The problem with long threads is that it takes too long to read them, and I haven't done so. However, this is an interesting topic.
tl;dr version 10 subjective opinion
20 I'm right and you're wrong
30 'fraid not
40 'fraid so
50 GOTO 30
Heh-heh-heh. You're funny...but don't worry, looks aren't everything.  |
|
|
|
Another interesting thing to think about is I am almost positive you could game the results by playing the same game but worded differently. Are you saying that you would react exactly the same in the two different scenarios? That you feel there would be a difference in the reactions of others makes me believe that you would react differently as well, but you consider yourself to be more rational (for some - your - definition of rational) than others. Gut instinct would of course kick in. I might be more likely to view something as unfair. But when rubber meets the road, I'm not turning down free money to screw someone over. There's a difference between having emotions and being ruled by emotions. I absolutely am better at removing my emotions from the equation than most people (50%+ of people are women). Even a vast majority of people. I can see the logic in accepting the deal (even if you thought you "deserved" more), because free money is free money. But out of curiosity, how far would you personally extend that? If you were offered only $0.01, would you still take the deal? One cent is not really going to benefit you at all. What about $0? You would not gain anything, but would you still let them have all the money? |
|
|
|
Any definition of rationality that only takes into account monetary incentives is completely flawed. Money is a means to some further ends, something that will satisfy some other human desire. If you're poor and starving, I'd imagine you would take any amount because you value your next meal over any chance to exact vengeance. On the other hand, if you have everything in the world, what's $10 over the chance to share your views on cooperation/vengeance with someone that just seemingly slighted you? The psychological satisfaction that results would be worth more than another $10 in your pocket.
I find spite to be irrational. And I certainly wouldn't spend $10 to teach a lesson to some random stranger. Getting satisfaction out of harming others is for sociopaths. Without trying to be too morbid, if a psychopath murdered your entire family, then played this game with you, and offered you $1. You would accept it? In that case, vengeance is at least deserved. Someone not giving you something you have no claim to is not. What about denying them something they have no claim to? Why is their claim anymore legitimate than the second person? The Game Owner gives the $5000 to both the people, but gives one of them the decision of distribution and the other a veto over the whole decision. Neither has any "claim" on it or they both do. |
|
|
|
I just had to write it! Turn on the video in a seperate tab for maximum effect! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0I love Sathosi, I love the open code, I love the network, I love the people's nodes. I love the Bitcoin, and all it's memberbase. Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, BOOMDEYADA! I love the freedom, I love the namelessness, I love to trade things, I love to speculate. I love the whole net, and all it's userspace! Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, I love GeekNet inc, for slashdotting us. I love cryptography, I love when blocks get found. I love the forums, It's such a brilliant place! Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada, Boomdeyada! ... What do you guys think? Well played, Sir, well played.  |
|
|
|
Haha, indeed. Its not fancy, but if people need to trade BTC to USD and USD to BTC, I can facilitate it. How? |
|
|
|
What's labor value, and why do I value it?
It is work, commodity based money like gold retains its value because it is rare and recognized as money. It is also fiat, but can act alone as a bitcoin type currency. Labor on matter is wealth and money involves trade between two forms of wealth. Is all labor on all matter wealth? Of course. I've pioneered a new way to get filthy rich: I dig holes in my yard and fill them back up. Too bad you suckers didn't think of that first, eh? BTW, because of IP, if any of you copy this idea I expect to be paid in BTC. |
|
|
|
Well, he at least doesn't give the stock Keynesian response about creating jobs blowing up stuff etc. He basically says that we recovered because we flattened Europe and we were the biggest industrial economy remaining.
Blowing up someone's else's economy doesn't mean yours will do better. In fact, losing trading partners is detrimental to your economy. The United States recovered from the Great Depression when all the soldiers came home and started saving and producing. Once Europe got back on its feet it probably helped us that we were ahead of them because we could sell them all our technological innovations. |
|
|
|
"What finally lifted us out...was a major change in the society, called World War II." 4:02 - 4:18 This sounds like he credits World War II to me. Does he elaborate on this later on? JA37, thanks for posting. I'll try to listen to more of it later and give you a critique. So far I agree with some of what he's said: monetary and fiscal policies failed in the 30's and also in present day. |
|
|
|
All this debate about the merit of IP is a whole bunch of useless talk.
I make money and I don't need IP. End of debate.
Kiba, it's a debate. The whole point of a debate is to discuss. We know your opinion, but if we want to discuss this issue why do you care? If you don't want to participate, don't. The fact that you make money off a business with no IP protection is a valid point, but in no way is the last word on the matter. |
|
|
|
|
What is the reason it is disabled? Would this not be a great built in system for determining trust-worthiness of individuals? Number of posts doesn't account for everything.
|
|
|
|
|
I get the feeling some people weren't honest when answering this poll.
