I'm not sure which country you hail from, but I know that here in the US you cannot use alternate currencies (which is why a lot of BitCoin users are worried about the legal ramifications of our beloved currency).  See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/486.html.  Actually this law is only for metal coins, but I'm betting they would find a way to make it apply to paper currency as well.  An experiment by some people who created the Liberty Dollar just ended when the FBI and Secret Service arrested them.  http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20110319/NEWS01/110319006/Liberty-Dollar-creator-convicted-federal-court  The charges were "terrorism", if you can believe that:

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins said. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.”

Sadness. 


I don't want to pay taxes or have to use FRNs, but I see what you are saying.  I understand why they would demand that taxes be paid in FRNs and not chickens or carrots (though carrots are better than bitcoins, as we all know  ), I just don't want to have to pay taxes at all.  Perhaps I'm being overly idealistic, but that's another story. 

I also agree that the property owner gets to dictate the use of their property, I'm just not sure that it's been proven that FRNs are their legitimate property.  As I mentioned earlier, the US government doesn't even print the money, a collection of private banks does.  Which is a pretty odd situation in itself.


I completely agree.  Also, I love that you are using chickens and carrots as an example of currency.    If you don't know the inside joke about bitcoins and carrots let me know.  I think it's hilarious. 


Very well said, and you are right.  In fact, I think all rights are property rights.  For example, your right to life is your right to own your body and not have other people trespass on it. 

This is why I dislike taxes and governments, as I feel they infringe on my legitimate property rights.  Unfortunately, not everyone agrees what are and are not ones "legitimate" property rights.  Hence thousands and thousands of years of human suffering and misery. 

I've heard a lot of great ideas about how to change the rating system, the only problem is I'm not sure how much functionality is built into that system on this board and I don't know how hard it would be to change it.  Anyway, I agree that it would be better if you could only give positive ratings, or if negative ratings only subtracted from your positive ones.  But like Vladmir says, you shouldn't pay too much attention to the minuses unless there is a great number of them.  I guess that's the benefit of having them, is that bad users can be definitely identified by huge negative ratings, whereas if only pluses were allowed you wouldn't know if someone was just not very controversial or if no one liked them (if they had a 0 rating).  Anyway, I do seem to recall Theymos (one of the moderators) showing a print screen of the rating system and it had the capability of displaying the net rating instead of both plus and minus.  I'll go see if I can find that and will edit this post with the link if I can.

Edit:  Yep, here it is:  http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7265.40.  As you can see the two options are "Enable Karma Positive/Negative" and "Enable Karma Total".  I'm not sure if the "total" option only allows positive ratings, or if it allows positive and negative but only displays the total.  My guess is the latter.

Ha ha, fair enough.  I'm glad you approve of the responses, and even though you don't agree you are willing to give them a listen and to think about them.  That speaks volumes about you, as a lot of people shut out anything they don't agree with and will blindly stick to their positions even if they cannot defend them.  Anyway, have a great evening/early monring and thanks for the discussion!   

The hell?  Is that supposed to answer my question?   

I think that they have been going back and forth for a century, one wants to steer markets, the other wants them set free.  There's a boom and bust cycle, and good reason to fear it, it's the low interests rates, or the animal spirits.   

But seriously, I adhere to Austrian economics, because so far it is the school that makes the most sense to me and who correctly predicted the latest economic collapse.  They hold that government spending, while it may create some jobs, is more harmful than good because it is taking money from the private sector (taxes, inflation) and then attempting to redistribute it.  The problem is that government is less efficient than the private sector so it is probably doing less to help the economy with the money than what would have happened if it were left in the private sector.  Of course it's impossible to know for sure exactly what would have happened and what would be different, but a combination of economic deductive logic and past historical examples seem to point to government intervention in the economy causing more harm than good. What do you think?

Hilarious exchange.    

What is a virtual hair cut?

Also, 9,999 posts is a lot of posts, so your bitcoins are probably safe and will stay in your wallet.    Perhaps you should reduce it to 999?  You could reduce the reward too, if you wanted, but it's far more likely we'll make the 999 mark.  Anyway, your money, your call.  Just my suggestion.   

Completely agree.  BTW, the link several posts above didn't work.  Any other way to get to it?

Absolutely.  That's what I love about this board: I am constantly being introduced to new ideas and arguments, and my current ones are being challenged and refined. 

