to live in his basement, that has some value which would make the rent cheaper for Bob. But Adam doesn't want someone living in his basement - he does however want money. They will come to an agreement at the point where Adam gets enough money to part with his basement, which he doesn't want to do. Again, if he does, rent very well may come close to minimum required. Bob should compensate Adam for supplies and labor, no doubt. However, Adam does not do any labor or contribute any supplies in simply letting Bob occupy the basement. Why should Adam get something for nothing? Carp: Thanks for your thoughtful responses. For the record, I have nothing against landlords, employers, and lenders as people. All the ones that I've met seem very nice. You seem nice, too. For the most part, exploiters operate under the coercion of their own exploiters. Exploiting others may make them comfortable, but it will not make them free, kind of like kapos. Even though many kapos weren't very nice prior to their promotion, they got ahead by exploiting others on the order of their own exploiters. You mentioned some of the problems that crop up in cooperative situations. These problems happen in exploitative ones, too. In the case of an apartment building, residents, whether they own their dwellings or not, can disrupt each other. In an exploitative situation, a the plaintiff resident will appeal to the landlord who may or may not use his authority to fix or at least eliminate its symptoms. The landlord's solution may not satisfy the residents, but that's irrelevant. All bets are off if the resident has a dispute with the landlord. In a cooperative situation, residents will have to work things out amongst themselves. Of course they can try to do the same in an exploitative situation, but the landlord can rule out whatever solution they come up with. Ten thousand Internets to whomever can guess what solution I came with for my neighbor's disruptions. As Bitcoin pioneers, many of us may have a choice between engaging in exploitative relationships or cooperative ones. I encourage everyone to choose the cooperative path and not seek undeserved positions of power over one another. |
|
|
|
|
Just received my cell phone jammer. It works very well. Shipping took about six weeks, which I can understand because it came all the way from Hong Kong. I had a similar experience buying a Holga from another dealer in China.
|
|
|
|
So you're saying Bob is exploiting Adam by making use of his basement and offering little to nothing in return? Adam inviting Bob to use his basement, at cost, is a completely fair exchange. |
|
|
|
What is exploitation, again?  When one party takes advantage of another party with no consideration except for the first party's own gain. A party will often employ trickery, deception, and coercion in exploiting another. |
|
|
|
McGruder, I think what you don't understand about the employer-employee relationship is that the employer bears the majority of the risk. The employer stands to lose his investment at any time, the employee merely loses his job. At any point the employee could take that risk upon himself and strike out on his own. An employer only risks not making a profit. An employee always loses on his labor investment. Furthermore, an employer can always pass the risk down to the employees in the form of higher expectations, furloughs, reduced pay, and layoffs. Now, I agree that in our current situation, this proposition is less desirable for most, but I contend that it is due to the state's interference in labor markets, not something inherent in a non-socialist society. I contend that capitalists naturally create states to reduce risks and secure profits. A little bit of welfare helps to pacify the working class. All that said, I don't call myself a capitalist, or an anarchist, but a voluntaryist. I found this to be a good read on the topic of the state's use of force distorting labor markets: http://c4ss.org/content/4043My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:
Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”. As the price of capital is diluted, the share of production that goes to the workers increases. What we would eventually see is essentially, a permanent global labor shortage. Companies would compete for workers, rather than the other way around. There’s nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than they’d prefer. Nor is there anything the anarcho-socialists could do to prevent a community from organizing property in a more rigid or individualistic manner than they’d prefer. That was a good read. Um... actually, poverty is a choice. Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation. Poverty and wealth are comparison concept. It does nothing to tell us if the poor is happy with their life or not. What is certain though that the average poor person in the US today is far richer than the kings of the past. As for me, I do not associate rich, poor, or inequality with ethics. Hence, wage-slavery don't exists to me. There's nothing to fret over. So this whole capitalist exploiting people are total blank to me. So what? One can still be happy while under someone's subjugation. That doesn't make subjugation a good thing. Adam is losing the use of his basement for the month. He could otherwise have stored his things down there, or had a sleepover party down there, or fermented wine down there, or set up a Bitcoin mining cluster. The fact that he can't do these things for a month represents a cost to him that he recuperates in his rent. It's unfair that Bob should pay Adam for work that Adam isn't doing. Adam can enjoy the benefits of doing those things if and when he does them. Slaves fleeing plantations were subject to manhunts with dogs coming to forcibly return them, often accompanied by whippings and torture. A person in poverty is subject to no such manhunts. In our society, those who refuse exploiters are subject to poverty. The poverty one experiences may or may not include such treatment, but that's irrelevant. As Siddhartha demonstrated, poverty isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, it always is if someone forces it upon you. I will qualify the previous poster's statement "poverty is a choice" - I believe it is a choice IF:
