I have no idea what exactly you were talking about. You responded to my comment first if I recall, not the other way around. I've never read your laws. Every statement I wrote about what Law is, was as precise as it will ever get. I'd like to see you do better.


I wasn't describing a legal system, I was creating definitions that anybody could utilize in whatever legal "system" they were willing to concoct. I'm personally not interested in responding to the # of loophole response or definition thereof. It will likely go nowhere. Let it go. If you can't get the gist of it, does that mean your going to "go off the deep end" and start hurting people? If not, then I'm sure we have a pretty good understanding.


Exactly who cares. I'm sure you got it. Again this is sounding like a debate about a debate about a debate, not an obvious clarification about a clarification about a clarification (don't even go there). You're the one keeping the bad argument around it seems. Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.


I figured you find something to annoy with. Let's see here. Your words didn't beat me up physically, so no. Does this help your fragile mind games about some off-handed rhetorical rant about a rant? Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.



Get over yourself, I'm sure you'll survive. Undeserved accusation? Boo hoo, cry me a river. On the other hand, lemme think about this one. Hmmm, what's the definition of deserved? Shall we try to mathematically, probablistically, or statistically derive this one? Or maybe we should talk to an ecclesiastical leader and get a poll going. Or if you're really bored, we can read all of human history and decipher through some filter equation so's we can see who wins the "most undeserved accused" award. <<Puke>> Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.


You seem clueless and informed at the same time. The sardonic irony in here is thick. And your right, they are all "apparent" contradictions (for you). I don't have to do anything for you at all. Either you get it or you don't, I'm not your wet nurse. I'm not going to argue about an argument any more than I'm going to define a definition. It's called circular. You'll end up going nowhere.


Not interested in making more examples than I've already compiled. I've thought them thru just fine (let's see you do better). I invite you to sit down and write a set of laws. We'll compare notes. Notwithstanding, it seems that if I did, you'd nit pick thru every word I wrote with the intent of finding contradictions that don't exist. I never implied you'd be responsible for my words or make my arguments make sense. You're assuming, I thought you didn't do that.


Read the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Ludvig Wittgenstein. I imagine you two would get along just dandy. Go begging.

Scenario 1: I go to my neighbor and ask for money for a green initiative. He responds, "no I've got my own thing going on, don't need you." You walk away bummed, but that's life.
 
Scenario 2: I go to my neighbor and ask for money for a green initiative. He responds, "no I've got my own thing going on, don't need you." You threaten him with force (i.e. point of a gun). He gets pissed, goes in his house and comes out with a shotgun in hand. Doesn't matter what happens next, because this isn't going to end nicely.

Scenario 3: I vote for a politician to promote green initiatives, he signs a bill into law, hires a bunch of pencil pushers to create the taxes (or prints money) and hires IRS agents to "collect" it. No one asks anybody personally about money for a green initiative, the man can't respond and say no, because he doesn't know who to say no to. He pays his taxes, and goes his way. Grumbling no doubt.

Scenario 4: Repeat of 3 except the man knows that his taxes are diverted away from just causes ("green" initiatives being one of many). He decides to stand up for himself and refuses to pay his taxes until they (politicians and other agents of the government) extricate the "green" initiative tax from off of the law books. Everybody thinks he's a kook. The IRS won't stand for it, and they threaten financial doom. That doesn't work, he ignores them. The FBI comes in, surround the place and demands he come out. He refuses and get's his shotgun. Doesn't matter what happens next, because this isn't going to end nicely.

Sound familiar?

Theft is theft regardless if you get your agents to act on your behalf, or you do it personally. It results in the same outcome. Somebody's going to get hurt. The question isn't whether it's just. We all know the answer to that. The question is who's going to back down first. You with the shotgun, or them with the 2 dozen .50 caliber sniper rifles and 50 law enforcement agents knocking down your door.

You merely fear death, injury, or imprisonment greater than the taxes you unwillingly give in return.

