Who gets to define abuse?  Again I must bring up the example of Islam and the 8 year old daughter being married.  Certainly we would agree that if the father were forcing his daughter into marriage then she would have a claim against him, but what if she is convinced that marriage is what 8 year olds are supposed to do?  She's eight.  Can an 8 year old even consent?  If not, then who can on her behalf?  By any legal standard, the normal person who can consent for anything on behalf of a child is the parent.  The only exception are statutes defined by government decree.

Saying that children are the property of their parents doesn't solve the issue, I admit, but that is the functional default in every body of law in the world in any case beyond the scope of some legal statute established by a government.  A better way to say it is that the rights of the child are vested in the parents until the child has achieved the age of reason and is able to claim them.  But when does that happen?  In most modern states, that event is an abrupt transition from ward to citizen somewhere around the age of 19.  In nearly every case this is years behind the reality, as the age of reason is actually somewhere around the age of 13 for normal people, but can be as early as 8 for some and as late as never.  Nonetheless, there is no body of law that would say that this 5 year old child who was caged for months in her own crib is old enough to reason.  So who says that being caged is a violation of her rights?  We can both look at this and know that this is abuse, but what makes it criminal under an anarchy?  What profit motive would a private security firm have for taking this case, the parents didn't have anything to pay restitution with; and what they did have was already under due claim because of the theft that led to this discovery.

I've never cashed out, but have bought many actual goods.  I've bought handmade jewlrey off of etsy, a yard sign, bumper stickers, an mp3 player, prepaid phone cards, among other things.

This still doesn't address the problem that I presented in the other thread.  If the parents harm their own child, who then is responsible for bringing justice?  What would define harm in this case under a state in anarchy?  After all, Islam openly permits a father to marry off his daughter at eight years old.

For all practical purposes, you cannot donate cash to a campaign.  Bitcoin makes the autonomy thing even worse for campaign finance tracking, because even if there were a bitcoin donate button that provided you a newly generated bitcoin address after you identified yourself, those addresses never die.  So if an opponent wanted to set you up for a campaign lawsuit, all he would have to do is find one of these addresses and send too much money to it.  The campaign couldn't keep it, and they can't really return it either.  Creates a huge legal mess, so It's just easier (for now) to ignore Bitcoin for campaign finances.  It'll come someday.  But not yet.

I still consider private security/defense and 'phyles' to be sort of government in it's own right.  These kind of solutions aren't anarchy.  BTW, I've read many of the documents that anarchists point me to, and this is one objection that I've never seen well handled.  I'm not saying that what we have is any good at identifying criminal sociopaths either, but once identified the system we have does a very good job of punishment.  That is, in fact, the one thing that it's good at.

Even in the 'phyles' type of voluntary minarchy described in The Diamond Age, a phyle wouldn't have the right to take these children away from their parents, even if they had the motivation.  At a minimum, the parents would have to be compensated for the children taken from them, because in that imaginary system children are legally and economicly the property of their parents.

How do you figure that these people are conditioned to keep one child in a cage and possiblely kill another and bury it next to the shed?  Do you think that they were raised this way?

I tried this long ago.  Bitcoin is a non-starter for politcal donations, because the campaign has to go to great lengths to be able to prove where all of those donations came from, due to campaign finance laws.  You can't even donate to a PAC with bitcoins.

My point here is that people like this exist.  And it is because of this fact that the collective, and hopefully restrained, legitimate use of force exists.  To identify, capture and contain sociopaths with criminal tendencies.

I cannot accept the arguement, however rational, that a society of entirely self-governed people can exist peacefully or sustainablely until there is a solution for this kind of person.

Those with the most bitcoins aren't really even paying attention to the price, because they aren't really interested in selling.

...that I don't think that anarchists on this forum, or anywhere else, have any realistic argument.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/05/04/2011-05-04_virginia_girl_found_eating_herself_in_cage_in_mobile_home_parents_brian_and_shan.html?obref=obinsite

How does one define "millionaire" in this context?  If anyone actually has a million bitcoins, their net worth is alreayd 7+ million USD.  But I doubt that anyone actually has a million bitcoins, not even Satoshi. 

Mine refused to install onto a Samsung Intercept

It might help if you were willing to tell us a story as to why you are in a hurry, and perhaps willing to identify yourself to your potential customers.

Not the kind of work that I need done.

I wonder if Bitcoin would work with taskrabbit.com?

I am too old to learn these new tricks.  I can't make heads or tails of the stock trading site, and I don't think that I could use it at work anyway.

Anyone willing to be a broker?

Alternative future revenue stream for major miners with persistant peer connections to other major miners....

Small peering fees for direct connections to vendors who desire that their transactions hit the bitcoin 'backbone' in very few hops.

Not safe for work, dude.

He's trying to screw you, I'll offer you $4.10 for all of you coins, provided you have at least one.

I don't disagree, but I suspect that there are more factors than the obvious ones.