1) the person is in an area with adequate economic opportunity
2) the person is of sound mental health
3) the person is not phyiscally handicapped
Additionally, the person may not be able to get out of poverty due to previous bad choice they have made, but that's a distinction between 'a choice a person can make right now' and 'a choice a person has already made that they can't un-choose.' 4) Others do not extort a profit from you for the resources you need to live. Without that fourth qualification, others can force you into poverty against your will. So, McGruder, What's your opinion on Hotels? Here's one acceptable model: The workers own the hotel. They accept guests and only charge for the cost of house keeping, supplies, any damage they might cause, and any other services they require. The workers share these earnings according to how much they contribute. They are free to spend these funds as they please, be it on the hotel or themselves. If they buy something for the hotel, any new income associated with that investment goes to pay back the workers who contribute toward it before getting shared as normal. |
|
|
|
There is at least one case when this argument is valid - when you're talking about state capitalism (rather than free market capitalism). In state capitalism, the capitalists pay the politicians for favors, which they redeem to tilt the labor market more in their favor. Minimum wage laws, licensing regulations, tax except employer health care... all of these things sound good, but put up barriers to entry to the market. This means that the "exploited" employee must remain exploited, because it costs too much to start a competing business. Capitalists inevitably support the state because it helps to increase and secure their profits. Up and coming capitalists, who want to topple the state, just want to have an easier time competing with the legacy capitalists who currently enjoy state support. The up and coming capitalists will eventually create a state, in one way or another, as newer capitalists and the indignant masses come to threaten their profits. State capitalism is actually communism, wherein the state controls the capital and acts as everyone’s employer. No. He could trade his produce for an actual house from Adam, not for a month's stay in one of Adam's houses.
But if he doesn't want an actual house, if he only wants a month's stay, then what? You're going to end up having a landlord/renter situation no matter what, unless Bob gives away his basement. Whether he gives it away or not, it's Bob's choice and I cannot assign morality to his decision to rent unless I know more facts about the situation. Is Bob putting himself and his possessions in peril by housing Adam? Then I couldn't blame him for charging a fee. If he suffers damage and Adam flees without helping repair the damage, then at least Bob has his fee. But will Adam die for want of shelter, and has Adam come to a want of shelter through no fault of his own, and will housing Adam do no harm to Bob? Then I would say it would be right for Bob to offer his basement on more lenient terms, perhaps for free. It would be wrong of Bob to leave Adam to die. But you argue that the landlord arrangement itself is exploitative. You argue about straw men and abstractions that have little to do with reality. In a certain situation, yes, Bob's charging of Adam would be exploitative. If he raised his rent simply because he knew Adam needed it badly, and especially if his hike in rent locks Adam into his impoverished state, then yes, that is certainly exploitative. It is wrong in the same way that stealing from a baby is wrong. It is the gratuitous taking of what I do not need from someone who cannot afford to lose what I am taking and who is powerless to stop me. That is exploitation. If Adam, however, is simply a wanderer by choice and wishes to lodge in Bob's basement for a time, and if Bob chooses to charge him for that, and if Adam accepts, then I see no wrong. From a certain perspective this is akin to charging Adam for shelter without which he would die: in both cases I am putting a barrier in the way of what he wants. And I think this is what you mean by exploitation, Father McGruder: putting a barrier between a person and what they want. Perhaps you would add the qualifier "needless" to the word "barrier," but I would have to stop you there. Because who is to say that Bob's need to accumulate capital by renting out his basement is any lesser than Adam's need to accumulate experience and contacts by wandering from town to town? Your arguments work in the clean-room of idealism, but they cannot stand when they meet reality. Yes, it would be nice if everyone worked according to their ability and received according to their need. Unfortunately we live in a world of scarcity. Once that scarcity is gone, or far enough removed so as to be unknown to anyone first-hand, then we may begin talking about the even distribution of wealth. Even now we might be at the cusp of being able to talk about the even distribution of life's necessities. But really, I would rather human labor be removed from the equation before we start spreading the fruits of that labor. Once we automate farming and have food coming from fields where no human need ever have set foot, once by the simple motion of the sun and machinery we find food on our tables, then let the distribution be equal. You confused Adam and Bob somewhere in there. It was Adam who had the house with a basement, and Bob who needed shelter, wasn’t it? Also, you quoted me a little bit out of context. If Bob only need shelter for one month, then Adam can shelter Bob for one month, assuming that Adam has the ability and desire. The problem arises when Adam attempts to exploit Bob’s need for shelter by charging more than the costs associated with Bob’s stay. Adam has done no extra work to deserve the extra fee. For Adam to force anyone to overcompensate him is rotten. I understand the scarcity of housing. It rightfully enables a builder to sell a house for a given price, but to collect without transferring ownership is abuse. That’s the reality. Your landlord is screwing you. Your employer is screwing you. Your lender is screwing you. Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?