With exception to the "language" myrkul is almost always right. His logic is almost infallible, but that's because the subject matter is easy to understand. Anybody else who believes they and their cadre of believers has any greater right to other peoples property is deluding themselves. You either think you're God, my nanny, my mother, or a thief. I don't care whether you call it government, the system, society, or any other concoction, what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. LEAVE ME ALONE!

SETUP:

5x5830.
MSI 870A FUZION.
10 1x riser cards; 5 with autodetect shorted (A17 to A1), 5 unmodified.
3 1x PCIe interfaces.
2 16x PCIe interfaces.
Running linuxcoin 0.2.1b

Given the above, I can plug 3 cards into the 1x sockets with no problems. In fact, I don't even need to do the autodetect modification. Works both ways.

Any of the above riser cards plugged (unmodded or modded) into the 16x and they are no longer recognized. Any cards that are on the 1x socket interface can be detected.

Additionally, if I plug the GPU directly into a 16x socket it no longer boots up. Is there an issue with mixing 1x and 16x interfaces using 1x riser cards?

By the way, I've got a similar setup using a Gigabyte MOBO that works just fine (5 cards running).

Any ideas?

Read here, and get back with me:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447

Then we don't have to fall over our words again, and again. I have a feeling you like to beat people up over the precise meaning of a word or combination of words. I don't find pedantry fun in the least. Words have meaning, but they can be misconstrued just for the sake of argument. Using a loosely defined language (i.e. any spoken language such as English, Spanish, French, Chinese, etc.) as opposed to a more strictly defined one (mathematics) would avert some problems in what I said versus what you think I intended to say.

The Laws of Men aren't rocket science (as in difficult), at least for the most part (I'm just waiting for you to jump on this one). They're quite simple, prevent injustice without causing it. I can come to your aid, but don't force me. As it has already been said many a time in this forum and others, I owe you nothing more than inaction. To wit, I can bring no harm, nor effectuate change in you or your property. If I do, there can be consequences.

Nobody's perfect; so fewer imperfect laws would produce, in general, and statistically speaking, less loopholes.

Those aren't laws, they're suggestive mores/opinions masquerading as laws. Laws prevent injury, enslavement, and plunder, not cause them. To wit, if I make a law which proscribes or obstructs a specific use of your property, I've violated your liberties. There's your first loophole. Oops!

This smacks of garrulousness, semantics and pedantry. If we can't communicate, then were going to have a problem.

I've actually given great thought to this. I do think it's possible, although, when you include things like imminent physical threats, the approximations become more vague. I haven't yet condensed it into mathemeatical form, I will get there eventually, here's my take on it:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447



If the child feels threatened, cannot express their situation to someone else they trust and feel safe with, nor permitted to leave their environment, these "verbal" abusers would be holding their own children hostage. Kidnapping is enslavement, and is obviously not allowed.


Yes, free. Free in the general vernacular and etymology of the word, indicating unencumberedness. Pedantic again?, see above... You know what it meant. The contextual use of that word was not meant to imply that it cost you no money, no energy, and no mental effort to relocate yourself to another position in a 4-dimensional (x,y,z,t) space as constrained by an inertial reference frame. Oh wait, quantum physicists believe their is 11-dimensional space, sorry, better get that straightened out too...Geez!


I suppose that's true to some extent. Maybe we could equate threats of violence/force with potential energy, and violence that has already been committed, with kinetic energy. I'm sure we can figure something out here. Most laws should, for the most part, align with measurable and observable physical phenomena. Those laws which include potential threats can be observed/defined as deterministic, or at the least probabalistic, predictable events in progress. It would be like setting the initial conditions of an experiment, then introducing impetus to the inputs, followed by observing the outputs.

Merely being imperfect humans leads to inevitable conflicts. This has nothing to do with Libertarianism, or for that matter any other type of form of government, belief system, "royal" proclamation, or list of prescribed constraints.

It is in man's nature to be destructive more often than not. It seemingly takes herculean effort to look outside oneself and "do the right thing."