Here's a thought:  I personally wouldn't mind if the US government and the Federal Reserve printed dollars and said, "Everyone is welcome to use our currency for trade and commerce as long as they pay rent on it at the end of every year.  However, if you do not want to use it you are welcome to create your own or use another one of your choice."  That would be valid, in my opinion, but instead they say that we have to use their currency, and then we have to pay taxes.    

It doesn't look like you are using the sarcastic font, but I can't actually tell.    If you are, perhaps you can explain why you think our responses are no good?

Also, I would like to hear your definition of theft.  There's no point in making arguments if we aren't talking about the same thing.  I would define theft as:  The taking of someone else's property through force, deception or fraud.  I'm sure there are better definitions out there, but I think that one covers the basics.  Do you agree with that definition?

I would agree with you.  But what would you say about the hypothetical example wherein one person controls all the world's water supply?  Do they have a right to deny it from us?  I tend to think that arguments should be scaleable, but perhaps this one isn't and the example isn't worth examining because it's never going to happen in reality.

What about the kids, man?    We don't regulate sexual activities between consenting adults, but what if a man cheats on his wife with a ho, gets AIDS and then gives it to his wife?  Then the negative externalities are that the kids will not have parents.  What about politicians who have mistresses on the side that they pay with government money and who distract them from their jobs?  Ha ha, these are contrived examples to be sure, but you can think of all kinds of ways that not regulating sexual activities can cause negative externalities.  But they certainly aren't good reasons to do so.

In case you want a sneak-preview:



Bad reps only matter if people think they matter.  For example you have a net rep of 0, but I've dialogued with you enough on this forum to think that you deserve higher so it isn't going to affect what I think of you.  Newer members or members who haven't dialogued with you may be more hesitant to trade with you. 

Question:  If I chose not to participate in the voting process or in the government system at all and refused to pay taxes, what would happen?

Also, I'm curious, how would you define theft?

This is true if you mean that all property is theft.  But I think from what I've read in some previous posts on this forum, Proudhon said that as a shock tactic and meant it to apply only to "excess" property.  I'm not convinced that you can have "excess" property, but I'm willing to read up on that position.  

I've heard the argument that you need to take ideas out to their logical extremes in order to see if they're valid.  So with the idea that you cannot own more property than you can use one would need to take an extreme example.  The one that was presented to me was if one individual or company managed to control the world's entire water supplies (in a free market).  Now, I realize that the likelihood of a single entity controlling the entire water supply of the world is virtually nil, especially in a free market.  But if they could, would we recognize their claim?  Would we agree that they can own all the water and therefore deny it to us if they chose, or would we say we have some sort of right to that water?

I'm curious to know what you think about this as you seem to have a really good grasp on economics and libertarian philosophy.  

Also, technically, the US government does not own the Federal Reserve Notes, the Federal Reserve does.  So taxes cannot even be considered "rent" on FRNs because they are not owned by the US government.  But I think you have to look at how those bills get into circulation.  The Federal Reserve doesn't print the money and then distribute it equally among everyone, but rather gives it to the various banks underneath it who then use it to pay their bills and lend out to people.  The rent you pay on using the banks money when you take a loan is interest, but when you get the FRNs from people as payment for goods and services, they become your property.  The other thing that happens when the Fed prints money is that it lends it to the US government (who has to pay it back later at interest) which then uses the FRNs to pay its bills. 

Are FRNs still considered IOUs?  They aren't backed by anything, but rather you can only trade them at a bank for money of the same.  If you look on the bills they say:  "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."  I mean, I realize the whole US monetary system is debt-based on promises to pay that never get paid but traded around, but at some point people just accept the IOUs as currency.

Alright!  Spread the word, get your friends and family to vote too!  We're going to make #1! 

Hmm, I see your point, but I believe that when you provide a good a service to someone and they give you money it LITERALLY is your money. Especially since it is mandated that we use this money and it is illegal to use other ones.  The alternative, to me, is unthinkable.  Because if the government owns all the money, then does not that mean they own all the fruits of our labor, and therefore us as well? 

Do explain?  I'd like to hear your reasoning.

Well, what do you mean by "natural laws"?  Isn't gravity considered to be a natural law (i.e. a law of nature)?  Also, if there are no moral facts why would it be wrong to steal someone's property?