|
I donated .788 BTC. You're the man, Evor.
|
|
|
|
|
List of community members that will be in attendance:
edd
Littleshop
Immanuel Go
evoorhees
btcontilt
Phinnaeus Gage
List of confirmed exhibitors:
BitBrew
Bitcoin Leather by Martin Basurto
Cryptoanarchy.com/Littleshop
We got a good base going thus far. It's not like I am starting this thing and about to close it due to lack of interest. Also, as far as I'm concerned, the convention is open to the community just as everything else is.
|
|
|
|
|
* The person with the the most bitcoins is not allowed to take a chore (they get out of working for the week). This makes it so no one gets too "rich" and also makes it so everyone can pay in to pay the person doing the chore. The person with the least amount of bitcoins has to do their chore first (this way they can pay others to do their chores).
Remove this pointless garbage and it's perfect.
|
|
|
|
 Anybody? |
|
|
|
This is an old concept but good one. This used to apply in this nation and I certainly preferred it.
Why should people with little to nothing be allowed to vote away and steal the property of others? Shouldn't the law that regulates property only be handled by the property owners that the law mainly affects in the first place?
Is your labor not significant enough? Common Law covers contract law pretty well in terms of labor. Commercial Code should be limited to labor and that's what newly mandated statutes apply to. |
|
|
|
 If you forcibly have limited choice in what to do with yourself and your labor, it's slavery. |
|
|
|
Why not do away with voting and go straight for a god appointed king instead? Title inherited by first born child so you'll be sure there will be successors. It's worked in the past.
How is this similar? I'm curious. Or do it the anarcho way and let the guy with the biggest gun rule.
That's what we have now. We already have monopolies on force. The biggest guns are called governments. An ideal anarchy is one of no rulers, where everybody has the ability to own the same amount of guns. However, this doesn't mean no rules. How it's similar? It's an equally shitty idea. Yep, biggest guns are the governments. They are responsible to the people. A warlord isn't. No they aren't. A monopoly on force is only accountable to its most valuable beneficiary. A government can't be held accountable to a powerless populace. Providers of the monetary supply and commodities on the other hand can easily take hold of a government. A government stands under the highest bidder. It isn't the people especially if they have no guns nor any control over the monetary supply. |
|
|
|
Only people whose last name starts with B should be allowed to vote.
It's not the same. We're talking about force and people's property here and the rules that regulate it. Only including those who are affected by the laws is very relevant. It is equally insane. Voting affects many thousands of things, one of which is property owners' rights. I am only arguing this in the case of property and commercial code. I really don't know why law should affect anything else. The only point of a government should be is to protect and sustain property rights. |
|
|
|
It's extremly easy. You would loose,
because there are some people like me, who have got so much money, that they take your money too, and you have to work for them. Like a slave.
Sounds unfair for you. But I don't care, poor boy.
Life is not a zero-sum game. You can't have a monopoly on actual wealth and it doesn't apply exclusively to money. Any peasant on the street can earn the skills or have the insight necessary to create enormous wealth through increased efficiency and innovation. Wealth is not finite in terms of human desires. It never has been. |
|
|
|
The problem I see with this is that most people would have no self interest in your government. I say YOUR government because it would not involve most people. How do you think those people are going to feel if you try making laws that apply to them?  When they begin planting IED's to get your motorcade, who is going to arrest them? The cop who earns just enough to pay rent? It wouldn't be of any benefit to place laws upon proles. They have little value to cease. It would be a net loss to blow up motorcycles of poor people. Assuming this democracy is place under good moral governance, the property laws would be limited to commercial code and not individual persons; this is the case in regards to my original argument. |
|
|
|
Why not do away with voting and go straight for a god appointed king instead? Title inherited by first born child so you'll be sure there will be successors. It's worked in the past.
How is this similar? I'm curious. Or do it the anarcho way and let the guy with the biggest gun rule.