The only constraints/actions governments can proscribe, are ones which involve the non-consensual entanglements and encroachments between men and their property. This is justice. Anything else, and the government abuses the same people it was intended to protect.

I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes. Those tend to be exploited by lawyers allowing real criminals to use them to excuse themselves from the accountability of their actions.

Every type of physical assault is unique (including the circumstances and evidence, a lot like a fingerprint), that's why you have a court to determine the gravity of the crime and the specific punishment and restitution. I think a reasonable set of jurors, judge, arbiters, or other panel of discerning individuals can mete out a sentence of reasonable proportions.

In general, blackmail, slander, and other forms of questionable communication are not physical abuse as would be defined in the usual physical sense of the word, and so, would not fall into the category of punishable offenses. Notwithstanding, children, who by nature have limited ability to decide for themselves that they would leave such a negative environment if available, warrants some investigation.

Everybody else is free to leave an abusive environment (assuming it isn't their own private property they're occupying, in which case the other person has to leave). Threats of force still involve the element of force, and so are unacceptable. However, one must be careful when interpreting imminent threat as the act of aggression hasn't commenced yet. A sticky situation.

Every interaction with others is a form of contract. I do believe in enforceable contract. Still simple.

I guess you could say there are 2 types of offenses. Mental and physical.

If you're going to allow mental offenses to become legal issues then you might as well open Pandora's Box. Because anything could be interpreted as offensive. There could be no end to the number of laws that one could write.

On the other hand, if we only consider the physical domain (physics of force), then you narrow the playing field considerably.

I personally prefer simplicity.

Do you need a definition for murder, injury, enslavement and theft? That's kinda funny. Oh wait a minute, lemme go get a hammer, gun and bulldozer (I forgot, and a cage). I'll be right on over...

Bigotry is not a "legal" crime.
Racism is not a "legal" crime.
Gender and age disrimination is not a "legal" crime.
Employment discrimination (depending on the contract covenants) is not a "legal" crime.
Segregation is not a "legal" crime.
Sexual orientation descrimination is not a "legal" crime.
Religious descrimination is not a "legal" crime.

Therefore, and obviously, exclusion and restriction of others from the use of one's private property is not a "legal" crime (regardless of the reasons).

List of "legal" crimes (rather short).

1) Murder and Injury.
2) Enslavement.
3) Theft.

Admittedly, most of the discrimination listed above is not nice, but that's a moral and religious concern not a legal one (take it up with your local ecclesiastical leader). We should all be kind, caring, charitable, loving, compassionate, empathetic and considerate. You just can't force such things as they don't fall into the category of "legal" crimes for which restitution can be demanded.

Point taken. I'll try to be less pretentious in the future, although I'm not sure how to make it less wordy. I do care despite what I said (it was a bit flippant).

I genuinely want people to do good, for goodness sake. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's just that some people prefer it. That I can't do much about other than make suggestions in a persuasive manner.

I have good intentions, that's why I opine. Lastly, I don't want the world to go to "hell" in a handbasket.

That should about do it I think.  

I didn't say anything contradictory. I am just as concerned with the direction some ignorant people take as you are (apparently). The original poster of this thread mentioned religion as "the plague", "or might makes right". Those are pretty strong words. I would assume where there is a plague, you'd want to eradicate said plague. Are we trying to get rid of the plague thru passive means or thru forceful means? I'd like everybody to be caring, loving and concerned individuals. I can't make them that way.

If we're going to talk about "the plague" and "might makes right" there is the stigma of legality. I do care about being nice too, of course.

I think my post was very apropo.

Religion is just like any other association of individuals, except by name alone. Their thinking is typically one of a divine creator who oversees (in the loose sense of the word) his creation. An omniscient and omnipotent being who attempts to communicate with a select few of his disciples/followers/prophets and pass on instructions (gospel/scripture) about how one should comport oneself.