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I doubt that Satoshi is actually Japanese. His writing syntax just doesn't fit.
|
|
|
|
It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up. If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Wrong! If someone happens to be born within your property and now grew up to be an adult, he didn't choose to born in your property, he also owns you nothing... if you come to charge or evict him you're committing yourself the very same aggression you complaint so much the State does to you. Funny, eh? Your arguments are of too "inter-personal" issues/businesses, too narrow vision. You've to wider your vision to have a notion of what is "a State", a "State" isn't you and more two or three guys, not even there's ground to say that everyone will act like you, or as you think you would act. So you are saying that the State owns all the land within its borders? No private property exists? |
|
|
|
|
Where's the connection to bitcoins? Did some of those sites use bitcoins?
|
|
|
|
|
The State has a coercive monopoly, a gated community does not. A gated community is private property and does not have a coercive monopoly on anyone, not even the people who choose to live within it. Yes, you can be kicked out of a gated community for not paying, but that is because you are renting on someone's property and can be evicted just like any other rental.
|
|
|
|
Stop confusing violence with aggression. There's nothing wrong with violently defending yourself against a mugger or rapist. If you're against violence then you might as well lay down and die. I'm against aggression and private property is the central issue of what constitutes aggression. If I take the shirt off your back, it's not instantly clear that it's an act of aggression. After all, what if you stole the shirt from me yesterday and I'm just reclaiming my property? In that case, you're the aggressor, for stealing my property, not me.
Yes yes, defence good. Fine. How about answering the question. Is it an act of agression to toss you out of our gated community when you refuse to pay the fee that everyone above 18 with income must pay? After all, you were just born here and wish to remain with your parents in their house. Is that how gated communities work? They take a percentage of the income of everyone who lives in them? I thought they charged you for renting a house within it and also for some specific fees (per household). If you don't like it in the gated community you can go to another one. If you don't like gated communities you can rent an apartment or buy a house and the gated community will not send men to your door with guns to collect their fees still. I don't think gated communities are analogous with the State. |
|
|
|
Cant party tonight the damn congress just got all the info which shows we lent all our bailout cash to Libya.
/awkward moment
Awww, shiiiiiiitt. Ron Paul is spoiling our fun again |
|
|
|
Thx 4 d support my peoples!!!  SATOSHI out!!! I am on a horse. BEN!!! How ya "Ben"? Ha, ha, get it? Anyway, party at the Fed tonight? Timmy and I are looking forward to it...gotta love that easy money even if it causes market-distortion hangovers the next day. |
|
|
|
If I will rape you and then provide you some services in return it will be OK? Maybe I like to get payment in sex.
Services can't be involuntary. No, it's not theft. But it's a robbery or extortion.
I even made the relevant part bold in the answer above. "...security of person." Is rape compatible with that? Agreed, services can't be involuntary, but if you benefit from them you should pay for them. And using services is the same as giving your consent, and in democratic societies you also agree to pay for services that benefits the society, if that's what the vote sais. If you stop using each and every service that the state provides to you, and get this accepted by the majority in your society, then you can stop paying taxes. IMHO. The citizens of a country cannot confer a right to their government that an individual citizen does not have themselves. If an ordinary individual walked through a suburb at night, washed everyone’s cars, and left a bill attached to the windshield, would the owners of the cars be obligated to pay the charges billed? As there was no meeting of the minds here, there is no contract and no obligation to pay for services rendered; and since no individual has the right to force these bills upon any other individual, individuals who have costumes and work for the government are under no exception. One final effort at claiming you need taxes to have a functioning society is that there are certain activities which have positive externalities. The argument is that if someone benefits from something without paying for it, they're a thief. The most common example provided is usually either education or parks, but if you take this argument to its logical endpoint, you can see it doesn't hold up. For example, the people I interact with on a day to day basis benefit from the fact that I shower every morning, but would I be able to lay a claim on those people since they received a benefit from something I provided? Benefit does not equate debt, and you cannot force a service or good upon someone and force them to pay you what you tell them it is worth. You cannot steal from someone, tell them they're better off because of it, and claim legitimacy because you can see a benefit to the 'service' you provided. It's also ridiculous to say someone gives consent by using services that a.) are paid for with money stolen from them and b.) have no viable alternative because government granted themselves a monopoly. Once money is stolen, it lies in a state of nature, and no one should be begrudged for trying to take back what little portion they will be able to get of what was wrongfully taken from them in the first place. I was just debating this with a friend the other day. I was criticizing government and advocating abstention from the political process rather than trying to change it from within. My friend accused me of being a hypocrite because I am currently working at a University to pay my way through Grad School, and thus am the beneficiary of government grants. I can see his point, but at the same time there's not much choice for education with the virtual government monopoly on higher education, and as you stated, if it's stolen money is it really wrong to try to get it back? I certainly don't plan on making a career out of government leeching, however. I plan on finding employment in the private sector, and hopefully at some point will be able to start my own company or consulting firm. |
|
|
|
The Chinese estimates are interesting. It's actually between 40 million and 80million that has been estimated to have been killed between 1949-1975. These are just estimates and could be totally wrong.
The real numbers are known by the government in Beijing, but of course they're not releasing that information. I would guess that if the real numbers were below the estimates the government might say so. It also means that there is a high chance that the numbers are much worse than the estimates as the government has made sure they stay hidden.
I think it's also interesting that the government managed to hide from the rest of the world that the worst famine in history was happening until 1980. I mean no one in the west had any idea about this.
Not a very compelling case for the existence of Government, is it? Although, one could argue that the type of government is important. I'd like to see statistics on how many civilians the United States has killed in the 20th century. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
