What's the process on getting such clean linework?

Just remember that it was your tax money that paid for their education.  Let it sink in...

Just a heads up: you sound like a broken record, and your ignore button is starting to glow because of it.

I think you're confused; you both refer to a point in time where there were no hierarchical relationships, while referring to people who were very into dominance through violence.  Does this sound like a non-hierarchical situation to you?  No?  Then don't bother me, or anyone for that matter, with this fallacy again, thank you.  I apologize if I seem blunt, but I hear this over and over again, so much so I'm honestly surprised you didn't mention Somalia somewhere.  Anarchism stems from secular rationalism; the warlords you mention are not rational, for they primarily operate through abusing your sense of fear, not through exposing the truth, and work only to increase their own control over the people they dominate, such as installing a state and controlling the currency and keeping the illusion of democracy going and making up boogeymen etc. etc.

Now, onward to your second point: the argument of human nature.  This is countered simply:

List all the relationships you've had with people that didn't occur at the barrel of a gun.  You have a lot of them, yes?  People whose company you enjoy, who you and they benefit from your existing in each other's presence.  Now list all the relationships you've had with people that did.  Not as many as previously, but still there.  We can now assert that having voluntary relationships and involuntary relationships are within human nature.  Precisely where, then, does the argument of "human nature must change" stem from, with regards to voluntary interaction, when human nature readily includes this observable, and certainly not new, phenomenon?  This seems like the type of response I'd get from a hermit but to anyone who has had actual relationships with other people, it sounds alien to assume that voluntary interaction in the name of self-interest would be nearly impossible without some kind of brainwashing: in the real world, this happens daily, spontaneously, in every nation and by every ethnicity, in emergencies, outside of emergencies, for whatever reason you could think of.

People naturally participate with other people, especially, but not limited to, when they both benefit from each other's time and energy.  I don't know where you're from that this doesn't happen but at least you have enough freedom to exercise your ability to pick and choose with whom you associate on the Internet, another one of those anarchic areas where the state is abhorred from touching.  Strange that most people aren't actively attacking each other's websites; you'd almost think they were acting in mutual self-interest...how unnatural!

None of those other options would be worth a damn without the users

Here's a great observation, though I don't remember who made it; probably Stefan, or whoever he got it from.

"You are exactly where you want to be in life."

So if you're not happy being where you are in life, you should either be in a place in your life where you change this, or you should accept your fate.  Hell can be defined as the limbo between wanting to be somewhere else in life whilst simultaneously refusing to do anything about it.

How does becoming a millionaire redeem anything?

Yes, as we can see, public schooling has been quite the success.

/s

You know what OP?

You're an all right guy.

The real value is your labor.  The only thing money does is represent this energy generated by your labor.  Creating new altcoins does not devalue any other altcoin; deciding you will represent your labor in that altcoin, however, shifts the wealth from the first coin, or gold, or fiat, or whatever, to the alt.

However, this is a voluntary change in wealth.  What you're referring to when you say "printing" is an involuntary change in wealth, specifically from you and to the state.  This would be the same case as the bitcoin devs doubling the total amount of coins and keeping the extra 21 mil for themselves; this would be theft.  If a person decides they wanted to use ScoobyDooCoin, although the wealth leaves whatever money they were using before, it is their decision to change this, and it's completely different from printing.

Perhaps, but I allude to the core belief system, that even a notion of there being the "right guy" to rule the people is what gives power to the worst of us.  Despite our powers in voting being limited to none, what truly powers the state is the amount of people who acknowledge that the state is just; if one sees evil and condones it, if for no other reason but fear, he who commits evil acts grows in power.  Without this factor, Obama, and any president for that matter, is limited to nothing more than an adviser, and in this case, a poor one.

If one allows their time and energy, whether from their money or their direct labor, to be used in a manner one finds immoral, one cannot be excused from the acts which follow; either one must acknowledge that they willingly support evil, or acknowledge that they are not free to make the decision to stop supporting evil.  Once this distinction is made--which in most people, I believe, it hasn't--then the individual in question regains the power he unknowingly lent and is free to do with it as he chooses, no matter the form of government that is popular at the time.  I'm betting my money on that power being directed away from the power structure, not toward.

The people who lend power to this man.

Got it, thanks for the free premium.

I'll take one

Where's the fella that always says, "Bitcoin can't work because nobody will ever spend their money and hoard forever!"

I need him to take a look at this. 

End post count: 3561

252 posts made

I will be expecting the old rates.

179rsZ4ec8uH3jWqd3xLEMdWF3ChttHpby

Are people getting infected for reasons they can't help, or are they just being careless?

People will do anything for an extra buck--that is, if they have nothing better to do, of which there's plenty.  Anyway this isn't an effect of bitcoin; it does not produce scammers and spammers, the scammers and spammers flock to it.  They were always there, you just didn't notice them.

Since this action is not useful to Turing, and occurred long after he passed away, we can only logically follow that this action occurred for reasons beside remorse or forgiveness.  The stated purpose was to pardon Turing; because this is now impossible, and no action is without consequence, then the unstated purpose is to boost the image of the people who killed him.