Associations of individuals of like-minded thinking aren't necessarily bad. One could obviously have a family "religion". A family could be considered a religion because of it's group-think similarities. This is almost unavoidable. To wit, I don't think the destruction of the family is such a good idea because of it's religious tendencies.

Within any association, there will be individuals who will have differing opinions and beliefs separate from the majority of the other followers. These may or may not be correct. I should be careful, "correct", may be hard to discern in some instances if one is trying to determine absolute right (that may never be known). Natural laws may be easy to observe, and they appear to be immutable, but human nature and it's behavioural traits in relation to "righteousness" and "wickedness" will always be open for interpretation.

In any case, the only thing anybody should be concerned about, isn't necessarily whether another man's beliefs are "right" or "wrong" but merely that they don't infringe upon another man's ability to believe and do otherwise (at least in contradistinction to other religious beliefs and norms).

In which case, who cares. Being ignorant isn't a crime, forcing ignorance is.

Frederic Bastiat said it perfectly,

"To all these persons, the relations between mankind and the legislator appear to be the same as those that exist between the clay and the potter. Moreover, if they have consented to recognize in the heart of man a capability of action, and in his intellect a faculty of discernment, they have looked upon this gift of God as a fatal one, and thought that mankind, under these two impulses, tended fatally towards ruin."

Prostrating and groveling never has been one of my better traits 

Wow, it's getting pretty heated in here.

Definitions:
Government monopoly: Control of a specific activity or business provided for the privileged few or manipulated via regulation or other barriers to entry. Force is applied to hinder competition who may want to attempt to provide an equivalent good or service.

Natural monopoly: A person or persons who control a majority (or proportionally larger) quantity of goods or services, but notwithstanding, acquired said goods or services in a non-coercive, non-forceful way. Competition in this scenario can not be prohibited, hindered or obstructed.

Questions:

1) If you wish for a government monopoly, why? What advantage does it serve?

2) If you have a natural monopoly and you don't like it, what would you do?

In all of these responses to responses, I see a confusion between the one type of monopoly and the other. Perhaps if we referred to which one we were conversing about we wouldn't get so hot-headed.

Libertarianism, on the whole, permits everybody to have more freedoms. That's the conclusion they come to when they take the step-by-step process of determining what types of activities they can engage in while not causing harm to their neighbors. To wit, if you own property and you control your own life, and your activities on your property (with you on it) stay within the boundaries it is confined to, then there isn't a problem.

If however there is a problem, that being your property or person in some way, shape or form, changes the conditions of other peoples property in some tangible, measurable way, and this force or intersection of property or life is not consented to or not acceptable to others, then a conflict arises. This conflict, which if it could be reasonably measured with the laws of physics, and is significant enough, then some form of mitigation and ultimately restitution (proportional to the forces applied) would need to be made to bring the conditions of the affected property and person(s) back to some nearly equivalent state prior to the intrusion.

This is what Libertarians strive for.

I do have an oddball question. Assuming we lived in an anarchy or nationless/stateless society, what would happen were we to come under attack from a nation unified in it's effort to destroy or enslave us?

I ask this because it would seem that the free-rider issue comes into effect. What I mean is, all real estate (land) has external borders, which are first in line to be attacked. Being that we couldn't of a natural right force other security firms to take up arms to protect "society" as a whole, what could be done to remedy this situation?

Those in the interior seemingly have the obvious advantage of default protection due to being of furthest distance from the enemy. By their very nature of being circumscribed by others, and the natural tendency of man to protect his property, individuals on the interior have the unintended and perhaps "unfair" advantage of free protection.

Ideas..?

I'll assume you mean to say all the way down to the individual level. As it were, discrete and indivisible at that point. Notwithstanding, we can delegate our protections to any collective we choose, as long as we can come and go at will (or at least according to our contract).

What most people never get, is we can't delegate other people's rights; that would be enslavement. Actually, I better be careful. One can't denounce his own rights either. It's an oxymoron. To willingly give one's rights up would be to do so freely. You couldn't enslave yourself either.