There's two choice, really: work or die.
At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.
Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships. No no, he said work or die, not be employed or die. Though I guess he did imply the latter, didn't he? But really, usually there's nothing to stop a person from becoming their own employer or from banding together with other workers to make a living. Sure, it'll take a lot of work, and sure, you might have to work at something you don't really care about, but at least nobody's employing you, right? Yes, we must work for food, shelter, and fun, but why should my work provide those things to employers, lenders, and renters? Perhaps the exploitation we experience forces some of us to become exploiters, too, but we ought to band together and cease to tolerate it. Um... actually, poverty is a choice. Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation. And it's not the only one. We can always become our own employers. If you desire emancipation from a regular paycheck, then learn a skill people will pay you for directly, or make something you can sell. With what means? Capitalism compels us to either appeal to a lender or exploit someone else. Software is the best thing to sell, since you only have to make it once and can then sell it many times. (Bill Gates was smart about that one.) Don’t get me started on intellectual property. And hiring people? How's that exploitative? Because you are living off their labor, instead of yours. Because despite the fact that they contribute most of the labor to the business, you retain all of the ownership. If you pay fair wages, or if you give what you can give at the very least, then I can't find fault. The cooperation of a group to bring in greater wealth is still cooperation, even if the leader is somewhat autocratic. The only fair “wage” is the ownership of that which you produce. Anyway, sorry about the dissertation! I get carried away sometimes, once I start typing. It’s cool. At the end of the day, no outside force is going to make the "more equal" behave one way or another. But if they want to face their own consciences there's really no avoiding that they have to be the ones working to keep exchanges mutually beneficial. +1 Incidentally, if one wants to live without employing, lending, renting, or otherwise exploiting others, he will have to work. |
|
|
|
What you're actually worth is based on supply and demand, what you can negotiate, and no more. Supply and demand determines what one can trade for with that which he produces. If one gets traded on the market, he is livestock. Workers deserve better than the likes of livestock. If you negotiate for anything less than the value of that which you produce and the decision making power over it, you have been coerced into such an arrangement, are ignorant or delusional, or deliberately giving your labor and self-determination away for far less than you deserve. And FatherMcGruder - If you can't see the flaw in your argument, I can't show you. You think that a voluntary contract is exploitation. I think that's silly, because it's voluntary. We're spinning our wheels here. Why do you think that voluntary contracts always signify a lack of coercion or exploitation? I can easily think of examples where they do not. |
|
|
|
If there is a virus on your computer, and your bitcoins are stored on that computer, then there is nothing the bitcoin software can do to prevent that virus from eventually stealing your coins.
That said, allowing you to 'lock' your coins with a password, and requiring that you enter that password to send coins, is high on the list of things I'd like to see bitcoin do. That would make it harder for a virus to steal your coins.
But even then, a smart virus could lay in wait until you typed your password to unlock your wallet and take that opportunity to either capture your password or send the coins to a bad guy. If you can't trust your computer, don't store your life savings on it (and yes, bitcoin software also should make it easy to save some of your bitcoins on USB sticks or CD-R disks so they can be stored safely in your safe deposit box at your bank).
