I don't think it's missed at all. I think the point is that it should be voluntary.

Oh, it surely would be. But, as you say, even many slaves got to purchase their freedom. I think this just highlights the fallacy of the "You are born owing a debt" bullshit.

I like this line of thought.

Neither of these happen to be the case but that's not really relevant to a general discussion. You still have not specified a source for the authority other than the will of some people.

So given that*, what is the correct and most effective response to the problems?






*I disagree with this perspective but let's not make that the issue

Oh, they learn to be good little worker drones real fine. Shut-up and submit.

That's what I was thinking. I was actually 'inspired' by a Mythbusters where they fired a penny from a modified rifle. It's a square hole so could eliminate any need for rotary tooling if the disk could be given some spin. The point of rifling is stability of the bullet but how essential is it that the axis of spin be along direction of travel?

OTOH, those nerf guns tend to skew to one side so that may be an issue. Then does the ammo need to be caseless and what do you do about feeding? Probably a dead-end but I think I'll mull on it a while.

So by what authority does the "codified taxation system" have on your property other than just a bunch of people want to take your stuff?

I mean avoiding any stamping or bending or anything that requires any level of skill other than fixing a bunch of rivets (nuts and bolts might even be an idea).

I even have an idea about the barrel. Forget round bullets, would shooting coin-type disks work if you could give them some spin?

I wonder if it would be possible to come up with a design for a gun assembled from (for example) laser-cut 1/8" steel or aluminum plate stacked and riveted. The barrel would have to be created by other methods probably. The real tricky part there is that one of the major advancements in firearms is rifling and that requires some clever design (though it might be straightforward for sufficiently advanced 3d printing)

Ultimately, you have to decide if you are married or just two people living in the same house.

3d printer is probably the wrong technology anyway. They're cool and I would love to have one but something in CNC would get you something better, cheaper and more reliable.

Possibly the government could be part of the brain. The lizard part. Eat, f*ck, fight, sh*t. That's about all it can manage.

I can see where some arguments could be made for the monkey part too. But it comes nowhere near the frontal lobes.

Just you wait for the robot rebellion.

African or European?

You could ask her to go to one of those Dave Ramsey thingies.

Seriously, not being on the same page wrt finances can be extremely damaging to a relationship.

Who's phone is doing the scanning? If the payer, what's the point? If the payee, you're taking the step 2 on trust.

I believe there is some trading going on in these "holds". People are buying and selling them at a discounted value based on speculation of the likelihood of return. This is similar to how I said promisory notes might be valued above and is not dissimilar to how debt is traded (if you get a call about a really old debt, it is likely the caller only paid pennies on the dollar to buy the debt and is probably far from the first person to have bought the debt)

OK, the trust thing is a bit of a non-sequitur and a different discussion. I think we should leave that to one side (though it does play into things a little).

So let's take your situation with me and Bob. Firstly, it's not bitcoins that have been inflated, it's bank-of-mrvision promisory notes. Now, there's a question of how much those notes are worth. Pragmatically, that's what the market will bear. But more philosophically, it wouldn't be half of the number of bitcoins, it would be some factor depending on the trustworthiness of your bank and the actual value of the note.

Where the confusion arises is that currently, a deposit in the bank is treated as if it is an actual store of value, of the actual items on the note. That the items have been lent out to someone else and are thus at-risk is hidden from the depositor and hence a form of government-backed fraud. If everyone acknowledges that deposits in a fractional reserve account involves a degree of risk and retrieval of funds is dependent on the liquidity of the bank, everyone will be better off and the issues with FRB (in and of itself) become mostly insignificant.

With bitcoin, all FRB requires is that the lender deposit X bitcoins and be given a note promising the return of the bitcoins (or rather an equivalent amount of different bitcoins). The actual bitcoins can then be lent to someone else. Thus there is no reason that there couldn't be reserve banking in bitcoins.

The issue becomes if the depositer wants their bitcoins back. If there is a reserve, they may be able to be paid in full. If many people want their bitcoins back, there is a problem. Insurance is one possible answer but the best answer is for people to be told that if they deposit their money in such an account, they may not be able to access them immediately (and quite possibly, ever). If you want to be able to access your bitcoins immediately at all times, that is a different type of account (and will likely require fees for the service)