That's what we have now. We already have monopolies on force. The biggest guns are called governments. An ideal anarchy is one of no rulers, where everybody has the ability to own the same amount of guns. However, this doesn't mean no rules. |
|
|
|
I never argued that a child should be fully entitled to a parents property. If it seems I did, I retract it. I am aware that some parent's are dirt poor. My parent's parents were. I am mainly arguing the children should be free to associate, free to read and be free to think as they please. All else comes second.
so how does a child learn that s/he is not entitled to the use of their parents property without the parents acting responsible, teaching them that, and disciplining them for infractions ? does that no go against your "free and independent" theory ? there are literally millions of other things than what we mentioned by the way. edit: ok so now you are saying the child is only free and independent to the specific points of reading, association, and thinking. Ill agree with the thinking. kids should not be free to associate with whoever they want while under the age of 18. Peer influences and all. Also I disagree with freedom to read anything someoen throws in front of them. I should have the choice in what they read while they are under 18. Take some school materials parents are allowed to opt out of. So you believe you know what's best for your child? You think you know who are the best people and what are the best books for your child? That's where we differ. If I have ever have a child, I will never come to the point to where I think I know what's best for them. I don't think I am virtuous nor wise enough to take such a position over any person. |
|
|
|
Only people whose last name starts with B should be allowed to vote.
It's not the same. We're talking about force and people's property here and the rules that regulate it. Only including those who are affected by the laws is very relevant. |
|
|
|
So if my child wants to use my chainsaw without my express permission and education and without knowing the rammifications of that action, its perfectly all right with you when he cuts off his arm or leg ? It was a learning process... right ?
My power tools ?
My car ?
My knife and gun collection ?
Playing outdoors without my instruction on the dangers ?
Walking across a busy street ?
Playing int he water without rules and instruction (or swimming lessons) ?
You are proving my points for me when you state food, shelter, and opportunity.
You are basically saying, "sure parents have some responsibility, but the kids should be free to do whatever they want in a learning process", when its totally contradictory to your food, shelter, and opportunity argument.
Kids need boundaries, structure, parental education, and discipline. You cant rationally argue that they should be free and independent, then in the same breath say parents should be responsible for the food they eat, their housing, and opportunities in life.
You sound like a youngster who wants what he wants with no limitations or boundaries, but what his parents to be responsible for him in other ways. No offense intended. No ad-hominem intended.
I never argued that a child should be fully entitled to a parents property. If it seems I did, I retract it. I am aware that some parent's are dirt poor. My parent's parents were. I am mainly arguing that children should be free to associate, free to read and be free to think as they please. All else comes second. |
|
|
|
Our diets should consist of just meat, veggies and fruits. That would end obesity; that would end most disease.
You are right, it would end most of the human population with it, because infants cannot eat anything on your list and wouldn't survive long enough to become able. Our species has not eaten grains and sugars for most of its duration. You're empirically wrong. Infants can easily digest crushed fruits and vegetables. Actually, infants are supposed to drink only breast milk. Most women were capable of breast-feeding at one time because they're babies would die otherwise. It was genetically-advantageous; evolution at its finest. There was also the option of a wet nurse; quite common in recent centuries and below. Infants are supposed to only drink from their mothers. I can't imagine what the excess estrogen from the soymilk I drank as a baby did to me but, by god, I wish she had breast fed me from another mother. There's really no excuse. You can buy breast milk easily. |
|
|
|
To me, that is all poison. Empirically, it truly is poison and not because it is carcinogenic.
By the definition you're using, water is poison. (as you well know, too much causes water toxicity) Nobody naturally drinks too much water. You would have to force water down your child's throat to cause such poisoning. My definition only entails there are certain foods your body is not meant to eat. Wheat for instance causes your stomach to swell and artificial sugars cannot be properly processed by your body. Also, water literally is poison with all the fluoride and heavy metals they pump into it nowadays. You have people getting Alzheimers at the age of 30 for a reason. |
|
|
|
Nice find, ALPHA. The only reason I wouldn't have posted such a video is for fear of being asked what keywords I used to find it. But now I have to live in fear of someday having the police confiscate my computer, because I was in control of contraband old musty smelling lumber, find out that I once viewed this video, thereby checking the rest of house and discovering my blowup Pinkie Pie hidden underneath my one-of-a-kind coffee table. The solution is simple:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