I'd like to add that nothing about Bitcoin precludes the features that Gavin mentioned. It's an open source project, and someone just has to program them. |
|
|
|
I want to sell my services doing X for a certain amount of money (or more!) Y. If I can get Y for X, then it is not a coercive deal as I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN, and, presumably the other party does as well. Even if you desire such a relationship, you don't have a choice other than poverty, and that's not really a choice. You can become an employer, if you're lucky enough to control the means to do so or, more likely, you submit to an exploitive loan. In that case, you will have become a pimp, a monger, an exploiter yourself. At least you can dull the misery of that role by coddling yourself with petty luxuries. FatherMcGruder, your arguments make no sense. Show me the flaw then. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin currently is like an unbreakable titanium chain linking two computers but attached each end with cotton thread.
And fiat currencies are like chains with similarly weak links at either end and a middleman who keeps adding more links? |
|
|
|
The coercion that a slave is subject to (whips, beatings, torture) is entirely different than the coercion that employer-employee financial exchanges supposedly entail (the need to work the sort of job you want in order to afford the standard of living you want). The difference is drastic enough to make the comparison ludicrous.
Today's workers obviously enjoy more comfort than slaves historically have, at least in the US. My point isn't to compare living conditions or the types of coercion that slaves and workers endure. Rather, that they both participate in coercive relationships and we should not tolerate either. |
|
|
|
Many have no problem with these 'exploitative relationships'. Likely because there is nothing wrong with them. Or, they simply aren't aware of the situation. They could even be convinced that they live under the best possible conditions. Slaveholders work hard to convince their slaves, and themselves, of such false realities. For example, they basked in the notion that slavery was their burden, that they toiled to save the poor Negros. Rebellious slaves were just ungrateful. Now we have wage slavery. As long as all relationships are voluntary however, why does it matter? Without force or threat thereof, there is no slavery. Via flight, revolt, or purchasing their freedom, couldn't slaves voluntarily chose to emancipate themselves? Slavery is a condition in which you have limited choices due to coercion, just like how the worker finds himself under capitalism. |
|
|
|
What is slavery? According to the Wiktionary, slavery is a condition of servitude that a slave endures. A slave is a person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition. Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?
There's two choice, really: work or die.
At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.
Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships. |
|
|
|
Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?
There's two choice, really: work or die.
At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.
Sounds like a justification for slavery. And if you don't like the other potential bosses, be your own! That's kind of the idea. The employee-employer relationship is exploitive and no good for employers and employees alike. Let's abandon it and form cooperative associations instead, where we, the workers, own the means of production and the products of our labor. How do you know Adam didn't put any labor into his basement? What if Adam built this home including the finished basement? May he then rent it out?
What if he paid someone else for building and finishing the basement, with money he earned through his labor? We can assume that Adam owns the house through his labor. Either he built it or bought it with the products of his labor. The landlord-renter relationship is still exploitive. "Money for nothing" as you describe this situation, would be infinitely better than nothing for nothing, where Bob doesn't get to rent out the basement and he is forced to be cold and homeless or to build his own shelter. No. Adam can also sell Bob a share of a house. Of course, Bob would then have the associated decision making power over that basement share. Perhaps Adam is great at building houses, but Bob is very bad at building houses. Instead, Bob is great at growing food, which he can exchange for shelter (indirectly, through money.) You'd take away his ability to have a nice home through your attempts at avoiding 'exploitation.' No. He could trade his produce for an actual house from Adam, not for a month's stay in one of Adam's houses. |
|
|
|
I simply cannot comprehend how letting somebody use your property at both parties consent could be considered exploitation in any way, despite all ignorance on either side. It's exploitation when you don't have a free choice. Sure, we can choose our exploiters, but what kind of choice is that? Your logic dictates that every individual is entitled to fix all ignorance they come about; however, that requires them to not be entitled to their own time.
In the end, it is not even realistic to enforce against such "exploitation". The idea isn't to enforce against exploitation, but become aware and stop tolerating it. So Adam should either give these things away for free or not sell them at all. No. If you own that which your labor produces, you can sell it. Adam doesn't have anything to charge Bob for except maintenance. Merely letting Bob live in his basement doesn't require labor from Adam. So, charging rent means getting money for nothing. With only these choices, the world is going to be significantly more miserable. Why? You and I would control the products of our labor instead of having to hand over that control to our choice of a selection of exploiters. In an attempt to keep Bob from being 'exploited,' Bob is going to end up cold and homeless. No. In a world free of exploitation, Bob could construct his own shelter or share one with others, like Adam, and contribute his labor to its upkeep. Sounds pretty okay to me. Property with terms and conditions isn't really property at all. I've only seen this ideal work in reality within hippy communes. What terms and conditions? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
