Nukes aren't reasonable self-defense weapons.  Conventional bombs are not self-defense weapons.  Cannons are not self-defense weapons.  RPGs are not self-defense weapons. etc. etc. etc. etc.

We created governments and they implement things we want.  The US won the atom bomb race and American people loved winning WW2.  Don't kid yourself that the governments are separate from us the people.

The real difference is that you want us to abandon things that prevent people being killed and allow the likes of the Oklahoma bomber to have nukes.  When someone says millions will die, you say you don't care about consequences.  When someone asks where the right you want us to honour comes from your reply is "from inside my head."

Sorry that is not enough to justify allowing ourselves be killed. 

A nuke that is within range is like a load gun pointed at your face.

It may be that the person doing it has no bad intentions, it may even be that the safety catch is on but you cannot allow them to carry on as sooner or later there will be a bang.  So yes, if an individual owns a nuclear weapon and its under his control and you are in range, its a direct threat.

Same applies to a state.

If its your own state, you can campaign to get them into an arms reduction treaty. If its an ally, you can campaign to have your government lobby that state to enter an arms reduction treaty.  If its an enemy, you need your government to act on your behalf to remove the threat, ideally with an arms reduction treaty.

At the moment, parts of the world are dismantling their nukes and other parts are trying to get nukes.  We are still at the stage where a US/Russian war would result in human extinction.  Hopefully the reductions will continue.

So yes, wanting possession of a nuke means you have to be stopped.  Once you have possession, then the damage is done.  Either you kill your neighbours or you don't - its your call once you have a nuke as you cannot be stopped.

Thank ye kindly - my travel wardrobe consists of iUseCoins t-shirts

Hey all,

I've been watching the developments in NYC with great interest over the past few days, and have decided the time has come for me to join the occupation. I just purchased a train ticket and will be leaving at 8am EST tomorrow morning. As such, I was thinking that if anyone wants to send bitcoins to support the occupiers, I'll accept them and pass along the USD value of whatever's donated by the time I depart to the logistics committee members. As Robert Foster says on RapNews, "History is Happening"; any support will be greatly appreciated! 19MGtoaza6icCxfvbvo97SF83UgPmBurJo

Matt

P.S. It's actually getting MSM coverage today! http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/wall-street-protests-continue-with-at-least-5-arrested/?src=tp

P.P.S. I'll post the total on the board either before I leave or when I arrive and have internet...

You just shot yourself in the foot.  By your argument, since you can't prove that the abrogation of all IP laws would be helpful, then there are no grounds to propose any such an abrogation.

Nature, then, contains things that are economically scarce. My use of such a thing conflicts with (excludes) your use of it, and vice versa. The function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources, by allocating exclusive ownership of resources to specified individuals (owners). To perform this function, property rights must be both visible and just. Clearly, in order for individuals to avoid using property owned by others, property borders and property rights must be objective (intersubjectively ascertainable); they must be visible. For this reason, property rights must be objective and unambiguous. In other words, “good fences make good neighbors.”

Property rights must be demonstrably just, as well as visible, because they cannot serve their function of preventing conflict unless they are acceptable as fair by those affected by the rules. If property rights are allocated unfairly, or simply grabbed by force, this is like having no property rights at all; it is merely might versus right again, i.e., the pre-property rights situation. But as libertarians recognize, following Locke, it is only the first occupier or user of such property that can be its natural owner. Only the first-occupier homesteading rule provides an objective, ethical, and non-arbitrary allocation of ownership in scarce resources.

But surely it is clear, given the origin, justification, and function of property rights, that they are applicable only to scarce resources. Were we in a Garden of Eden where land and other goods were infinitely abundant, there would be no scarcity and, therefore, no need for property rules; property concepts would be meaningless. The idea of conflict, and the idea of rights, would not even arise. For example, your taking my lawnmower would not really deprive me of it if I could conjure up another in the blink of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circumstances would not be “theft.” Property rights are not applicable to things of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things.

Thus, property rights must have objective, discernible borders, and must be allocated in accordance with the first-occupier homesteading rule. Moreover, property rights can apply only to scarce resources. The problem with IP rights is that the ideal objects protected by IP rights are not scarce; and, further, that such property rights are not, and cannot be, allocated in accordance with the first-occupier homesteading rule, as will be seen below.

Comparing IP law to religious dogma seems a bit fallacious to me.  IP law serves a specific purpose and has very evident and measurable effects on what it aims to govern.  Religion does not.

For some reason it's not running on my system but I noticed on line 128 you prompt for a name for the wallet and pressing enter leads to it being deleted. Seems easy to screw up by mistyping enter.

Anyway, do we agree that deflation discourages real capital investment?

I'm pretty sure these guys ran away with our money. 

When namecoin merged mining starts you can mine two coins with the same shovel.

Mutual mistrust between buyer and seller needs to be supported. This is the toughest problem. Right now, sending Bitcoins is not tied to receiving something in return, and is irrevocable.

The double-spending check system has to be as least as fast as normal credit card processing. Waiting minutes for the block chain to update is unacceptable.

Some price stability is needed. Value shouldn't change more than 1% per week, worst case. 1% per month would be better.

A better way of launching the currency needs to be developed.

There's an approach to mutual mistrust that might work.  First, as with credit cards, there's a need for an "authorize" and a "capture" stage. In the "authorize" stage, A indicates that they intend to send value to B. This locks up the value from other use by A, and B receives a reliable confirmation that A has that value. In the "capture" stage, the value is actually transferred to B. A has to authorize the "capture".

it facilitates a wedge between the haves and have nots

you can sit on some or all of your deflationary currency and wait for it to appreciate then you will receive more value without contributing anything.

If the amount you earn is around what it costs you to survive, you stand almost no chance of ever striking it rich.

people do not act rationally

Human action is necessarily always rational. The term 'rational action' is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man.

When applied to the means chosen for the attainment of ends, the terms rational and irrational imply a judgment about the expediency and adequacy of the procedure employed … It is a fact that human reason is not infallible and that man very often errs in selecting and applying means. An action unsuited to the end sought falls short of expectation. It is contrary to purpose, but it is rational, i.e., the outcome of a reasonable — although faulty — deliberation and an attempt — although an ineffectual attempt — to attain a definite goal.

The goal with a modest amount of inflation is the best of both worlds: encourage people to spend, but not at the expense of people willing to accept it. I don't think any solutions are plausible, but that's not to say that what we're experiencing now is a good thing in the eyes of people asking for these solutions.